Judge temporarily blocks Trumps national emergency wall

It's not a question of "allow". It's not their role.
(unless perhaps in an extreme emergency, not applicable here)

 

Walter can answer for himself. I'll answer for me....I am rooting for the Rule of Law.

 

The problem with your view is that someone still has to be at the top.

You can't put people over Congress.

And the President is the most powerful single position, so you can't put a single person over him (except in certain emergencies, usually if Congress is thinking about removing the President).

Congress, as a body, is over the President.

You can't interfere with that power structure unless there is some huge emergency.

If Congress disapproves of something the President does, they can pass a resolution of censor, telling the president not to do that specific thing.

 

So laws shouldn't be upheld if the President decides the reason why he is violating them is an emergency? You really believe that?

 

I didn't say that, I said it was Congress's job to uphold those laws.

And since they passed those laws, if they don't object, they are tacitly giving their approval, in a way.

 

No, you are confused.

The issue is that the law allows the President to do this in an emergency.
The question is whether it's an emergency.

Not whether he can violate a law in an emergency.

 

Why do you think the Judicial exists?

 

The President can't just arbitrarily declare non emergencies and emergency because Congress didn't give him his way. He can try, which he did, but as of right now, his emergency excuse will not fly. Can that change? Of course. But for now, no more moving funds from the DOD to build his wall.

 

It does seem to be flying.
If the judge acts, he has to be doing so under some law. I'm not sure what that would be.

If the President just ignored the judge's orders, it might come to a showdown, and then it would be an issue of if any officials would dare try to enforce it.

Theoretically, there could be potential for escalation, but that is unlikely.

The President does command the military forces and has the power to issue pardons as long as he's pesident, so it's unlikely any law enforcement officials would mess with him.
It's sort of like an implied immunity (though not necessarily actual legal immunity).

 

You may thank God that the judge was correct, in your opinion.

It is my understanding that the President, by passed law, has the power to declare an emergency and to use funds to deal with it.

If this is true, then it seems to me that a judge may rule on the constitutionality of the entire law. If this entire emergency powers law is unconstitutional, then a judge may so rule, subject to appeal to higher courts.

But it seems to me that it is not the judge's place to rule on what constitutes an emergency and what doesn't, for that is a matter of opinion, not a question of the constitutionality of the law itself. The quoted rationale of this particular lower court judge doesn't address the constitutionality of the law itself, it simply renders the opinion that there is no emergency. Some people think there is, and some people think there isn't. But that, in my opinion, (which, by the way, carries equal weight as your opinion) is not the judge's purview. And whenever a judge steps out of his purview, then he becomes just another man with an opinion, an opinion that is no better and deserves no more respect than yours or mine.

I think that purview belongs to the People and the Congress. The people elected the President, and there is an election coming up next year. The People may render their judgement on the performance of this president on election day. Furthermore, Congress passed these emergency powers, and Congress may repeal them or amend them to exclude immigration matters if they wish. That is within their purview.

So, you see, it is my opinion that the President is not "pissing on our Constitution", and I don't want him to do that anymore than you do.

 

Yes, and if Congress disagrees with that declaration then they have to be the ones to deal with it. (Such as pass a resolution expressing disaproval, or repealing the law, or passing another law to more precisely clarify what they consider to not be an emergency)

 

Iran is a terrorist state. There's simply no need to occupy Iran, or put boots on the ground to hunt Rouhani. Another "shock and awe" campaign is what you'll "see". Iranians will be living in the stone age afterwards. Truthfully, that's the quickest path to peace in Palestine too. Iran's the only obstacle to stability.

 

Activist judge:

Federal judge who blocked Trump's border wall donated $20K to Obama
"A federal judge who partially blocked President Trump’s plans to build a border wall along the United States-Mexico border previously donated almost $30,000 to former President Obama, other Democrats, and a political action committee.

U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, donated $6,900 to Barack Obama’s debut campaign for president and $14,500 to his reelection campaign, according to federal election records. The same records also indicate he contributed $4,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2012 and, between 2012 and 2015, sent $3,100 to the Covington Burling LLP PAC, which supports candidates from both parties. His contributions totaled $29,000."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ocked-trumps-border-wall-donated-20k-to-obama

 

Those of us who are against illegal immigration are also rooting for the rule of law, Mr Bush.

 

the courts are the only one that can

 

He'll be overturned quickly..........

Federal judge who blocked Trump's border wall donated $20K to Obama

 

Too late, Trump and the Republicans threw that out when you wearn’t looking.

 

Has Trump pitched a bitch fit on Twitter yet that a Judge won't allow him to violate the Constitution?

 

Oh bullshit!

 

Apparently you aren't aware of the thousands this judge gave to the Democrats, $30,000 in total and $20,000 of that to Obama.

You still feel it's all about the Constitutional law? It's not, as has been pointed out several times. It's about money and politics.

 

What a well thought out counter response. Did that take you all day?