Jump to content
BANGKOK 16 February 2019 05:50


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

991 Excellent

About helpisgood

Previous Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

9,531 profile views
  1. I have reviewed both of your cited statutes. They obviously have to do with war and serious armed conflicts requiring a military response. It clearly does not apply to a ragtag group of people that have to walk all the way across Mexico to be able to reach the US border. They do not even have cars or buses, etc.? If that's the USA's greatest threat, then America doesn't need much of a military, if any, at all. I cannot see any serious attorney citing your statutes supporting Trump's call for a wall as a national emergency. They would be laughed out of court after the judge checks to make sure they really did go to law school. The following are links to said statutes: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2293
  2. Correct! FDR had to face the Japanese Empire that was then overrunning East Asia, threatening Australia, and had just bombed the US Pacific Fleet at a very important port. How many aircraft carriers, war planes, infantry units, etc. do your "hordes" have? Will there be another Battle of Midway, Coral Sea, etc. with these "hordes"? Meanwhile, back in reality....
  3. If it is such an emergency that Trump can do an end run on Congress' constitutional power of the purse, then why can Trump wait more than two years after being elected, and promising action regarding the US/Mexican border, to declare this "emergency"? Is the emergency really about his ego and his base? If this is allowed, a slippery slope could set an unfortunate precedent. I cannot imagine FDR waiting more than two years to take action after Pearl Harbor, a true national emergency.
  4. It's good that the Trump administration wants to better employ high-tech. Considering how sophisticated drug smugglers have gotten, maybe they'll find something more technologically advanced than a wall.
  5. I see and that may be true. However, I think an example from a trial that even older generations may recall would be a better choice. You are referring to a justice system that has changed, for better or for worse, over the years. PS, if we are going to go that far back, how about the much more infamous Sacco and Vanzetti? PPS, I got curious and just found this in Wikipedia: "After the first two trials, which resulted in hung juries, Arbuckle was acquitted in the third trial and received a formal written statement of apology from the jury." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Arbuckle
  • Create New...