U.S. judge denies Democrats' suit to stop border wall funds

[webfact]

U.S. judge denies Democrats' suit to stop border wall funds

 

FILE PHOTO: A child looks through the bars of a wall from the side of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in this picture taken on the side of El Paso, Texas, U.S. May 25, 2019. REUTERS / Jose Luis Gonzalez/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit by Democrats in the House of Representatives that sought to block President Donald Trump's plan to divert funds to help build a border wall.

 

District Court Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia ruled that the House lacked legal standing to sue Trump for using money to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border that was appropriated by Congress for other purposes.

 

"While the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress's legislative authority. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House’s claims and will deny its motion," McFadden wrote.

 

House Democrats had argued diverting the funds violated the separation of powers doctrine laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Justice Department applauded the ruling.

 

"The court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives cannot ask the judiciary to take its side in political disputes and cannot use federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it cannot achieve using the tools the Constitution gives to Congress," a department spokesman said in a statement.

 

The ruling is in contrast to a decision on May 24 by U.S. Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr., who issued a preliminary injunction blocking the use of $1 billion (790 million pounds) in Defense Department funds out of a total of $6.7 billion Trump wants to divert for the border wall.

 

Gilliam, in Oakland, California, on May 30 rejected the government's efforts to start construction of the wall while it appeals to a higher court.

 

In February, after a protracted political battle and a government shutdown, Congress approved $1.38 billion for construction of "primary pedestrian fencing" along the border in southeastern Texas, well short of Trump's demands.

 

To obtain the additional money, Trump declared a national emergency and his administration said it planned to divert $601 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion earmarked for Department of Defense counternarcotics programs and $3.6 billion from military construction projects.

 

(Reporting by Eric Beech; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-04

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

A trump appointed judge

[helpisgood]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

District Court Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia ruled that the House lacked legal standing to sue Trump for using money to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border that was appropriated by Congress for other purposes.  [Bold added.]

 

So, if Congress, who is constitutionally authorized to appropriate such funds, does not have standing on how such funds are spent or misspent, then how can anyone have standing?  I think, or hope, that every American political science major knows that Congress' "power of the purse" is an essential part of the Constitution as a check upon abuse of power by the Executive Branch.  Did I miss a coronation for Trump?   

 

Sadly, maybe Tug's right.  The judge was a Trump appointee. 

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, Tug said:

A trump appointed judge

When Trump supporters come with the same argument (an Obama appointed judge), they get laughed away. And rightfully so.

[Monomial]

26 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

So, if Congress, who is constitutionally authorized to appropriate such funds, does not have standing on how such funds are spent or misspent, then how can anyone have standing?  I think, or hope, that every American political science major knows that Congress' "power of the purse" is an essential part of the Constitution as a check upon abuse of power by the Executive Branch.  Did I miss a coronation for Trump?   

 

Sadly, maybe Tug's right.  The judge was a Trump appointee. 

 

I think you may have not understood the legal argument. Congress absolutely has the right to specify how funds are spent. In fact, they have already done so. The problem is, Congress has allocated funds to projects, but existing laws allow the Executive branch to repurpose those funds in the case of a national emergency. The correct, constitutional response to this problem is for Congress to pass new laws, overriding a presidential veto if necessary, to change the rules that allow the Executive office to do what it is doing.  And the right to declare a national emergency specifically belongs to Trump. Whether anyone agrees with him or not is entirely irrelevant to the way te law is written.

 

The court can not intercede in this because the Constitution strictly lays out how power is shared between the various branches.  As long as Congress still enjoys all the powers the Constitution lays out, and there is a constitutional path to solve the problem, the courts have no authority to do an end run around the Constitution. The problem, of course, is that Congress is very unlikely to muster the 2/3rds majority in both houses to override a presidential veto of a change in the rules.  The congressmen know this, and It was actually an attempt by a few members of Congress to subvert the rules.

 

Trump appointee or not, the judge made the right call. Fix the problem the way the Constitution says such disagreements should be fixed. It is nobody's fault but Congress that they passed the laws in such a way that what Trump is doing is possible. If they don't like, then they have the power to fix it.  The court can't get involved in this. No part of the Constitution has been violated.

 

[helpisgood]

26 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

I think you may have not understood the legal argument. Congress absolutely has the right to specify how funds are spent. In fact, they have already done so. The problem is, Congress has allocated funds to projects, but existing laws allow the Executive branch to repurpose those funds in the case of a national emergency. The correct, constitutional response to this problem is for Congress to pass new laws, overriding a presidential veto if necessary, to change the rules that allow the Executive office to do what it is doing.  And the right to declare a national emergency specifically belongs to Trump. Whether anyone agrees with him or not is entirely irrelevant to the way te law is written.

 

The court can not intercede in this because the Constitution strictly lays out how power is shared between the various branches.  As long as Congress still enjoys all the powers the Constitution lays out, and there is a constitutional path to solve the problem, the courts have no authority to do an end run around the Constitution. The problem, of course, is that Congress is very unlikely to muster the 2/3rds majority in both houses to override a presidential veto of a change in the rules.  The congressmen know this, and It was actually an attempt by a few members of Congress to subvert the rules.

 

Trump appointee or not, the judge made the right call. Fix the problem the way the Constitution says such disagreements should be fixed. It is nobody's fault but Congress that they passed the laws in such a way that what Trump is doing is possible. If they don't like, then they have the power to fix it.  The court can't get involved in this. No part of the Constitution has been violated.

 

Thanks for taking the time for explaining it so well. 

 

I wish you had written the OP article instead. 

 

I have other things to do rather than to read the text of the judge's opinion, and I haven't been following this story. 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by helpisgood

[Guest Jerry787]

and trumpish and rubbish judge !

[kamahele]

1 hour ago, Monomial said:

 

I think you may have not understood the legal argument. Congress absolutely has the right to specify how funds are spent. In fact, they have already done so. The problem is, Congress has allocated funds to projects, but existing laws allow the Executive branch to repurpose those funds in the case of a national emergency. The correct, constitutional response to this problem is for Congress to pass new laws, overriding a presidential veto if necessary, to change the rules that allow the Executive office to do what it is doing.  And the right to declare a national emergency specifically belongs to Trump. Whether anyone agrees with him or not is entirely irrelevant to the way te law is written.

 

The court can not intercede in this because the Constitution strictly lays out how power is shared between the various branches.  As long as Congress still enjoys all the powers the Constitution lays out, and there is a constitutional path to solve the problem, the courts have no authority to do an end run around the Constitution. The problem, of course, is that Congress is very unlikely to muster the 2/3rds majority in both houses to override a presidential veto of a change in the rules.  The congressmen know this, and It was actually an attempt by a few members of Congress to subvert the rules.

 

Trump appointee or not, the judge made the right call. Fix the problem the way the Constitution says such disagreements should be fixed. It is nobody's fault but Congress that they passed the laws in such a way that what Trump is doing is possible. If they don't like, then they have the power to fix it.  The court can't get involved in this. No part of the Constitution has been violated.

 

I think the next judge, and there will be a next judge will disagree with this judge and your interpretation. What is a national emergency and who gets to decide what is an emergency? President Truman tried to declare a national emergency during the Korean conflict to nationalize the steel industry and lost in the courts.

[elmrfudd]

8 hours ago, Tug said:

A trump appointed judge

but it is ok when a it is another liberal judge giving you the desired result?

[Monomial]

42 minutes ago, kamahele said:

I think the next judge, and there will be a next judge will disagree with this judge and your interpretation. What is a national emergency and who gets to decide what is an emergency? President Truman tried to declare a national emergency during the Korean conflict to nationalize the steel industry and lost in the courts.

Don't know about that incident, but there are some interesting legal opinions taking both sides of the argument of what constitutes a national emergency here:

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/18225359/trump-speech-national-emergencies-act-border

 

I think the overriding concern is whether or not judges should have the power to override the president, when the law specifically gives that power to the Executive.   I think anyone who wants to try and claim that Trump doesn't have the power to claim a national emergency has a very tough argument to make.  You would need to show that he declared a national emergency for no other reason than to thwart the power of congress to set the budget, and I think there is ample evidence that the even the initial request for funds was in response to what the president deemed a national emergency, so it kind of seems that argument will fail.

 

Again, personal prejudice aside, the judge made the right call as a point of law, not necessarily as a political position. The judiciary needs to steer clear of this one and let Congress sort it out. Some restrictions to the National Emergency Act would be a good start in my opinion.

 

Edit: BTW, the Youngstown Steel case is actually mentioned in that link above. The issue at stake there was Truman wanting to seize the steel mills, which the court denied was allowed under a national emergency. It did not specifically state Truman could not declare a national emergency. This case is slightly different, in that the president is merely reallocating funds otherwise already meant for defence.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Monomial