Thread: Ann Coulter: Under the Constitution, Trump Doesn’t Need Congress to Build a Border Wa

Ann Coulter: Under the Constitution, Trump Doesn’t Need Congress to Build a Border Wall



by JEFF POOR
24 Mar 2018
1,909 comments

Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Justice,” conservative commentator Ann Coulter made the argument that President Donald Trump didn’t need Congress to have a go at building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, as he repeatedly promised during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Coulter, frustrated by Trump’s decision to sign last week’s omnibus spending bill, said construction of such a wall was within his power as president given under the Constitution he was responsible for the country’s national defense.

“On the day after his inauguration, it’s his authority under the Constitution that cannot be taken away from him by any legislature, by any court — I’m quite confident the Supreme Court would uphold this — to defend our borders. I mean, he has — last war that had a declaration of war from Congress in it was World War II. And we engage in a lot of military actions around the world. I think it can be done right on our border for defense. Have the Seabees do it.”

Pirro replied by asking where Trump might get money to build the wall as “national defense.”

“The same place Reagan took the money to invade Grenada,” she said. The same place he took the money bomb Syria. He has money to spend on national defense. This is a much bigger problem of national defense. This our people being attacked with chemical warfare, not allegedly Syrians.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...a-border-wall/

The United States Army Corps of Engineers is a U.S. federal agency under the Department of Defense and a major Army command made up of some 37,000 civilian and military personnel, making it one of the world's largest public engineering, design, and construction management agencies.

Although generally associated with dams, canals and flood protection in the United States, USACE is involved in a wide range of public works throughout the world.

The Corps of Engineers provides outdoor recreation opportunities to the public, and provides 24% of U.S. hydropower capacity.

"PROTECT" OUR BORDER AGAINST THE FLOOD OF DRUGS, DISEASES AND ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT CONTINUE TO INVADE OUR COUNTRY 24/7 !!!!

GET THE WALL BUILT NOW!

THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HAS THE FUNDS NOW GET IT EXPEDITED...UNDER BUDGET AND ON-TIME!

ISSUE THE ORDER AND GET THE BALL ROLLING!

DIVIDE THEM UP INTO 4 SECTORS AND SPREAD THEM OUT ALONG THE BORDER!

Isn't there still several hundred million approved several years ago for border protection---under GWB---that is still available? So they have a total of over $2 billion now.

"The border money will go mostly toward surveillance technology and fencing similar to structures that already exist on the southern border. " (source: CNBC)

What they really need is more agents. But I understand there are other ways they can acquire those.

trump signed this spending bill that bans any funds for a concrete wall which includes all the prototypes shown to the public. Took a yr to come up with them too. Though some interesting designs were submitted, what trump presented all look alike, nothing innovative. He signed a bill that bans funds for that type of wall.

He needs to get serious @ issues he campaigned on. Don't hear him doing anything @ step one, the illegals crossing thru federal lands where the public is prohibited to go thru. He should be on ryan night & day to push the bills introduced a yr ago that would change this nonsense of having to accept tens of thousands of UACs at the border. lady daca just says "I have to take them in".

nonsense of having to accept tens of thousands of UACs at the border.

Sec. Nielsen evidently was referring to these decisions:

As Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen noted at the meeting, there are two provisions of immigration law that require border authorities to handle UACs and family units differently than other illegal immigrants they detain. The policies were meant to reduce human trafficking and guarantee the humane treatment of migrant children, but they also incentivize illegal immigration, according to the Trump administration.
“These loopholes create a pull factor that invites more illegal immigration and encourages parents to pay and entrust their children to criminal organizations that will smuggle them in,” the White House said in a statement last week.

The first policy is not actually an act of Congress, but a Supreme Court-ordered settlement from 1997. Known as the Flores consent decree, the agreement requires immigration authorities to release alien minors from immigration detention without “unnecessary delay” and to place them in the “least restrictive setting” possible. In practice, this usually means with a parent or other relative already in the U.S.

The other policy comes from a 2008 update to the Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which lays out special procedures for alien minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada. The law requires immigration authorities to transfer UACs to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for care and processing, part of which entails guaranteeing to the “greatest extent practicable” pro bono legal counsel.
As a result of this legal framework, UACs from the so-called Northern Triangle countries of Central America — Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador — are frequently released into the custody of family members or other sponsors in the interior of the country, many of whom who are illegal aliens themselves. Once resettled, the majority of UACs never show up for immigration court dates: About two-thirds of all removal orders for UACs from 2015 to 2017 resulted from a failure to appear for a hearing, according to immigration authorities.(http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/06/trump-says-these-two-loopholes-force-us-to-accept-ms-13-killers-at-the-border/)


I guess the US Supreme Court upheld the Flores v Reno decision. And the other is from a Congressional Act. I do know, however, that the customary international rule is that countries want to get their wandering minors back. That's why there are international conventions regarding the diplomatic protocol to return them. I think the Trump administration could make a good case that they are bound by international treaties to return unaccompanied minors, but just like DACA, the US DOJ would have to request a review from SCOTUS.


I heard that statement from Kjiersten Nielsen.