3 Responses

1. 

   1)

   Marvin Jones said on 3/14/2019 @ 10:56pm PT: [Permalink]

   “The matter will most likely be settled in court and, as we argue today, very likely in favor of the (gentleman from New York), given the way the Act was written….”
   
   Indeed, that may be so IF the case is confined to the National Emergencies Act of 1976. But there is a constitutional issue as to how an emergency is defined. And to understand what the Framers had in mind, those self-styled “strict constructionists” on the bench must carefully consider the one who influenced them. Then, at least to this historian, any hearing should be pro forma because the case is ludicrous.

   http://www.marvindjones.blogspo...-the-wall.html

   http://www.marvindjones.blogspo...larations.html

2. 

   2)

   Dredd said on 3/15/2019 @ 6:17am PT: [Permalink]

   Marvin @1,
   An ultimate issue is whether delegation of power, even if explicitly giving in a statute, is a no no:

   … the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens.”

   (Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, (1998)).

   But, to all too many of us, a no no is just a yes yes in disguise (How To Identify The Despotic Minority – 10).

3. 

   3)

   Marvin Jones said on 3/17/2019 @ 12:01am PT: [Permalink]

   Correction: THE FIRE AND THE WALL

   http://www.marvindjones.blogspo...-and-wall.html