TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Evaluating the Prudence of Declaring 
a National Emergency
by Jordan Candler  
.
Trump facing 'coup,' FBI brass was in cahoots, 
Dowd tells Fox's Kilmeade
by Victor Garcia  
{foxnews.com} ~ President Donald Trump’s former attorney John Dowd told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade that he believes the president is facing a ‘coup’... and the recent reports regarding the president’s relationship with Russia prove that. Appearing Monday on Fox News Radio’s “Brian Kilmeade Show,” Dowd accused special counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller, former FBI Director scumbag-James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe of conspiring against the president. “Little did I know that it appears that they were all in it together,” Dowd said. “I mean Rosenstein, scumbag-Comey, dirty cop-Mueller, McCabe, the whole crowd and they were out to get this president no matter what. I don't think they sincerely believed anything about Russia.”“This is our worst nightmare that someone with that kind of power would then decide to go after the President. I mean it's a coup,” Dowd said. “That's what it is an attempted coup by scumbag-Comey and his crowd. And the evidence is all over there. I take the New York Times article as an admission of their bad behavior.” The New York Times reported Friday that the FBI opened an investigation to determine if President Trump was working for Russia...
Pulosi calls cops to remove illegals from her home
by wnd.com  
{wnd.com} ~ Amid her staunch opposition to funding a border wall, House Speaker Nancy Pulosi called police to evict illegal aliens from camping out at her multimillion-dollar vineyard estate in Napa Valley... The Daily Wire, citing freelance journalist Nick Monroe, reported citizen journalist and activist Laura Loomer brought illegal immigrants from Guatemala and Mexico onto the property of Pulosi’s walled estate Monday. The entourage set up a portable canopy with the word “immorality” written on it in large red letters. The reference was to Pulosi’s recent characterization of a wall on the southern border. Hanging from the front of the canopy were photos of murder victims of illegal immigrants. In a  livestream of the event, Loomer read the names of the victims, adding that they were not welcome in “sanctuary state California.” Monroe tweeted that Loomer checked to see if Pulosi had locked her front door, since “only bigots lock their doors.”...
https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/pelosi-calls-cops-to-remove-illegals-fr...
.
Transcript Leak #3 – Bruce Ohr Congressional Testimony
is Vulgar is its Pretense and 
Narrative Absurdity
by sundance
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ Well, here we are again; another leaked transcript, this time from DOJ Official Bruce Ohr. And as with the prior two transcript leaks, we don’t get the raw information... So let me first, necessarily, reassert our CTH position on these “leaks”. Leaking is bad, period; in all directions. Because *leaking* is simply a method, a mechanism, to direct and control the focus of sunlight upon illicit action. Regardless of whether you support or oppose the message within any individual leak; the leak itself does not expose corruption…. only full and unfiltered information can expose corruption. That means we need the actual raw transcripts to make determinations for ourselves. As a factual standard for honesty and sunlight, CTH would never describe a transcript where we could not provide the reader with the raw and underlying material. We have held this standard for many years; most of you know that. The truth has no agenda. That said, someone is leaking congressional transcripts and a current tug-of-war exists between two opposing narrative engineers. The heavily promoted New York Times article last Friday, was based on leaks of James Baker Transcripts, from sources who were responding to the leaks from other sources that were given to the Epoch Times.  Each side in the DOJ/FBI corruption story is currently leaking to advance their interests...
.
Judge Denies Union Shutdown Petition

by Bill McMorris
{freebeacon.com} ~ A federal judge turned down a federal union's bid for a temporary restraining order against forcing federal employees to work without pay during the government shutdown... On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon rejected the National Treasury Employees Union motion for a temporary restraining order that would have curtailed the government's ability to force federal employees to report for work without paychecks. Although workers have received their backpay at the end of past shutdowns, NTEU argued that the practice of forcing essential employees to continue working is unconstitutional since the executive branch is operating without congressional appropriations. Judge Leon said the motion could throw the political process into "disarray" even as he acknowledged that workers "are not the ones at fault," according to Courthouse News. "At best it would create chaos and confusion," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said. "At worst, it could be catastrophic." NTEU attorney Greg O'Duden said the shutdown, rather than ending it, was the only source of disruption in the federal government. He said the effort to end a partial shutdown would provide both the Trump administration and Democratic congressional leaders to compromise, rather than continue the stalemate over funding for the border wall...  https://freebeacon.com/issues/judge-denies-union-shutdown-petition/...
.
Chairman Lindsey Graham Has Every 
Confidence in AG Nominee William Barr

by sundance
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ Chairman Graham is very happy with the nomination of William Barr as U.S. Attorney General... It would appear purposeful Barr will re-balance the DC interests, and return the DOJ to a more ordinary level of corruption. In this way Barr pushes back the fulcrum tilting the DOJ away from the more violent weaponized lean in the past eight years.  
.
Evaluating the Prudence of Declaring a National Emergency
by Jordan Candler:  With President Donald Trump floating the idea of declaring a national emergency at the southern..., there’s a big question in conservative circles regarding the legitimacy of such a move. Below we provide some points on the legality and judiciousness of declaring a national emergency.

             According to Fox News’s Chris Stirewalt, “Trump most assuredly has the authority to declare a national emergency concerning matters of immigration. He has that authority because the Congress explicitly gave such power to the executive branch in 1976. In the wake of Richard Nixon’s reign, Congress still devolved its own authority to an executive branch that had just proven itself to be an unreliable custodian of liberty. … We don’t have enough test cases to know for sure, but the constitutional legitimacy of the law is dubious at best. Like our friend Judge Andrew Napolitano would say: ‘Legal but not constitutional.’”
               NPR adds: “Some scholars of presidential emergency powers say there is next to nothing, at least procedurally, that Capitol Hill could do to stop Trump from exercising what lawmakers of all stripes agree is his right to declare a national emergency. … Congress had tried to remedy its lack of control over emergency powers in the mid-1970s, in a Washington rocked by the Watergate scandal. At the time, once a national emergency had been declared, there were neither time limits for its duration nor requirements for reporting to Congress. Congress’ reform effort was the National Emergencies Act of 1976. It requires not only that the president formally declare a national emergency but also that he or she cite the specific statutory authority the president sought to use. An emergency declaration would lapse after one year unless formally renewed by the president. … Should Trump decide to circumvent Congress by declaring a national emergency to build a border wall, he would very likely rely on a statute that lets him reprogram unobligated funds that Congress has appropriated for military construction projects.
               University of Texas, Austin School of Law professor Stephen Vladeck says, “Congress didn’t define what is and what is not a national emergency, so it’s hard to imagine what criteria a federal court could use in trying to decide whether a national emergency was properly declared or not.
               However, NPR adds, “If there were to be a court challenge, [Center for Strategic and International Studies’s Todd] Harrison says, it is not likely to be over Trump’s invocation of the National Emergencies Act. A more plausible challenge, he says, would be over whether the wall Trump wants the military to build is aligned with a statute that stipulates any reprogramming of military funds must be ‘to undertake military construction projects.’ ‘Border security is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense,’ says Harrison. ‘So I think it is not clear at all that the declaration of a national emergency here would actually allow the administration to use military funding for a nonmilitary purpose.’ Ultimately, Harrison says, it may be the landowners and local officials affected by the wall’s construction who would have legal standing to fight it in court.”
               On that note, columnist Rich Lowry says: “Although declaring a national emergency sounds frightening, there is ample — indeed absurdly extensive — precedent for it. The nation is awash in more than two dozen, little-noticed declared national emergencies. So we have room for a national emergency at the border. The next step, which would presumably be reallocating military funds to building the border fence, is trickier. The administration can perhaps rely on statutes enabling the president to spend on military-related construction under his emergency powers. Yet no one to this point has thought of the border fence as a military project. It has been built up over the years with civilian funds by civilian workers. Yes, the National Guard and, at the moment, the active-duty military have been deployed to the border, but in a logistical or backup role, and largely as symbolism. The border crisis is not amenable to a military solution.
               Lowry goes on to note: “Legalities aside, a declaration of a national emergency won’t achieve what Trump wants, unless his goal is simply getting out from under the shutdown. That’s easy. He can say he’s going it alone under his emergency powers and agree to open the shuttered parts of the government, then fight it out in the courts. But in terms of his substantive goal of building a fence, and his political goal of building enough of it to showcase in his 2020 re-election campaign, it would get him very little. A district court somewhere would immediately issue an injunction blocking the action. Once the administration gets to the Supreme Court, it might have a chance to prevail if the court concludes that it shouldn’t second-guess the chief executive on questions related to national security. But when would such a decision get handed down? Sometime in 2020? Assuming Trump wins at the high court, it would take time to get anything going on the ground. Progress on the fence probably wouldn’t be any more advanced by November 2020 than it would be otherwise, and perhaps less advanced than if the president simply got some inadequate compromise out of Congress. In a different world, Congress as a body would be more exercised about a potential emergency declaration, but Congress is not a self-respecting institution. It is still a mistake to try to take advantage of its laxity. Such a move would strain our system, and probably not even work.”
               Meanwhile, the editors at National Review argue: “The proximate cause of the attempt to redirect funds under emergency powers wouldn’t be radically new circumstances at the border. There has been a simmering crisis there for a long time. It would be a failure to get Congress to appropriate the funds the president wants during a political fight and negotiations. Legalities aside, this would be a very bad practice. It’s an offense against the spirit of our system for a president to fail to get he wants from Congress — in a dispute involving a core congressional power, spending — and then turn around and exploit a tenuous reading of the law to try to get it anyway. We know this seems increasingly quaint, especially after President scumbag/liar-nObama’s pen-and-phone governance in his second term, but we believe presidents have an obligation to honor the role of the respective branches of government, even when it’s not in their political interest, even when there seems to be a clever workaround.
               The editors conclude: “An attempt to spend unilaterally on the fence would almost certainly get tied up in the courts immediately. In the most favorable scenario for the administration, it eventually prevails in a Supreme Court loath to second-guess even dubious military-related determinations by the commander-in-chief. In the meantime, the administration will have built nothing new on the border and created another precedent for unilateral government sure to be exploited the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.
               As you can see, this is a very complicated issue, and it would be prudent to leave room for nuance. Moreover, Trump deserves accolades for his devotion to finally addressing the issue and not just regurgitating talking points during stump speeches. However, as Thomas Jefferson warned, “Power is of an encroaching nature and … it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” On that note, Sen. Marco Rubio observes, “If today, the national emergency is border security … tomorrow the national emergency might be climate change.” The bottom line is that, assuming Trump even has the authority to declare an emergency, the activist courts will leave no stone unturned, similar to the way they tried to derail the president’s travel ban. Republicans will fare better if they compel Democrat obstructionists to acquiesce by convincing the American people that the Left couldn’t care less about keeping them safe.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/60499?mailing_id=4012&utm_mediu...  

Views: 7

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

ALERT ALERT

LOOK: Obama Declared National Emergencies 13 Times Including Swine Flu, Iran And Flint Water Crisis

President Trump is expected to declare a State of Emergency at the US southern border on Friday.

Declaring the immigration crisis a national emergency is overdue. Presidents have declared national emergencies for nearly 50 years.

4

Barack Obama declared 13 national emergencies, 11 of which continue to this day. The Obama emergencies included the Swine Flu, Flint water crisis and Iran.

The Conservative Tribune reported:

As it turns out, there are currently 31 ongoing national emergencies over which the president wields certain authorities, the first of which has been in existence since 1979 and is one of only two emergencies declared by Carter.

There were a total of six national emergencies during former President Ronald Reagan’s tenure, as well as four more during the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, all of which have ended.

Former President Bill Clinton declared 17 national emergencies — six of which remain in effect — while former President George W. Bush declared 12 national emergencies, of which 10 remain ongoing.

Then we get to former President Barack Obama, who declared 13 national emergencies, 11 of which continue to this day. Thus far, President Trump has declared three active and ongoing national emergencies.

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service