California tells Trump that lawsuit over border wall is 'imminent'

[webfact]

California tells Trump that lawsuit over border wall is 'imminent'

By David Morgan and David Lawder

 

FILE PHOTO: The prototypes for U.S. President Donald Trump's border wall are seen behind the border fence between Mexico and the United States, in Tijuana, Mexico January 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jorge Duenes/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - California will "imminently" challenge President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency to obtain funds for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said on Sunday.

 

"Definitely and imminently," Becerra told ABC's "This Week" programme when asked whether and when California would sue the Trump administration in federal court. Other states controlled by Democrats are expected to join the effort.

 

"We are prepared, we knew something like this might happen. And with our sister state partners, we are ready to go," he said.

 

Trump invoked the emergency powers on Friday under a 1976 law after Congress rebuffed his request for $5.7 billion to help build the wall that was a signature 2016 campaign promise.

 

The move is intended to allow him to redirect money appropriated by Congress for other purposes to wall construction.

 

The White House says Trump will have access to about $8 billion. Nearly $1.4 billion was allocated for border fencing under a spending measure approved by Congress last week, and Trump's emergency declaration is aimed at giving him another $6.7 billion for the wall.

 

Becerra cited Trump's own comment on Friday that he "didn't need to do this" as evidence that the emergency declaration is legally vulnerable.

 

"It's become clear that this is not an emergency, not only because no one believes it is but because Donald Trump himself has said it's not," he said. 

Becerra and California Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats, have been expected to sue to blockTrump's move.

 

Becerra told ABC that California and other states are waiting to learn which federal programs will lose money to determine what kind of harm the states could face from the declaration.

 

He said California may be harmed by less federal funding for emergency response services, the military and stopping drug trafficking.

 

"We're confident there are at least 8 billion ways that we can prove harm," Becerra said.

 

Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trump's move on Friday, saying it violates the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights.

 

The legal challenges could at least slow down Trump's efforts to build the wall but would likely end up at the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court.

Congress never defined a national emergency in the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which has been invoked dozens of times without a single successful legal challenge.

 

Democrats in Congress have vowed to challenge Trump's declaration and several Republican lawmakers have said they are not certain whether they would support the president.

 

"I think many of us are concerned about this," Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told NBC's "Meet the Press."

 

Trump could, however, veto any resolution of disapproval from Congress.

 

White House senior adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News on Sunday that Trump's declaration would allow the administration to build "hundreds of miles" of border wall by September 2020.

 

"We have 120-odd miles that are already under construction or are already obligated plus the additional funds we have and then we’re going to outlay – we’re going to look at a few hundred miles."

 

Trump's proposed wall and wider immigration policies are likely to be a major campaign issue ahead of the next presidential election in November 2020, where he will seek a second four-year term.

 

(Reporting by David Morgan and David Lawder; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-02-18

[Boon Mee]

Doubtful Trump is losing sleep over this frivolous lawsuit... 

[welovesundaysatspace]

6 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Doubtful Trump is losing sleep over this frivolous lawsuit... 

Doubtful Trump is losing sleep over anything than golf, fast food, and being mocked by Alec Baldwin. 

[Tug]

Well most Californians despise Donald they know a con man when they see one we are still a democracy Donald it’s not your or Putin’s money you don’t have permission so hands off us taxpayers say no!

[Cryingdick]

13 minutes ago, Tug said:

Well most Californians despise Donald they know a con man when they see one we are still a democracy Donald it’s not your or Putin’s money you don’t have permission so hands off us taxpayers say no!

 

I don’t think many Californians realize what a state if hurt they are in, pardon the pun. People are beginning to leave in large numbers because of the high taxes. Yet the population continues to grow. This can only be the result of illegal immigration. You can’t ask on the census if somebody is a citizen or not so we can conclude that record amounts of Californians moving out while California is still growing in people has to be the result of illegal immigration.

 

That’s fine if they don’t care I don’t either. However they are going to be in for a huge short fall when so many people move and those that are there are undocumented workers not paying taxes. 

 

So  the AG is right they will have a tax problem now that they can’t get huge subsidies for their high tax rates from SALT deductions. They are going to need every federal dollar and subsidy they can get their hands on in the future.

 

[Tug]

Don’t want to pop your balloon but you do realize California has the 4 th largest economy on the planet they have a budget surplus in the billions just saying lol

[Cryingdick]

24 minutes ago, Tug said:

Don’t want to pop your balloon but you do realize California has the 4 th largest economy on the planet they have a budget surplus in the billions just saying lol

 

As a trader I deal with forward looking propositions. California might be okay for now but people are leaving in droves, The surplus is estimated at maybe around $14 billion dollars. This has only been a result of raising taxes on pretty much anything they can. 

 

They have ave a current credit rating of AA minus which is below average. $14 billion isn’t a whole lot of money. It’s akin to a normal family having $1,000 tucked away for an emergency. Given the amount of emergencies have earthquakes, mudslides, etc. it would take only one event to delete the surplus.

 

When  people leave that money doesn’t come back. If the market does crash California feels it before most places, but go ahead and defend California it’s a wonderful place if you can afford to live there.

 

California isn’t really in that great of shape. They managed to avoid going over the edge of the brink and are only one bad swing away from being right back there. It really isn’t that hard to tax your way into a surplus the problem is to keep that surplus when there is an exodus out. Maybe the 40 percent tax on weed will help them.

 

Here is a line from Governor Brown himself with the source. 

 

What’s out there is darkness, uncertainty, decline and recession," Brown said when he unveiled his final budget in January. "So good luck, baby."

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/californias-fiscal-risks-despite-largest-surplus-in-more-than-decade.html

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

As a trader I deal with forward looking propositions. California might be okay for now but people are leaving in droves, The surplus is estimated at maybe around $14 billion dollars. This has only been a result of raising taxes on pretty much anything they can. 

 

They have ave a current credit rating of 

The topic is not your ‘stranger on the internet economic assessment of the State of California’, uninteresting is that may be.

 

Trump’s legal challenges are mounting.

[Cryingdick]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The topic is not your ‘stranger on the internet economic assessment of the State of California’, uninteresting is that may be.

 

Trump’s legal challenges are mounting.

 

Then you shouldn’t have made such a preposterous defense of California. Anyway the AG is worried this will hurt California because it might lead to reduced funds available to bail them out when it was necessary.

 

So the topic is related they are worried about money. California is suing to protect its future hand outs. They want to welcome in immigrants and have the feds funnel money into their highly fragile economy.

[Cryingdick]

FWIW the courts will decide now and we shall know if A. Trump has the right to do this B. He can not.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

FWIW the courts will decide now and we shall know if A. Trump has the right to do this B. He can not.

Not just the courts, also Congress and the Senate.

 

Though I do accept that as a Trump supporter you don’t have much use for the separation of powers established by the Constitution.

[keemapoot]

8 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

FWIW the courts will decide now and we shall know if A. Trump has the right to do this B. He can not.

He has the right to do this. The big issue and problem is that this right has been slowly and steadily expanded and slightly abused by recent Presidents, but nobody has abused this right so flagrantly as Trump. In a way this is good, because now the Supreme Court will get to define what are the limits to Presidential power. You Trump supporters should be very careful what you wish for, and Pelosi put it best. Imagine gun rights or other health care or other democratic policy items in the cross hairs (pun intended), and you may not like this or any other President to have so much discretionary power.

 

It's time to get this defined. No President should be able to abuse his power.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not just the courts, also Congress and the Senate.

 

Though I do accept that as a Trump supporter you don’t have much use for the separation of powers established by the Constitution.

 

The president has the veto power and that stops anything coming through the legislative branches unless they have a required majority. He is with in his rights to do so. What is in question is if the SCOTUS will rule in his favor. 

 

There is no need for crass insults because you got schooled on the state of California’s economic situation.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, keemapoot said:

He has the right to do this. The big issue and problem is that this right has been slowly and steadily expanded and slightly abused by recent Presidents, but nobody has abused this right so flagrantly as Trump. In a way this is good, because now the Supreme Court will get to define what are the limits to Presidential power. You Trump supporters should be very careful what you wish for, and Pelosi put it best. Imagine gun rights or other health care or other democratic policy items in the cross hairs (pun intended), and you may not like this or any other President to have so much discretionary power.

 

It's time to get this defined. No President should be able to abuse his power.

 

I didn’t vote for Trump. Nor do I intend to. I have said this many times but it all gets lost in the frenzy of outrage. 

[keemapoot]

Just now, Cryingdick said:

 

I didn’t vote for Trump. Nor do I intend to. I have said this many times but it all gets lost in the frenzy of outrage. 

You didn't vote for him, but you mostly defend him on all the forums here. Not sure if you're American, but if you are, you better hope and pray the Supreme Court reigns the office of the President in. Forget who is President, and which party is in power. 

 

It's not right, and it's not Constitutional.

[Thainesss]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not just the courts, also Congress and the Senate.

 

Though I do accept that as a Trump supporter you don’t have much use for the separation of powers established by the Constitution.

 

Weird. Libs didn’t have a single care for the executive overreach by previous presidents, but now all of a sudden it’s about the constitution (lol libs & the constitution) and separation of powers. 

 

Blatant hypocrisy. 

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

Weird. Libs didn’t have a single care for the executive overreach by previous presidents, but now all of a sudden it’s about the constitution (lol libs & the constitution) and separation of powers. 

 

Blatant hypocrisy. 

 

never Mind. I have said it already before and will simply get the same tired arguments. But this statement is spot on

[keemapoot]

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

Weird. Libs didn’t have a single care for the executive overreach by previous presidents, but now all of a sudden it’s about the constitution (lol libs & the constitution) and separation of powers. 

 

Blatant hypocrisy. 

Constitutional scholars of all political views have been worrying about this issue for a long time, dating back to Clinton and even to Nixon. This is not a new debate. The new debate is the brazenness of the flaunting of this power by this President, and as I stated earlier, it's now a good time to take this argument to the Supreme Court.

 

All Trump supporters should be happy and satisfied with this happening as the court is now stacked in his favor, with Kavanaugh etc.. If this heavily Republican stacked court says he overstepped and reign him in will you believe it then?  No, I guess not.

[Cryingdick]

24 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

You didn't vote for him, but you mostly defend him on all the forums here. Not sure if you're American, but if you are, you better hope and pray the Supreme Court reigns the office of the President in. Forget who is President, and which party is in power. 

 

It's not right, and it's not Constitutional.

 

Exactly. The precedent started when Obama “ruled with the pen”. That ship has sailed it’s exactly what the dems did when they had the house, senate and Oval Office. Unfortunately for them they were arrogant and lost to what they thought was a mental midget. 

 

This is is a continuation of what Obama tried to do not a new play by Trump.

[Thainesss]

16 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

Constitutional scholars of all political views have been worrying about this issue for a long time, dating back to Clinton and even to Nixon. This is not a new debate. The new debate is the brazenness of the flaunting of this power by this President, and as I stated earlier, it's now a good time to take this argument to the Supreme Court.

 

All Trump supporters should be happy and satisfied with this happening as the court is now stacked in his favor, with Kavanaugh etc.. If this heavily Republican stacked court says he overstepped and reign him in will you believe it then?  No, I guess not.

 

Trump using executive power to secure the nations borders and the sovereignty of our rebublic is “brazen” and “flaunting of power”? 

 

Ahahah riiiiiight. 

 

So this president is using his power for the good of this nation (and not other nations) and all of a sudden - outrage. 

 

Spare me the hyperbole. 

 

There is zero doubt the Supreme Court will uphold this declaration. It’s probably one of the most justifiable issues to date. Doesn’t matter that Democrats want and need migrants to bolster their base. 

[keemapoot]

12 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Exactly. The precedent started when Obama “ruled with the pen”. That ship has sailed it’s exactly what the dems did when they had the house, senate and Oval Office. Unfortunately for them they were arrogant and lost to what they thought was a mental midget. 

 

This is is a continuation of what Obama tried to do not a new play by Trump.

Actually, Clinton started this in the modern era. It was steadily expanded by Bush and Obama. Nixon set the groundwork for the move. 

 

The US Constitution is a beautiful document. I've studied it in depth. It's meant to be a living document though, and its intent is to preserve the balance of powers. Let's remember that no matter who is President and no matter which party is in power.

[keemapoot]

1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

Trump using executive power to secure the nations borders and the sovereignty of our rebublic is “brazen” and “flaunting of power”? 

 

Ahahah riiiiiight. 

 

So this president is using his power for the good of this nation (and not other nations) and all of a sudden - outrage. 

 

Spare me the hyperbole. 

 

There is zero doubt the Supreme Court will uphold this declaration. It’s probably one of the most justifiable issues to date. Doesn’t matter that Democrats want and need migrants to bolster their base. 

In your view, this is a national emergency. In the views of reasonable people charged with upholding the Constitution (all of the US Supreme Court Justices) we will see if your view is correct.

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Trump using executive power to secure the nations borders and the sovereignty of our rebublic is “brazen” and “flaunting of power”? 

 

Ahahah riiiiiight. 

 

So this president is using his power for the good of this nation (and not other nations) and all of a sudden - outrage. 

 

Spare me the hyperbole. 

 

There is zero doubt the Supreme Court will uphold this declaration. It’s probably one of the most justifiable issues to date. Doesn’t matter that Democrats want and need migrants to bolster their base. 

Trump and the Republicans tried to make the case that this was for the good of the nation in the 2018 elections. The electorate shot that down very decisively.

The USA is a democratic republic. A strongman shouldn't get to fund unilaterally measures that he alone decides are for the good of the nation. 

[Thainesss]

8 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

The US Constitution is a beautiful document. I've studied it in depth. It's meant to be a living document though, and its intent is to preserve the balance of powers.

 

Lol no it’s not. That defeats its entire purpose. The way to change the constitution is through the amendment process and supermajority not “interpretation” of existing wording to fit a certain narrative. Your view is extreme left. 

 

Lol libs and the constitution. 

[keemapoot]

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

Lol no it’s not. That defeats its entire purpose. The way to change the constitution is through the amendment process and supermajority not “interpretation” of existing wording to fit a certain narrative. Your view is extreme left. 

 

Lol libs and the constitution. 

I have a doctorate in US law. do you?

[Thainesss]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Trump and the Republicans tried to make the case that this was for the good of the nation in the 2018 elections. The electorate shot that down very decisively.

The USA is a democratic republic. A strongman shouldn't get to fund unilaterally measures that he decides are for the good of the nation. 

 

This opinion might carry weight if we didn’t JUST have a president that ruled with a “pen and a phone” and a fawning media carrying his water for it, so you can spare us all the hypocritical take on Trump being a strongman for protecting the nation. 

[Thainesss]

4 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

I have a doctorate in US law.

 

I do not believe you. 

[bristolboy]

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

This opinion might carry weight if we didn’t JUST have a president that ruled with a “pen and a phone” and a fawning media carrying his water for it, so you can spare us all the hypocritical take on Trump being a strongman for protecting the nation. 

And the courts often shot down Obamasattempts to get away with it. As for what you allege about the media, why is that in the least bit relevant? Your response is just a ridiculous right wing reflex.

The American electorate just showed that it doesn't buy Trump's alarmism about immigration. And Trump himself said it wasn't an emergency. Maybe you should try to convince him that it really is.

[keemapoot]

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

I do not believe you. 

I guess I better ask my old University for a refund. I'll tell them someone on a forum didn't believe me. ????

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Your response is just a ridiculous right wing reflex.

 

????

 

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The American electorate just showed that it doesn't buy Trump's alarmism about immigration.

 

Weird. Nobody is talking about “immigration”. We are talking about ILLEGAL immigration and a nations sovereignty. Why do you guys struggle with this concept?

 

And don’t forget about drugs, human trafficking, child trafficking, opioid crisis, fentanyl, hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money thrown at the problem, and you guys really just don’t have an argument other than wanting to change the electorate through illegal immigration to bolster your base.