D’oh!
You’re right, of course! It would take them WAY too long to cut their way through by using de file. 
Huh? If they’d been DEfiled, they would have gotten thicker and stronger…
Hey, deconstruction is a legitimate form of criticism!
Could the following be a way this plays out?
Trump accepts and signs a budget without the wall as he simultaneously declares a national emergency to fund it.
That order is immediately challenged in court, stalled with the funding stayed, and eventually declared invalid.
Trump declares to his base that he had been firm and aggressive but the problem was Obama judges (who of course were likely actually Bush ones).
Meanwhile Senate leaders come up with a bipartisan funding for increases in border security and services that includes some extra fencing where such is actually appropriate, and more for other items that make more sense.
Everyone saves face.
Doublepost
Sure; I’d agree that what you describe could happen. I think it is even more unlikely than invisible pink unicorns flying out of Trump’s mouth at the next ‘rally’ tho.
Allowing ‘I didn’t get what I want’ to be a valid reason for declaring an emergency is extremely dangerous.
And personally, I’m not willing to depend on any particular judges to defend the nation against the naked power-grab represented by calling a non-emergency an emergency. They might not do so. Then we’d have no recourse–we’d have a full-blown dictatorship on our hands.
If you are worried about more and more Presidential powers being granted by the executive, that ship sailed long ago. Obama was a poster child for unconstitutional power grabs, from the Obamacare CRS payments and employer mandate, to DACA, to pretending treaties weren’t treaties.
This fight is 100% political. Walls work, and the Democrats know it. That’s why Schumer voted for one 9 times and Pelosi twice (and Obama and Hillary as well). They either want open borders or want to deny Trump the fulfillment of a campaign promise leading up to 2020.
Uh, the wall is already there, the discussion is really to stop negotiating with a hostage taker that wants even more when more is bound to cost 4 or 5 times as much as what Trump promised.
Also, that bit about the previous wall demonstrates that the point about Schumer or Pelosi wanting open borders is not true.
What Trump is proposing is not comparable to anything Obama did, spin it though you may.
And “walls work” is a bad argument. Intelligent people understand that the “logic” of ‘because X works in situations A and B, we need a 2000 mile-long X’ is non-existent.
“Democrats want open borders” is also a bad argument, because when challenged for proof, all you can come up with is people who are NOT Democratic leaders or prominent Democrats. A claim that ‘the guy ranting on the street corner says he’s a Democrat and is for open borders’ does not support your bad argument, does it?
The fact that you have no good arguments is very apparent, here.
N/m
There’s a big difference between “Border forts work” and “lets bankrupt the nation to build the Maginot line”, between a fence whose primary purpose is drug interdiction, costing millions- and a sea to sea wall whose primary purpose is racism, and would cost billions.
No Dem voted for **The Wall **(as Trump imagines it). And yes, the Dems are fine with spending funds on border security.
$5.7B is not going “bankrupt the nation”.
Up to $70B, plus the usual and expected cost overruns plus $100M a year for maintenance and upkeep.
That wont do to the USA what the Maginot line did to France, but it will be equally as useless.
“This fight” is over $5.7B. That’s what President Trump requested for border fencing, and what it would cost to end the shutdown today.
It will keep out the Germans.
I’m glad it’s just a price tag to you.
Such a paltry sum. Why is it, do you suppose, that the Republicans didn’t approve it over the past 2 years when they had control over both houses of Congress and the presidency?
“Requested”? :dubious:
It isn’t a request if I can’t say no; it’s a demand.
Trump is demanding that money, not requesting it.
I am not surprised that you would try and characterize it as something it is not, tho.