Supreme Court to hear case over use of DoD funds for Trump border wall
Jeff LPH 3 sent me this article.
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that it improperly diverted Defense Department money to build portions of the border wall with Mexico.
The high court has previously allowed construction to continue, even after a federal appeals court ruled in June that the administration had illegally sidestepped Congress in transferring the Defense Department funds.
The case will not be argued before the winter and it’s unclear how the presidential election would affect the case, if Democrat Joe Biden wins the White House.
It’s also not clear whether the administration has spent all of the $2.5 billion it moved to the wall project. Dissenting from a July order that allowed construction to continue, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the court’s action “I fear, may operate, in effect, as a final judgment.”
A Pentagon spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for how much of this year’s $2.5 billion has already been allocated.
The case has its origins in the 35-day partial government shutdown that started in December of 2018. President Donald Trump ended the shutdown after Congress gave him approximately $1.4 billion in border wall funding, but that was far less than the $5.7 billion he was seeking. Trump then declared a national emergency to take cash from other government accounts to use to construct sections of the wall.
At the time, the money Trump identified included $2.5 billion in Defense Department money, $3.6 billion from military construction funds and $600 million from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture fund.
The case before the Supreme Court involved just the $2.5 billion in Defense Department funds. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump administration on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition. California led a similar lawsuit on behalf of several states.
Building a border wall was one of Trump’s signature campaign pledges four years ago, though he promised then that Mexico would pay for the wall.
The U.S. Border Patrol says it has completed 321 miles (517 kilometers) of wall during the Trump administration, though almost all of that is replacing existing barriers.
Be interesting to see how this plays out. Won’t be any ruling made until well after the election and the new Congress takes over.
Source; Military Times
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", America, Border, Guest Link, Politics
Well Robert’s record says he’s a liberal
So I’ll hand the win to the Democrats.
I wonder what the republicans excuses are going to
be this time, as to why they love to sit on there
Ass and do nothing?????
Took less time of actual building to lay some 1700 miles of track for the FIRST (ht 2 ‘Beans) Transcontinental Rail Line. Want a wall built on the border? Just announce that anyone is welcome to come into the US and register to vote Republican.
The greatest country in the world being destroyed piece by piece from within…using its own laws and legal system.
The FIRST thing you do when setting up shop is
to constuct the perimeter defense.
Razor wire in close with Claymores ad nauseum.
Trip flares and open space out further to the tree line.
It’s military spending. What’s the problem with that Justice Roberts?
Better to have it on the border than in your driveway no?
Yeah well over a thousand people died building the TCRR, not to mention all the rights that were violated in land grabs.
Like Roman Roads a great accomplishment but it was costly. It could never be repeated, the lawsuits alone would go on for a century.
“…[P]rovide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” —The Declaration of Independence
And how is a wall NOT those things?
Ball is in your court, Lefties.
Don’t strain yourselves too hard.
Some of us who aren’t big fans of the wall also want to secure the border and limit illegal immigration – we just don’t see the wall as the most effective way of doing it.
Does it help? Sure. Just as giving an unarmed person a musket will help with their personal security. But giving them a shotgun or a modern handgun would probably be a whole lot better in 2020.
Put the ‘wall’ money towards people & technology to better address an issue where the enemy is constantly adapting strategies, rather than a static defense which has already been breached, scaled and tunneled under.
The wall helps. It’s just that there are better approaches to securing the border, and money is a factor.
I worked for DHS/CBP for 3 years as an electronic tech. There is far more technology on the border than you know. There is camera coverage (IR and daylight), sensors (magnetic and seismic). Aviation assets (fixed wing, rotary, and UAS). And a wall. Each of them a very important tool in a very big toolbox, none of them effective when used alone. None them are worth a damn without an agent on the ground to pursue and apprehend. Technology never caught anyone crossing illegally.
The physical barrier deters crossings continuously. It is a difficult obstacle, demonstrably effective.
The technological-only approach is easily subverted by ignoring it or distracting it. It is a nice add-on to a physical barrier, aiding observation of leakers, and covering areas difficult to wall.
But the “tech” approach is highly advocated by those who do not want illegals stopped, thus suspect. The physical wall is opposed by advocates of illegals, thus promising. If the wall was ineffective, it would be largely unopposed. Let’s do both wall and tech, and stop even more illegals.
Immigrants are legal ones. Invited and welcome and positive additions to the team.
The “technology” is to get them registered to vote before
crossing the border.
Like what then? I agree to a certain extent, because that wall would be far more secure if snipers were covering it. And, yes, I am totally serious about wasting the illegal aliens when they ILLEGALLY ENTER the country and start fucking it up.
“money towards people & technology”
Snipers and ground penetrating radar.
Drill “vents” and insert exhaust pipe hose from vehicles.
Too brutal for ya? Then build a wall. Paint it green.
The wall is a turning obstacle. It’s designed to push the average farm worker towards the actual legal crossing points. It won’t deter that drug runners. That’s the whole point. separate the wheat from the chaff. I served on the border in 99 as part of JTF-6. Crazy stuff goes on down there. Drug runners would send a butt load of just plain old illegals to use up all the BP assets in the area and then multiple small groups of 2-3 would then cross while the BP was busy. If they made it to the highway, they would be picked up. Our Kiowas would track them all the way but had to stop once the crossers jumped in a vehicle.
The AZ/MEX border isn’t nearly the free-for all it was in the 90’s. It’s still a busy crossing point but we’re no longer having to call cease fires on Huachuca ranges because of illegals in the impact area. We don’t find piles of trash in layup areas. And “rape trees” (trees festooned with the undergarments of female crossers after they’re raped by their guides) are not as common. Defense in depth works, and the wall is the first layer.
Bullshit. All you Progs are against the wall because you secretly want more illegal immigration because these third worlders can more reliably be duped to vote Democrat. Either that or you are just another of their duped useful idiots.
Actually, that is from the Preamble to the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.
That.
IMHO the POTUS is wrong on this one. Congress controls the purse strings. Using DoD money to build infrastructure is not using funds as Congress appropriated.
I agree we need strong borders. I agree our southern border is far to porous. I agree illegal immigration is an issue.
None of that means any of our elected officials get to ignore the Constitution because its convenient. Article 1, Section 9, clause 7.
What did the laws and appropriations say? If there were discretionary clauses, and Trump found them, then he is following the law and Constitution.
If he was simply defying the law, he would have gone bigger. He found a $2.5B loophole, I think. The opponents are outraged because he found the loophole meant for their preferred president to use for their own diversions.
They do that all the time.
Trump is a master of gaming the systems of real estate laws. Go figure he actually put his team to work finding appropriations loopholes. His opponents are annoyed because he out gamed them.
Repeatedly.
I’m no lawyer but my take is the money was appropriated for DoD. Border patrol is responsible for border security.
I could be wrong, he may have found a loophole of some sort. In which case it highlights how fusked up Congress is. Appropriations should be clear cut. Including verbiage that would allow the executive branch to move funds from DoD to support building the wall is back room shenanigans.
Of course my whole argument is predicated upon Congress holding up their end of the deal too. One could argue that’s a shaky foundation to build upon. But that’s the windmill I choose to tilt with.
The system is designed and implemented to be “gamey”.
The sheer size of the thing invites little Easter eggs of diversion and duplicity.
I would -want- clean and specific bills for appropriations. But if this is the system we have, then I support playing it to win for the USA.
I strongly suspect that there is more “discretion” lurking within that quagmire budget, pending the election outcome.
That would be great, if the congress were exercising due diligence and actually doing their jobs rather than pandering to their illegal alien base. That is not what they are doing though, and since the eight years of Obama, Trump is simply doing things the same way he did, but to actually benefit the country rather than to damage it. No one bitched much about it when Ears did it.
Not defending Congress. They need to be held accountable for all their shenanigans.
It wasn’t ok to do it for President Obama and it isn’t ok to do it for President Trump. The Constitution is clear on this issue. Unless an amendment is passed or a Article V Convention is called, it’s non negotiable IMHO.
How to enforce the Constitution is the heart of the matter. This has been neglected far too long.
General Rule: The Executive, in fact, no one in the government (including the Judiciary or even the Congress itself) can spend federal money except as appropriated for that purpose by Congress. It’s in the Constitution, you could look it up. If Congress doesn’t appropriate and authorize the money, you can’t spend it. They have even stopped a war (well, part of a war) that way. Remember the “Cooper-Church” Amendment (to military authorizations in 1970-1971). “No funds appropriated or authorized herein shall be used in support of combat operations in Cambodia.” So, the Army could still go into Cambodia, but as soon as a soldier crossed the border into Cambodia, he went into “no pay” status. A pilot who wanted to fly his helicopter or jet into Cambodia better bring his credit card, because the gas was on his expense. And so on. Brought that part of the war to a quick end. BUT, the Congress has, from time to time, made an exception to otherwise limited appropriations with emergency clauses. In brief: In the event of an emergency as declared by the President, funds may be switched from one account (say, barracks construction) into another higher priority need (say, hurricane relief to save ships, aircraft and buildings in south Florida threatened by successive storms). OK, that makes sense. But what if the President declares an influx of illegal aliens crossing our southern border is an “emergency.” Can he declare an “emergency” and reprogram military construction funds to build a border wall? Literally, yes. HE declared an emergency, and the law says “if the President declares an emergency …’. Now the Democrats are saying two things: 1 – It really wasn’t an emergency, he just called it an emergency. ISSUE: So who gets to challenge a Presidential declaration of what is or is not a “real” emergency? 2 – Even if it was nominally “an emergency” as declared by the President, he used the reprogrammed money to do exactly what the Congress specifically voted down in the appropriations bill: money for a border wall. Going back to 1971, what if President… Read more »
II’ve got to reread it, but as I recall the national emergencies act allowed the President to move money to DOD for military need. Am I incorrect?
define “military” 🙂
yeah…