As I predicted, 16 cities, led mostly by Open Border Democrats and the Radical Left, have filed a lawsuit in, of course, the 9th Circuit! California, the state that has wasted billions of dollars on their out of control Fast Train, with no hope of completion, seems in charge!
That’s what Donald Trump’s “very large brain” instructed his very small thumbs to furiously type just before 7:45 ET on Tuesday morning.
As usual, the president managed to cram more punchlines into a single tweet than should theoretically be possible, but that’s the miracle of Trump: every, single time he opens his Twitter app, he produces some the best multi-layered satire known to mankind without even trying.
Let’s start with the first three words. When he says “As I predicted”, he is literally trying to turn being sued into an opportunity to boast about his ability to see the future, which would be funny enough on its own, but it’s enhanced by the fact that it doesn’t take a “stable genius” to “predict” that you’ll be sued if you try to do something illegal.
As one Twitter follower put it, mocking Trump, “As I predicted when I was stabbing that guy, the police are arresting me.”
In the very next word/number, Trump accidentally makes another joke. He says “16 cities”, but it’s actually 16 states, a distinction I think most of us will agree is important.
The full lawsuit is embedded below, but suffice to say California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Attorney General Dana Nessel on behalf of the People of Michigan, are calling Trump’s emergency an illegal “scheme”. And yes, that’s just as hilarious as it sounds. Here’s an excerpt which finds the states asking the court to protect them from the President of the United States:
[We] bring this action to protect residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution. Contrary to the will of Congress, the President has used the pretext of a manufactured “crisis” of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border. This includes the diversion of funding that each of the Plaintiff States receive. Defendants must be enjoined from carrying out President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful scheme.
As you might expect, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, told The New York Times that the best argument against Trump’s emergency declaration came from – wait for it – Trump himself.
“Probably the best evidence is the president’s own words,” Becerra said, a reference to Trump’s Friday speech in the Rose Garden, during which the president said this:
Every lawyer in the country cringed in unison when those words came out of Trump’s mouth. That is a sitting president announcing a legally dubious end-around clearly designed to circumvent Congress by saying “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” It was the worst possible thing he could have said and he said it on national television in the Rose Garden.
Read more
As a reminder, Trump is trying to access some $3.6 billion in military construction accounts and $2.5 billion from anti-drug funds in order to bridge the gap between the $1.375 billion Congress has allotted for border barriers and the arbitrary number ($5.7 billion) that he continues to shriek about at his rallies.
Since Friday, Trump has been sued by the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen, by the Center for Biological Diversity in conjunction with the Defenders of Wildlife and the Animal Legal Defense Fund and now by 16 states. He’s expected to be sued by the ACLU, Protect Democracy and the Niskanen Center by the end of the week.
A regular Nostradamus, he is.
As we often say, Trump’s trials and tribulations are so funny that they elude satire. It’s decidedly difficult to add anything in the way of comedic value to this situation, unless you’re Trump himself, in which case you can always just tweet something and elicit uproarious laughter.
In a true testament to just how farcical this situation is, the Times notes that “legal specialists expect the Justice Department to urge a court not to consider facts about the border or Trump’s words, but rather to defer to the president’s decision.”
While there’s a lot of precedent to suggest that Trump will prevail based on the courts’ penchant for deference to the executive when it comes to national security, it is hilarious that the DoJ has been put in a position where it has to beg the court not to listen to what comes out of Trump’s mouth or to otherwise “consider the facts”, because doing either of those things would immediately expose this farce for what it is.
In any case, you can (and should) read the lawsuit for yourself.
One can only wonder how a congress with all the available legal talent to be found in DC, could have written such a piece of garbage as the Emergency Act. 50 USC sec. 1601, et seq.*, and especially sec. 1621(a), which contains the operative language. The act essentially hands over the power of the purse to any president by his declaration of an “emergency.” Nothing more need take place nor a factual findings made. The statute does not define, in any way shape or form, what circumstance(s) allow the President to declare an “emergency.” His conclusory declaration that there is an “emergency” is all that is necessary to invoke the statute. In law, it is called “ipse dixit,” that is: it is so, because he says it’s so.
IMHO, the plaintiffs should have alleged** that the Emergency Act, 50 USC sec 1601, et seq., is unconstitutional in and off itself, as the statute violates Article I, Section 9 of the constitution, by delegating to the executive branch, powers over the purse, without narrowly defining the circumstances under which an emergency exists, when and how an emergency is determined to be found and proved up, and where the funds can be taken from.
*https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/Documents/hdasa/references/50%20USC%201601-1651.pdf
**Here’s an easier to read format of the complaint: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/620-california-lawsuit-against-tru/8e2f7958e51b7fbf4c78/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 The claims start on page 49.
I agree the definition of Emergency or some outline should be written and added as an amendment. In our current situation, he stood in front of millions of people worldwide and said he didn’t need to do this and added he just wanted to speed it up — wouldn’t those comments literally reduce this matter to less than an emergency, by any definition?
Even a first grader knows to look it up in the dictionary:
noun, plural e·mer·gen·cies.
a sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence or occasion requiring immediate action.
a state, especially of need for help or relief, created by some unexpected event
Absolutely nothing about this stupid wall is “sudden, urgent nor unexpected” (been crossing the border for decades). At some point, we have to use Common Sense. (Thomas Paine, 1776)
The DOJ will argue that when Trump said, “I didn’t need to do this,” he simply meant “I didn’t need to do this [if only congress had opened the purse and provided the necessary funds I had been asking for, which I am now forced to take by declaration of emergency from military appropriations].”
As I wrote, if one argues successfully, that the statute as written is unconstitutional on its face – in and off itself – given the statute violates Article I, Section 9 of the constitution, it end the inquiry. The Court does not have to address or “mind read what congress meant” by the word “emergency” or worse yet, conduct an inquiry on the record, as to whether congress meant that the president need only declare there’s an emergency and therefore there is one regardless if it is clear there is none.
Congress screwed the pooch in the writing of the Emergency Act. 50 USC sec. 1601, et seq.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/620-california-lawsuit-against-tru/8e2f7958e51b7fbf4c78/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
If I remember correctly, California funds the said railway like an adult, by issuing bonds …
Nate, what a hoot! I wonder who would actually buy bonds for building a southern border wall? That would be a great test of the citizens’ commitment to said wall.
Ai, the ultimate test
well Nate, according to the „autocrats manual“, chapter 3, he could issue some forced loans.
Other countries did the same in the past, it worked very well (you could even say „tremendous“).
The “wall bonds” could be covered by lncome from said wall (costume, tariffs, taxes, bribery) , but the best thing is that once the wall is completed, Trump can do his”magic thing” and default
Given the size of the current deficit I’m pretty sure it could be argued that if you have USTs in your portfolio you effectively have some participation in this misguided enterprise as the money he will use is already in the budget .
What if this ‘National Emergency’ is just a Dry Run? He will fight this in every court all the way to the Supreme Court. His picks on SCOTUS will allow this ‘National Emergency’; but tRump does not care about this one.
If not before, depending on the Mueller investigation, by 2020 if he finds himself losing, he will again proclaim ‘National Emergency’, negating voters’ preferences and proclaiming Marshall Law.
The complete take over of the US government, those that oppose=”Treason” and jailed or worse…
iRa:
Sorry, it’s “Martial Law.” More common in so-called “banana republics,” it has actually been done once in the US, by Lincoln in 1863. The declaration, supported by Congress, also included the suspension of Habeas Corpus and other important constitutional civil rights. It means that the President and Congress put the government entirely in the hands of the military (a sort of a voluntary coup, as it were). While this may be possible today, Trump may wish to think twice about this after the way he has treated some of the most decorated current military leaders during his two years in office. Also, there might be some collateral damage he might not like shutting down Fox News, or forcing the closure of all his golf courses for supporting subversive individuals/causes.
Thanks so much for the correction, won’t be making a tRumpism with that one anymore…
Take care and best of luck, we’re going to need it!
That is a scary thought.
Somehow I doubt it, though, as it would require long-term, strategic thinking. Which is what President Attention Deficit is worst at.
Otherwise one can only hope that either:
i) GOP Senators find their lost balls and put an end to this farce
ii) Mueller does
iii) all the hamberders and diet coke take their toll
Here is a thought: what would the MAGA crowd, many of whom are ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment, do in this case?
Hello Mon,
You left with a thought about the MAGA crowd, “what would they do in this case”–Easy, kill, maim or imprison: leftists, minorities, women, Democrats, Muslims, ___________(fill in the blank)…
This is not meant to be funny, so I appreciate the first two of your hopes…
I kind of don’t understand what the 2nd amendment has to do with tRump taking over…Just because he can’t think beyond a couple of minutes, you gotta know who he’s been appointing to carry out what he wants to see and they’re ready for ‘blood’; from Bolton to Pompeo to other toadies–just waiting…
You take care, need all the awareness we can handle!!
iRa
I’m with you, it‘s not funny at all.
I was referencing the 2nd as it was meant as a safeguard against a tyrannical government.
But you‘re right, expecting the MAGAs to understand this is probably asking too much.