Logic says you’re right, but I think it’s dangerous to assume anything. It only takes one nuke. China sure as hell doesn’t want to deal with 20 million refugees so I’m sure they’ll do whatever’s necessary to keep him in check. So you’re probably right, but the bluster’s getting a bit concerning.
Wife has shoot to kill orders if anyone approaches the compound. And that’s on a normal day. We have mines on the perimeter and worse for shtf day. Best not look for us that day.
Spend a while in the bunker to see if society goes to pot above ground. After a year if the situation is still bad: Escape in blimp to waiting pykrete island and wait it out anchored off the coast of nowhere.
Someone may have already posted this. But what I didn’t know from that post was that according to a recent Washington Post poll if the election were held today (when the poll was taken) Trump would beat Hillary in the popular vote as well as electorally.
This does not demonstrate that Donald Trump is a popular President, but that Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate. So after 100 days whether you think Trump is doing a good job or not, most think he’s still better than Hillary. An interesting fact at the 100 day mark.
Trump has commemorated the Holocaust 3 times since becoming president
Is he still an anti semite?
Personally I’d prefer Trump stop kissing ass of the identity politics pushers and commemorate oh I dunno the civil war?
I woulda rather had Bernie or Jeb… We got a shit sandwitch with these two numbnuts
Welp no changes can be made at the ballot box.
This is a perfect example of checks and balances working. All Trump has to do is escalate this to his R “controlled” SCOTUS. If it’s constitutional the federal judge will get to eat shit.
FWIW I’m on board with cutting funding to sanctuary cities, but I have no clue of the legal requirements to get stuff like that shoehorned through.
And that is the danger of electing democrats to high office. They appoint left wing loons to both the higher and lower courts and things like this happen.
But there are other ways to punish cities for harboring fugitives…
I really think that’s a symptom more than anything else.
The true issue is the country’s elite or ultra rich stand to benefit from legal and illegal immigration and will upend any attempt at restriction. Everything else trickles down from this.
Well, for Trump’s order to be unconstitutional, federal funding to localities must be constitutionally mandated. I can’t recall every word of the Constitution and its amendments, but I’m pretty sure that’s not so. Not that constitutionality matters at this point.
Something is unconstitutional when a Judge deems it so. They interpret the constitution. That’s their entire purpose when it comes to checks and balances.
Also if the federal funds weren’t mandated through legislation Trump wouldn’t have needed an EO, he would have simply turned off the funds. The EO was meant to bypass the legislation aspect of changing funding.
1 Like
A President can only cut funding to a sanctuary city if there are conditions to the funding written in law that tie the funding to cooperating with the feds in immigration matters. If the funding provision, as written, doesn’t condition the money on cooperation, a president can’t simply decide no money will be paid to the city because he’s mad at something the city’s doing.
2 Likes
Yup. The Constitution is very specific vis a vis where the ‘power of the purse’ resides, and it isn’t with the Executive branch.
1 Like
That would seem to be make the Judge at least the equal of the Constitution. Check and balances, I guess. Gotta have a branch that can check the power of the Constitution.
And “conservatives” should be concerned about potential executive overreach here, but that concern ended the moment the White House occupant had an R beside his name instead of a D.
1 Like
Is it possible to be an “illegal immigrant?” I believe the President is given the power to enforce federal laws by the Constitution. If he has to cut funding to cities/states that refuse to assist him in doing so, so be it. Hell, he could always declare war on them to really decide the issue, I guess.
The more you know! 2 thumbs up TB.
Well the judge in absence of a higher power. Now that the SCOTUS isn’t hung, Trump can send anything there that is being stopped that he believes to be fair. My prediction is we won’t see it submitted to the SCOTUS at all. Just like with the Muslim ban, these things are more for him to say “Look I tried, the system is just broken.”
1 Like
Oh good, then we can dispense with the charade that you give a damn about the Constitution. Useful post.
That very well may be, and I’m just as happy with that. Trump has been pretty great so far, other than intervening in Syria(which, somewhat to his credit, seems have been a pretty limited intervention). I expect our next President to be even better(i.e., more divisive). The more Presidents disappoint, the better.