Thứ Ba, 19 tháng 2, 2019

News on Youtube Feb 19 2019

James Abram Garfield (Final document)

20th President of the United States

James Abram Garfield was the last child born to Abraham and Eliza Garfield in Orange Township,

now Moreland Hills in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

He was the last president to be born in a log cabin and the second to be assassinated

while in office.

James was only 18 months old in 1833 when his father died at home from fever and exhaustion

he acquired while fighting a wildfire that was threatening their home.

Garfields upbringing was then left to his mother and an uncle,

James was still very young when he had to start working the farm with the rest of the

family.

He learned the alphabet in a school on the corner of the Garfield farm and read the Noah

Webster spelling book at age four.

He didn't like being a farmer.

He wanted to be a sailor, so at sixteen he left home to work on the canal boats that

shuttled commerce between Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

He fell overboard fourteen times in the six weeks he worked on the boats.

He finally caught a fever, and had to go back home.

While he recovered, James decided it would probably be better for him to make his way

in the world using his brains instead of his brawn.

From 1851 to 1854, he attended the Western Reserve Eclectic Institute in Hiram, Ohio.

The name of that institution was later was changed to Hiram College.

He then transferred to Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

There he became a brother of Delta Upsilon and graduated in 1856 as an outstanding student.

After graduation he returned to the Eclectic Institute as an instructor.

During the 1856-1857 academic year he taught classical languages there and became the schools

principal from 1857 to 1860.

He married a former classmate Lucretia Rudolph, on November 11, 1858

They had seven children (five sons and two daughters): Eliza, Harry, James, Mary, Irvin,

Abram, and Edward.

Only five lived to adulthood.

Their first born, Eliza Arabella who they called "Trot" died in 1863 when she was just

three years old.

Edward died in 1876 when he was only two.

Garfield studied law in private, and became interested in politics before entering the

bar in 1860.

In 1856, after campaigning in Ohio for John C. Frémont, the presidential candidate of

the newly formed Republican Party, and before being admitted into the bar, Garfield threw

himself into state politics, becoming the youngest member of the Ohio legislature in

1859.

Garfield resigned his position at Hiram College in 1860 and joined the Union Army starting

as a lieutenant-colonel of the Forty-Second Ohio Volunteer Infantry which took part in

several civil war battles including Shiloh and Chickamauga.

Lincoln nominated him to be a Republican U.S. representative of Ohio in 1863 because he

wanted men in Congress who knew the Army.

Garfield ran and was elected in 1863.

After the election, at Lincolns urging, he reluctantly resigned his commission in the

United States Army on December 5, 1863, with the rank of major general.

Garfield served in congress until 1881.

His congressional career wasn't without problems.

For instance, he was accused in 1872 of ethics violations

when he was accused of accepting bribes in the Crédit Mobilier scandal.

A scandal that damaged the careers of several politicians of the time.

The accusations were never proven and later dropped.

He was appointed by the Ohio legislature to the United States Senate in January 1880.

He had to decline the appointment though because he was elected president a few months before

he was to claim his seat in the Senate.

James A. Garfield was President Of The United States from March 4, 1881 until his death

on September 19, 1881 his last 80 days were served incapacitated because of gunshot wounds

received from Charles J. Guiteau. at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington,

D.C.

On July 2, 1881.

Guiteau learned of the trip while reading a discarded newspaper he picked up in a hotel

lobby and was waiting at the station.

When Garfield arrived, Guiteau stepped forward and shot him twice from behind, the first

grazing his shoulder, the second hitting him in the back.

Garfield was at the Railroad Station on that day on his way to Williams College, where

he was scheduled to deliver a speech before beginning his vacation.

He was looking forward to a vacation with his wife, Crete, who had been recovering from

malaria in Long Branch New Jersey

There was no Secret Service protection for presidents as it was designed by Abraham Lincoln

to protect the American currency from counterfeiting, not presidents.

When President William McKinley was assassinated in1901, his vice president, President Theodore

Roosevelt was the first president to have the protection.

Garfield accomplished little during his short time as president, but his death inspired

the United States Congress and his successor, President Chester A. Arthur, to reform the

public service system with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883, which would effectively

remove situations like the one that led to Garfields assassination.

Garfield lived for about 80 days before finally finding peace on September 19, 1881

Many modern physicians familiar with the case state that Garfield might have easily recovered

from his wounds with sterile medical care, which was uncommon in the United States until

a decade later.

Candice Millard in her 2012 award winning book Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness,

Medicine and the Murder of a President, available at Amazon.com, argues that Garfield could

have survived Guiteau's bullet had his doctors simply left him alone.

I agree with that statement but I also realize that accepted medical practices of the time

were used.

Garfield was conscious but in shock when they carried him to an upstairs room at the Sixth

street station where doctors tried but failed to find the bullet and remove it.

He was then taken back to the White House and was expected to die before morning.

Which didn't happen.

As a matter of fact his vital signs showed improvement.

However his temperature went up and down constantly and he was unable to eat solid foods.

In order to escape the Washington heat Garfield was taken by train to Elberon, New Jersey

on the Jersey Shore.

It was hoped the the fresh sea air and quiet would aid him in his recovery.

He died thirteen days later from a ruptured splenic artery aneurysm.

On his return to Washington his body laid in state for two days in the capital rotunda

before he was taken to Cleveand, Ohio where he was buried on September 26th.

What caused Guiteau to assassinate Garfield?

There are several official or so called factual accounts out there.

Many more personal ones.

His families opinion was that he was insane.

My simple opinion based on reading stories of his history, is that his narcissistic feelings

were hurt when nobody but him believed he was responsible for Garfield winning the election.

He did however hold the initial responsibility for the death of the president.

Guiteau was tried

for the murder and found guilty on January 25, 1882.

He was then hanged on June 30, 1882.

For more infomation >> James A Garfield - 20th President of the United States of America - Duration: 8:57.

-------------------------------------------

U.S. states sue Trump administration in showdown over... Daily Mail Online - Duration: 4:34.

U.S. states sue Trump administration in showdown over... Daily Mail Online

A coalition of 16 U.S. states led by California sued President Donald Trumps administration on Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the U.S. Mexico border.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California came just days after Trump invoked emergency powers on Friday after Congress declined to fulfill his request for dollar 5.7 billion to help build the wall that was his signature 2016 campaign promise.

His move aims to let him spend money appropriated by Congress for other purposes.

Joining in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. 

Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. 

A coalition of 16 U.S. states led by California sued President Donald Trumps administration on Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the U.S. Mexico border. He is pictured at the Rose Garden during Fridays announcement

We´re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states. For most of us, the Office of the Presidency is not a place for theatre, added Becerra, a Democrat.

Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trumps move on Friday, saying it violates the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights.

The legal challenges could slow down Trumps efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to check illegal immigration and drug trafficking, but will likely end up at the conservative leaning U.S. Supreme Court.

In a budget deal passed by Congress to avert a second government shutdown, nearly dollar 1.4 billion was allocated toward border fencing. 

Trumps emergency order would give him an additional dollar 6.7 billion beyond what lawmakers authorized.

In television interviews on Sunday and Monday, Becerra said the lawsuit would use Trumps own words against him as evidence there is no national emergency to declare.

Earlier, Trump had said he knew that he did not need to declare an emergency to build the wall, a comment that could now undercut the governments legal argument.

Presidents dont go in and claim declarations of emergency for the purposes of raiding accounts because they werent able to get Congress to fund items, Becerra said on MSNBC.

The legal challenges could slow down Trumps efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to check illegal immigration and drug trafficking, but will likely end up at the conservative leaning U.S. Supreme Court. A woman from Honduras is seen running from tear gas with her two children after trying to breach the border 

Earlier, Trump had said he knew that he did not need to declare an emergency to build the wall, a comment that could now undercut the governments legal argument. A section of the wall is seen being put in place in El Paso, Texas, in January 

The comments below have not been moderated.

By posting your comment you agree to our .

Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline?

Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual.

Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline?

Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual

We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. Well ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook.

You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our .

Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd

Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday Metro Media Group

For more infomation >> U.S. states sue Trump administration in showdown over... Daily Mail Online - Duration: 4:34.

-------------------------------------------

16 states sue the Trump administration over national emergency declaration - Duration: 5:35.

Sixteen states, including California, New York, and Michigan, are suing over Trump's decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funding for a border wall

The suit against the Trump administration is the latest one the White House faces over the president's announcement

The ACLU as well as the nonpartisan nonprofit Protect Democracy have also said they'll pursue lawsuits against the Trump administration

The states' lawsuit, much like the others, argues that the Trump administration is bypassing Congress's constitutional authority over federal funding and hurting states in the process

"If the President is essentially stealing money that's been allocated to go to the various states for various purposes but no longer will, we're being harmed, our people are being harmed," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra told CNN on Monday

Both Congressional Democrats and Republicans have expressed concerns that Trump's decision to use a national emergency to tap into different pots of funding, including money authorized for counternarcotics programs and military construction, marks an unprecedented expansion of executive power

What's been especially unique about Trump's declaration is that he's doing so to obtain funds for a wall after Congress explicitly declined to fund it

Since Congress is given the ability to allocate federal funds by the Constitution, many lawmakers have argued Trump's emergency declaration is a unilateral means of getting around the legislature

"The separation of powers is being violated, we're going to go out there and make sure that Donald Trump cannot steal money from the states and people who need them, since we paid the taxpayer dollars to Washington, D

C. to get those services," Becerra emphasized in an MSNBC interview. There will be lots of challenges to Trump's declaration It's unclear whether the states or activist groups have a firm enough legal footing to win their respective legal challenges against Trump

But it's certain that there will be many lawsuits filed over the emergency declaration

Although Trump has by his own admission suggested that he didn't "need to" declare this emergency, the National Emergencies Act itself gives presidents a wide berth to take advantage of it, making it tougher to field an effective challenge

Additionally, congressional Democrats are weighing a couple different ways to push back on the emergency declaration, including the use of a resolution that would terminate it

As established by the National Emergencies Act, Congress has the ability to terminate the declaration if both chambers decide to do so via a simple majority

Because Trump is expected to veto a resolution like this if it passes, Democrats would need a number of Republicans to join them to make up a two-thirds veto-proof majority in the House and the Senate

Given Republicans' aversion to explicitly confronting Trump, it's unlikely they'll be able to reach that threshold

Landowners along the southern border who could see their land seized for wall construction via "eminent domain," would also likely have standing to sue to prevent this seizure

This is far from the first time various states have tried to take on Trump. As the Los Angeles Times reports, California alone has already sued the Trump administration at least 38 times including over the constitutionality of the travel ban

For more infomation >> 16 states sue the Trump administration over national emergency declaration - Duration: 5:35.

-------------------------------------------

16 states file lawsuit challenging President Trump's emergency declaration - Duration: 0:57.

For more infomation >> 16 states file lawsuit challenging President Trump's emergency declaration - Duration: 0:57.

-------------------------------------------

Group of 16 states led by California sue President Trump, claiming he 'illegally' - Duration: 8:52.

Group of 16 states led by California sue President Trump, claiming he 'illegally' declared a national emergency in a bid to get $5.7 billion to help build the wall

A coalition of 16 U.S. states led by California sued President Donald Trump's administration on Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The lawsuit filed in U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of California came just days after Trump invoked emergency powers on Friday after Congress declined to fulfill his request for $5.7 billion to help build the wall that was his signature 2016 campaign promise.

His move aims to let him spend money appropriated by Congress for other purposes.

Joining in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia.

'Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power,' California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

We´re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states. For most of us, the Office of the Presidency is not a place for theatre,' added Becerra, a Democrat.

Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trump's move on Friday, saying it violates the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights.

The legal challenges could slow down Trump's efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to check illegal immigration and drug trafficking, but will likely end up at the conservative-leaning U.S.

In a budget deal passed by Congress to avert a second government shutdown, nearly $1. 4 billion was allocated toward border fencing. Trump's emergency order would give him an additional $6. 7 billion beyond what lawmakers authorized.

In television interviews on Sunday and Monday, Becerra said the lawsuit would use Trump's own words against him as evidence there is no national emergency to declare.

Earlier, Trump had said he knew that he did not need to declare an emergency to build the wall, a comment that could now undercut the government's legal argument.

'Presidents don't go in and claim declarations of emergency for the purposes of raiding accounts because they weren't able to get Congress to fund items,' Becerra said on MSNBC.

The legal challenges could slow down Trump's efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to check illegal immigration and drug trafficking, but will likely end up at the conservative-leaning U.S.

A woman from Honduras is seen running from tear gas with her two children after trying to breach the border.

Earlier, Trump had said he knew that he did not need to declare an emergency to build the wall, a comment that could now undercut the government's legal argument.

A section of the wall is seen being put in place in El Paso, Texas, in January.

A coalition of 16 U.S. states led by California sued President Donald Trump's administration on Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The lawsuit filed in U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of California came just days after Trump invoked emergency powers on Friday after Congress declined to fulfill his request for $5.7 billion to help build the wall that was his signature 2016 campaign promise.

His move aims to let him spend money appropriated by Congress for other purposes.

Joining in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia.

'Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power,' California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

We´re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states. For most of us, the Office of the Presidency is not a place for theatre,' added Becerra, a Democrat.

Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trump's move on Friday, saying it violates the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights.

The legal challenges could slow down Trump's efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to check illegal immigration and drug trafficking, but will likely end up at the conservative-leaning U.S.

In a budget deal passed by Congress to avert a second government shutdown, nearly $1. 4 billion was allocated toward border fencing. Trump's emergency order would give him an additional $6. 7 billion beyond what lawmakers authorized.

In television interviews on Sunday and Monday, Becerra said the lawsuit would use Trump's own words against him as evidence there is no national emergency to declare.

Earlier, Trump had said he knew that he did not need to declare an emergency to build the wall, a comment that could now undercut the government's legal argument.

'Presidents don't go in and claim declarations of emergency for the purposes of raiding accounts because they weren't able to get Congress to fund items,' Becerra said on MSNBC.

The legal challenges could slow down Trump's efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to check illegal immigration and drug trafficking, but will likely end up at the conservative-leaning U.S.

A woman from Honduras is seen running from tear gas with her two children after trying to breach the border.

Earlier, Trump had said he knew that he did not need to declare an emergency to build the wall, a comment that could now undercut the government's legal argument.

A section of the wall is seen being put in place in El Paso, Texas, in January.

For more infomation >> Group of 16 states led by California sue President Trump, claiming he 'illegally' - Duration: 8:52.

-------------------------------------------

Michigan joins lawsuit with 15 other states to stop Trump's national emergency - Duration: 3:15.

For more infomation >> Michigan joins lawsuit with 15 other states to stop Trump's national emergency - Duration: 3:15.

-------------------------------------------

16 States Sue to Stop Trumps Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall The New York Times - Duration: 7:43.

16 States Sue to Stop Trumps Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall The New York Times

By and

WASHINGTON — A coalition of 16 states, including California and New York, on Monday challenged President Trump in court over his plan to use emergency powers to spend billions of dollars on his border wall.

The lawsuit is part of a constitutional confrontation that Mr. Trump set off on Friday when he declared that he would spend billions of dollars more on border barriers than Congress had granted him. The clash raises questions over congressional control of spending, the scope of emergency powers granted to the president, and how far the courts are willing to go to settle such a dispute.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court in San Francisco, argues that the president does not have the power to divert funds for constructing a wall along the Mexican border because it is Congress that controls spending.

Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, said in an interview that the president himself had undercut his argument that there was an emergency on the border.

Probably the best evidence is the presidents own words, he said, referring to : I didnt need to do this, but Id rather do it much faster.

The lawsuit, California et al. v. Trump et al., says that the plaintiff states are going to court to protect their residents, natural resources and economic interests. 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, the lawsuit says.

Heres how President Trumps border wall fits on the list of emergency declarations.

to challenge the presidents declaration. The Democrat controlled House of Representatives may take a two prong approach when it returns from a recess. One would be to bring a lawsuit of its own.

Lawmakers could also vote to override the declaration that an emergency exists, but it is doubtful that Congress has the votes to override Mr. Trumps certain veto, leaving the courts a more likely venue.

Joining California and New York are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia. All but one, Maryland, have Democratic governors, and most have legislatures controlled by Democrats.

The dispute stems from steps Mr. Trump said he would take after lawmakers granted him only dollar 1.375 billion for new border barriers, legislation he signed last week to avoid another government shutdown.

Mr. Trump asserted the power to tap three additional pots of money on his own: dollar 600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund for law enforcement priorities; about dollar 2.5 billion from a military antidrug account, most of which would be siphoned from other military programs the Pentagon largely has yet to identify; and dollar 3.6 billion in military construction funds he said he could redirect by invoking an emergency powers statute.

Presidents have invoked emergency powers statutes nearly five dozen times since Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act of 1976, but never before has one been used to make an end run around Congress after it rejected funding for a particular policy.

But as the debate over Mr. Trumps action shifts to courtrooms, legal experts warned that its fate may turn less on such high constitutional principle and more on complex legal issues — from whether plaintiffs can establish that the case is properly before the courts, to how to interpret several statutes.

Even though Trumps political maneuver to get around an uncooperative Congress looks like it stretches the Constitution, the questions presented in court will raise ordinary and complicated issues of administrative law, said Peter M. Shane, an Ohio State University law professor and co author of .

Two cases had already been filed after Mr. Trumps announcement on Feb. 15 — one , representing several Texas landowners and a Texas environmental group, and the other by the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

At least two other lawsuits are expected to be filed later this week. The American Civil Liberties Union has announced its intention to file a case, but has not yet publicly identified its client. The other case will be brought by Protect Democracy, another watchdog group, and the Niskanen Center, a center right policy institute, on behalf of El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights.

Many critics have challenged whether an emergency truly exists on the Southern border that a wall would solve, pointing to government data showing that the number of people crossing illegally has dropped significantly over the past generation and that most drugs are smuggled through ports of entry.

The president has argued, without proof, that the emergency declaration is warranted because the migrants invading the United States across the Mexico border have caused epidemics of crime and drug use.

Legal specialists expected the Justice Department to urge a court not to consider facts about the border or Mr. Trumps words, but rather to defer to the presidents decision. The courts have a long history of being reluctant to substitute their own judgment for the presidents about a security threat.

The Trump administration will have a powerful argument to invoke: In the National Emergencies Act, Congress defined no standard for what conditions have to be met before a president may determine that a qualifying crisis exists.

But before a judge could weigh whether Mr. Trump invoked the statute legitimately, he or she would have to decide whether the dispute is properly before the court in the first place.

Plaintiffs will need to establish standing by showing that they are suffering some particular injury from what Mr. Trump is doing. Several of the lawsuits involve people who own land or represent communities along the Mexican border in Texas, where Mr. Trump has put the focus of his emphasis on the need for more barriers.

But it is not clear whether any of the fencing will be built in California or New Mexico, two of the states in the lawsuit, and it certainly will not be built in other states involved in the litigation, like New York, New Jersey or Hawaii.

Mr. Becerra, Californias attorney general, suggested that plaintiffs in the states lawsuits have standing for reasons that are unrelated to whether any portions of Mr. Trumps wall will be built in their territory, arguing that the presidents unconstitutional action could cause harms in many parts of the country.

People in California and other plaintiff states could lose funding that they paid for with their tax dollars, money that was destined for drug interdiction or for the Department of Defense for military men and women and military installations, he said in the interview.

Further complicating matters, the administration has said it intends to spend the funds in sequence, starting with the dollar 1.375 billion Congress appropriated, and reaching the emergency power military construction fund last. The Justice Department is likely to argue that if no disputed spending is imminent, the case is not ripe for litigation and should be dismissed.

Ian Bassin, the executive director of Protect Democracy, said that El Paso County would probably argue that its economy was being harmed by Mr. Trumps emergency declaration because it signaled to businesses and potential tourists that they should stay away.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the wave of lawsuits. Mr. Trump has said he expected to be sued and to lose in lower courts, but he predicted he would eventually prevail before the Supreme Court.

But plaintiffs can also challenge whether the administration is interpreting several statutes correctly.

The that gives the secretary of defense authority to transfer some Pentagon money from the antidrug account Mr. Trump is planning to tap, for example, says its authority may be used in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress — raising the question of whether extra funding for border barriers counts as such a forbidden item.

And the Mr. Trump plans to use permits military construction spending in an emergency that requires the use of the armed forces for projects to support such use. That has been used before to build up foreign military bases in a war effort, but litigants challenge whether a permanent wall to help civilian agencies police the border qualifies under that wording.

Judges will certainly be aware of the larger institutional context when they address those technical issues, but that awareness will not, by itself, determine how the legal questions get resolved, Mr. Shane said.

An earlier version of this article misidentified one of the states involved in the litigation. Washington State is not a party to the suit.

For more infomation >> 16 States Sue to Stop Trumps Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall The New York Times - Duration: 7:43.

-------------------------------------------

16 States Sue to Stop Trumps Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall The New York Times - Duration: 7:41.

16 States Sue to Stop Trumps Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall The New York Times

By and

WASHINGTON — A coalition of 16 states, including California and New York, on Monday challenged President Trump in court over his plan to use emergency powers to spend billions of dollars on his border wall.

The lawsuit is part of a constitutional confrontation that Mr. Trump set off on Friday when he declared that he would spend billions of dollars more on border barriers than Congress had granted him. The clash raises questions over congressional control of spending, the scope of emergency powers granted to the president, and how far the courts are willing to go to settle such a dispute.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court in San Francisco, argues that the president does not have the power to divert funds for constructing a wall along the Mexican border because it is Congress that controls spending.

Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, said in an interview that the president himself had undercut his argument that there was an emergency on the border.

Probably the best evidence is the presidents own words, he said, referring to : I didnt need to do this, but Id rather do it much faster.

The lawsuit, California et al. v. Trump et al., says that the plaintiff states are going to court to protect their residents, natural resources and economic interests. 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, the lawsuit says.

Heres how President Trumps border wall fits on the list of emergency declarations.

to challenge the presidents declaration. The House of Representatives, now controlled by Democrats, may take a two prong approach when it returns from a recess. One would be to bring a lawsuit of its own.

Lawmakers could also vote to override the declaration that an emergency exists, but it is doubtful that Congress has the votes to override Mr. Trumps certain veto, leaving the courts a more likely venue.

Joining California and New York are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia. All have Democratic governors but one — Maryland, whose attorney general is a Democrat — and most have legislatures controlled by Democrats.

The dispute stems from steps Mr. Trump said he would take after lawmakers granted him only dollar 1.375 billion for new border barriers, legislation he signed last week to avoid another government shutdown.

Mr. Trump asserted the power to tap three additional pots of money on his own: dollar 600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund for law enforcement priorities; about dollar 2.5 billion from a military antidrug account, most of which would first be siphoned from other military programs the Pentagon has yet to identify; and dollar 3.6 billion in military construction funds he said he could redirect by invoking an emergency powers statute.

Presidents have invoked emergency powers statutes nearly five dozen times since Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act of 1976, but never before has one been used to make an end run around Congress after it rejected funding for a particular policy.

But as the debate over Mr. Trumps action shifts to courtrooms, legal experts warned that its fate may turn less on such high constitutional principle and more on complex legal issues — from whether plaintiffs can establish that the case is properly before the courts, to how to interpret several statutes.

Even though Trumps political maneuver to get around an uncooperative Congress looks like it stretches the Constitution, the questions presented in court will raise ordinary and complicated issues of administrative law, said Peter M. Shane, an Ohio State University law professor and co author of .

Two cases had already been filed after Mr. Trumps announcement on Feb. 15 — one , representing several Texas landowners and a Texas environmental group, and the other by the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

At least two other lawsuits are expected to be filed later this week. The American Civil Liberties Union has announced its intention to file a case, but has not yet publicly identified its client. The other case will be brought by Protect Democracy, another watchdog group, and the Niskanen Center, a center right policy institute, on behalf of El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights.

Many critics have challenged whether an emergency truly exists on the Southern border that a wall would solve, pointing to government data showing that the number of people crossing illegally has dropped significantly over the past generation and that most drugs are smuggled through ports of entry.

The president has argued, without proof, that the emergency declaration is warranted because the migrants invading the United States across the Mexico border have caused epidemics of crime and drug use.

Legal specialists expected the Justice Department to urge a court not to consider facts about the border or Mr. Trumps words, but rather to defer to the presidents decision. The courts have a long history of being reluctant to substitute their own judgment for the presidents about a security threat.

The Trump administration will have a powerful argument to invoke: In the National Emergencies Act, Congress defined no standard for what conditions have to be met before a president may determine that a qualifying crisis exists.

But before a judge could weigh whether Mr. Trump invoked the statute legitimately, he or she would have to decide whether the dispute is properly before the court in the first place.

Plaintiffs will need to establish standing by showing that they are suffering some particular injury from what Mr. Trump is doing. Several of the lawsuits involve people who own land or represent communities along the Mexican border in Texas, where Mr. Trump has put the focus of his emphasis on the need for more barriers.

But it is not clear whether any of the fencing will be built in California or New Mexico, two of the states in the lawsuit, and it certainly will not be built in other states involved in the litigation, like New York, New Jersey or Hawaii.

Mr. Becerra, Californias attorney general, suggested that plaintiffs in the states lawsuits have standing for reasons that are unrelated to whether any portions of Mr. Trumps wall will be built in their territory, arguing that the presidents unconstitutional action could cause harms in many parts of the country.

People in California and other plaintiff states could lose funding that they paid for with their tax dollars, money that was destined for drug interdiction or for the Department of Defense for military men and women and military installations, he said in the interview.

Further complicating matters, the administration has said it intends to spend the funds in sequence, starting with the dollar 1.375 billion Congress appropriated, and reaching the emergency power military construction fund last. The Justice Department is likely to argue that if no disputed spending is imminent, the case is not ripe for litigation and should be dismissed.

Ian Bassin, the executive director of Protect Democracy, said that El Paso County would probably argue that its economy was being harmed by Mr. Trumps emergency declaration because it wrongfully signaled to businesses and potential tourists that they should stay away.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the wave of lawsuits. Mr. Trump has said he expected to be sued and to lose in lower courts, but he predicted he would eventually prevail before the Supreme Court.

But plaintiffs can also challenge whether the administration is interpreting several statutes correctly.

The that gives the secretary of defense authority to transfer some Pentagon money into the antidrug account Mr. Trump is then planning to tap, for example, says its authority may be used in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress — raising the question of whether extra funding for border barriers counts as such a forbidden item.

And the Mr. Trump plans to use permits military construction spending in an emergency that requires the use of the armed forces for projects to support such use. That has been used before to build up foreign military bases in a war effort, but litigants challenge whether a permanent wall to help civilian agencies police the border qualifies under that wording.

Judges will certainly be aware of the larger institutional context when they address those technical issues, but that awareness will not, by itself, determine how the legal questions get resolved, Mr. Shane said.

An earlier version of this article misidentified one of the states involved in the litigation. Washington State is not a party to the suit.

For more infomation >> 16 States Sue to Stop Trumps Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall The New York Times - Duration: 7:41.

-------------------------------------------

Most Americans Can't Pass United States Citizenship Test, Survey Finds - Duration: 2:46.

For more infomation >> Most Americans Can't Pass United States Citizenship Test, Survey Finds - Duration: 2:46.

-------------------------------------------

16 States Sue to Stop Trumps Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall The New York Times - Duration: 7:46.

16 States Sue to Stop Trumps Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall The New York Times

By and

WASHINGTON — A coalition of 16 states, including California and New York, on Monday challenged President Trump in court over his plan to use emergency powers to spend billions of dollars on his border wall.

The lawsuit is part of a constitutional confrontation that Mr. Trump set off on Friday when he declared that he would spend billions of dollars more on border barriers than Congress had granted him. The clash raises questions over congressional control of spending, the scope of emergency powers granted to the president, and how far the courts are willing to go to settle such a dispute.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court in San Francisco, argues that the president does not have the power to divert funds for constructing a wall along the Mexican border because it is Congress that controls spending.

Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, said in an interview that the president himself had undercut his argument that there was an emergency on the border.

Probably the best evidence is the presidents own words, he said, referring to : I didnt need to do this, but Id rather do it much faster.

The lawsuit, California et al. v. Trump et al., says that the plaintiff states are going to court to protect their residents, natural resources and economic interests. 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, the lawsuit says.

Heres how President Trumps border wall fits on the list of emergency declarations.

to challenge the presidents declaration. The Democrat controlled House of Representatives may take a two prong approach when it returns from a recess. One would be to bring a lawsuit of its own.

Lawmakers could also vote to override the declaration that an emergency exists, but it is doubtful that Congress has the votes to override Mr. Trumps certain veto, leaving the courts a more likely venue.

Joining California and New York are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia. All have Democratic governors but one — Maryland, whose attorney general is a Democrat — and most have legislatures controlled by Democrats.

The dispute stems from steps Mr. Trump said he would take after lawmakers granted him only dollar 1.375 billion for new border barriers, legislation he signed last week to avoid another government shutdown.

Mr. Trump asserted the power to tap three additional pots of money on his own: dollar 600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund for law enforcement priorities; about dollar 2.5 billion from a military antidrug account, most of which would first be siphoned from other military programs the Pentagon has yet to identify; and dollar 3.6 billion in military construction funds he said he could redirect by invoking an emergency powers statute.

Presidents have invoked emergency powers statutes nearly five dozen times since Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act of 1976, but never before has one been used to make an end run around Congress after it rejected funding for a particular policy.

But as the debate over Mr. Trumps action shifts to courtrooms, legal experts warned that its fate may turn less on such high constitutional principle and more on complex legal issues — from whether plaintiffs can establish that the case is properly before the courts, to how to interpret several statutes.

Even though Trumps political maneuver to get around an uncooperative Congress looks like it stretches the Constitution, the questions presented in court will raise ordinary and complicated issues of administrative law, said Peter M. Shane, an Ohio State University law professor and co author of .

Two cases had already been filed after Mr. Trumps announcement on Feb. 15 — one , representing several Texas landowners and a Texas environmental group, and the other by the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

At least two other lawsuits are expected to be filed later this week. The American Civil Liberties Union has announced its intention to file a case, but has not yet publicly identified its client. The other case will be brought by Protect Democracy, another watchdog group, and the Niskanen Center, a center right policy institute, on behalf of El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights.

Many critics have challenged whether an emergency truly exists on the Southern border that a wall would solve, pointing to government data showing that the number of people crossing illegally has dropped significantly over the past generation and that most drugs are smuggled through ports of entry.

The president has argued, without proof, that the emergency declaration is warranted because the migrants invading the United States across the Mexico border have caused epidemics of crime and drug use.

Legal specialists expected the Justice Department to urge a court not to consider facts about the border or Mr. Trumps words, but rather to defer to the presidents decision. The courts have a long history of being reluctant to substitute their own judgment for the presidents about a security threat.

The Trump administration will have a powerful argument to invoke: In the National Emergencies Act, Congress defined no standard for what conditions have to be met before a president may determine that a qualifying crisis exists.

But before a judge could weigh whether Mr. Trump invoked the statute legitimately, he or she would have to decide whether the dispute is properly before the court in the first place.

Plaintiffs will need to establish standing by showing that they are suffering some particular injury from what Mr. Trump is doing. Several of the lawsuits involve people who own land or represent communities along the Mexican border in Texas, where Mr. Trump has put the focus of his emphasis on the need for more barriers.

But it is not clear whether any of the fencing will be built in California or New Mexico, two of the states in the lawsuit, and it certainly will not be built in other states involved in the litigation, like New York, New Jersey or Hawaii.

Mr. Becerra, Californias attorney general, suggested that plaintiffs in the states lawsuits have standing for reasons that are unrelated to whether any portions of Mr. Trumps wall will be built in their territory, arguing that the presidents unconstitutional action could cause harms in many parts of the country.

People in California and other plaintiff states could lose funding that they paid for with their tax dollars, money that was destined for drug interdiction or for the Department of Defense for military men and women and military installations, he said in the interview.

Further complicating matters, the administration has said it intends to spend the funds in sequence, starting with the dollar 1.375 billion Congress appropriated, and reaching the emergency power military construction fund last. The Justice Department is likely to argue that if no disputed spending is imminent, the case is not ripe for litigation and should be dismissed.

Ian Bassin, the executive director of Protect Democracy, said that El Paso County would probably argue that its economy was being harmed by Mr. Trumps emergency declaration because it wrongfully signaled to businesses and potential tourists that they should stay away.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the wave of lawsuits. Mr. Trump has said he expected to be sued and to lose in lower courts, but he predicted he would eventually prevail before the Supreme Court.

But plaintiffs can also challenge whether the administration is interpreting several statutes correctly.

The that gives the secretary of defense authority to transfer some Pentagon money into the antidrug account Mr. Trump is then planning to tap, for example, says its authority may be used in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress — raising the question of whether extra funding for border barriers counts as such a forbidden item.

And the Mr. Trump plans to use permits military construction spending in an emergency that requires the use of the armed forces for projects to support such use. That has been used before to build up foreign military bases in a war effort, but litigants challenge whether a permanent wall to help civilian agencies police the border qualifies under that wording.

Judges will certainly be aware of the larger institutional context when they address those technical issues, but that awareness will not, by itself, determine how the legal questions get resolved, Mr. Shane said.

An earlier version of this article misidentified one of the states involved in the litigation. Washington State is not a party to the suit.

For more infomation >> 16 States Sue to Stop Trumps Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall The New York Times - Duration: 7:46.

-------------------------------------------

California's AG says 4 other states will join him in 'imminently' suing Trump over border emergency - Duration: 5:46.

California will 'imminently' challenge President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency to obtain funds for a U

S.-Mexico border wall, state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said on Sunday.'Definitely and imminently,' Becerra told ABC's 'This Week' program when asked whether and when California would sue the Trump administration in federal court

Other states controlled by Democrats are expected to join the effort.'We are prepared, we knew something like this might happen

And with our sister state partners, we are ready to go,' he said.Trump invoked the emergency powers on Friday under a 1976 law after Congress rebuffed his request for $5

7billion to help build the wall that was a signature 2016 campaign promise.The move is intended to allow him to redirect money to wall construction despite Congress appropriating it for other purposes

The White House says Trump will have access to about $8 billion.Nearly $1.4billion was allocated for border fencing under a spending measure approved by Congress last week, and Trump's emergency declaration is aimed at giving him another $6

7billion for the wall.Becerra cited Trump's own comment on Friday that he 'didn't need to do this' as evidence that the emergency declaration is legally vulnerable

'It's become clear that this is not an emergency, not only because no one believes it is but because Donald Trump himself has said it's not,' he said

Becerra and California Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats, have been expected to sue to block Trump's move

Becerra told ABC that California and other states are waiting to learn which federal programs will lose money to determine what kind of harm the states could face from the declaration

He said California may be harmed by less federal funding for emergency response services, the military and stopping drug trafficking

'We're confident there are at least 8 billion ways that we can prove harm,' Becerra said

Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trump's move on Friday, saying it violates the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights

The legal challenges could at least slow down Trump's efforts to build the wall but would likely end up at the conservative-leaning U

S.Supreme Court.Congress never defined a national emergency in the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which has been invoked dozens of times without a single successful legal challenge

Democrats in Congress have vowed to challenge Trump's declaration and several Republican lawmakers have said they are not certain whether they would support the president

'I think many of us are concerned about this,' Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told NBC's 'Meet the Press

' Trump could, however, veto any resolution of disapproval from Congress.White House senior adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News on Sunday that Trump's declaration would allow the administration to build 'hundreds of miles' of border wall by September 2020

'We have 120-odd miles that are already under construction or are already obligated plus the additional funds we have and then we´re going to outlay - we´re going to look at a few hundred miles

' Trump's proposed wall and wider immigration policies are likely to be a major campaign issue ahead of the next presidential election in November 2020, where he will seek a second four-year term

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét