Trump's Beautiful Wall

[_Kevin Graham]

Question: If this is such a state of emergency now, how come it wasn't when Trump was willing to sign a bill without a wall just a few weeks ago?

And if it is a national emergency, then if you truly believe that then you declare a national emergency instead of listening to lawyers and advisors.

How can you say you might declare something a national emergency? Either it is or it isn't.

[_Chap]

Question: If this is such a state of emergency now, how come it wasn't when Trump was willing to sign a bill without a wall just a few weeks ago?

And if it is a national emergency, then if you truly believe that then you declare a national emergency instead of listening to lawyers and advisors.

How can you say you might declare something a national emergency? Either it is or it isn't.

The answer begins with an H, I believe.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hey Doc!

What's your point? <- It's the oddest thing to have someone imply you're against walls because you don't support this nonsense that Trump is pulling....

Anyway. You still haven't explained where you're going to put $5-10B worth of wall. It can't go on private land because it'll be tied up in litigation. It can't go on the Rio Grande because it'll go into litigation. Where are you going put it, you daft nutsack?

- Doc

[_canpakes]

Question: If this is such a state of emergency now, how come it wasn't when Trump was willing to sign a bill without a wall just a few weeks ago?

And if it is a national emergency, then if you truly believe that then you declare a national emergency instead of listening to lawyers and advisors.

How can you say you might declare something a national emergency? Either it is or it isn't.

It’s only a national emergency now, with Democrats in control of the House. Apparently every Republican was OK to ignore this ‘emergency’ over the previous two years.

[_moksha]

Trump announced yesterday that he never said Mexico would pay for the wall.

[_subgenius]

Hey Doc!

What's your point? <- It's the oddest thing to have someone imply you're against walls because you don't support this nonsense that Trump is pulling....

Anyway. You still haven't explained where you're going to put $5-10B worth of wall. It can't go on private land because it'll be tied up in litigation. It can't go on the Rio Grande because it'll go into litigation. Where are you going put it, you daft nutsack?

- Doc

1. My point was that Acosta, in spite of your endorsement, is a hack reporter.
2. A state of emergency or military eminent domain is hella different than your notion of traditional litigation on these matters.

[_Chap]

A state of emergency or military eminent domain is hella different than your notion of traditional litigation on these matters.

"Traditional litigation" ? Does that mean you have to dress as Native Americans?? Oh, it's just a sneery kind of way of saying 'litigation. Right.

Let's think a bit about 'military eminent domain', shall we?

And when we do that, we find that yup, it's certainly different from the civil version, but it is unlikely to enable Trump to seize land quickly for a wall without hitting a big legal road-block.

Which may perhaps be why he isn't doing it?

Trump’s militarized land seizure for border wall is more complicated than ‘I can do it if I want’

President Trump recently announced he could invoke national emergency powers to divert military funds to build his long-promised border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, since Congress won’t give him $5 billion in funding. He said he would grab the land “under the military version” of eminent domain “fairly quickly” — the Fifth Amendment power to seize private property for a public use upon just compensation.

But Trump’s threat of using the military to acquire land for a massive federal project is nothing new or extraordinary. What is extraordinary, however, is Trump’s assertion that he can unilaterally order the military to build the wall, including seizing land, by declaring a national emergency without statutory authorization, let alone evidence of a legitimate emergency.

Let’s start with the basic question. Can the military use eminent domain to seize private land along the border for Trump’s wall? Yes, of course. The United States has a long tradition of authorizing the military to seize private land for a federal project.

In 1864, Republicans and Democrats had a heated debate over a bill to fund the construction of a military arsenal in Rock Island, Illinois. The bill, controversially, also proposed to authorize the first instance of the federal power of eminent domain. Finally, after months of floor debates, it was Vice President Andrew Johnson who went to Congress to broker a deal. He wanted Congress to authorize the secretary of war (today the secretary of defense) to seize private land to build the arsenal. It worked. The bill passed and was later signed by President Abraham Lincoln.

Today, Congress has delegated the power to seize private property to many military branches, including the Army Corps of Engineers to construct military bases and the Department of Navy to acquire land for airfields and gunnery ranges. For example, it took 15 years for the Army Corps of Engineers to seize the land for the famous Truman Dam. Likewise, the Department of Navy filed thousands of eminent domain cases to acquire land for the Chocolate Mountain Gunnery Range during World War II.

If Congress passes a budget that includes Trump’s $5 billion in border wall funding, then technically it is possible that the Army Corps of Engineers could begin seizing land and constructing the wall. The Corps regularly works alongside the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to acquire land along the border for security purposes, most notably the fencing installed during the Bush and Obama administrations.

One problem, though, is the volume of land that needs to be acquired to build Trump’s “Great Wall” is vast. One-third of the land is owned by the federal government, while the rest of the land is owned by states, private property owners or Native American tribes. That will be no easy task, especially in Texas, where the vast majority of the land is privately owned.

The bigger problem, however, with Trump’s “military version” of eminent domain is the implication that he can divert military funding to order the military, most likely the Army Corps of Engineers, to seize land and construct the wall without statutory authorization. This is where Trump finds himself at a roadblock.

As Bruce Ackerman, law professor at Yale Law, rightly notes in his recent op-ed in the N.Y. Times, the Supreme Court has invalidated variations of the emergency power in its 1953 Youngstown v. Sawyer ruling, striking down President Truman's seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War as lacking implicit or express constitutional and statutory authority. However, while the Youngstown ruling restricted the "presidential" power to take private property during a national emergency, without statutory authorization, the court’s majority opinion did not explicitly restrain the "government" power to seize private property during a national emergency. The ruling noted that the president does not have the power to order the military to seize private property and that the power is the "job for the Nation's lawmakers, not for its military authorities."

If Trump wants the military to seize land for the construction of his wall, he should follow President Lincoln’s lead from 1864 by signing onto an appropriate congressional authorization that direct funds to and expressly authorizes the secretary of defense to order the Army Corps of Engineers to act.

Otherwise, Trump may be abrogating his constitutional authority by ordering the troops to go it alone in seizing land along the border.

Gerald S. Dickinson is a constitutional law and property professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law

[_EAllusion]

After reporting revealed that the wall gofundme runner is a known gofundme grifter (big surprise there), the gofundme page was shut down and all money was returned to donors. So, back down to a grand total of 0 dollars on that front.

[_Kevin Graham]

1. My point was that Acosta, in spite of your endorsement, is a hack reporter.

And yet you demonstrated no such thing but only reinforced your already firmly established stupidity. All you did was regurgitate what has been spinning around in the Right Wing propaganda machine, as dozens of blogs posing as "News" are talking about the same dumb crap. Acosta shows up at a wall, no immigrants are coming through it, therefore "walls work." This just goes to show how petulant racist Right Wing minds truly are. We already demonstrated walls by themselves don't work, and never have.

I guess you choose to keep ignoring the clip I presented showing that immigrants just walk around them according to local Texas officials, and that they tunnel under existing barriers in other areas with ease. Acosta demonstrated that there is no "national emergency" the way Trump describes. Of course, had Acosta shown up at a border spot where there was no barrier you'd just accuse him of filming in the middle of Arizona someplace pretending to be near a border. You hate Acosta because he is a great journalist FOX News only wished it had.

Mexican politician climbs border wall to prove a point about Trump’s immigration policy

[_Kevin Graham]

After reporting revealed that the wall gofundme runner is a known gofundme grifter (big surprise there), the gofundme page was shut down and all money was returned to donors. So, back down to a grand total of 0 dollars on that front.

Wait, what? I thought he was a vet who lost three limbs. And America wants a wall so surely they'll all ante up.