Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Legal Scholars Weigh in on Border Crisis, Dismally Deflating the Democrats

The democratic party’s worst case scenario can be seen cresting the horizon.

Published

on

national emergency

We are less than two weeks away from another potentially catastrophic government shutdown.

The previous stalemate, which notably became the longest in the history of our nation, was spawned by the liberal left’s unwillingness to properly secure our southern border.  Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer attempted to dig their heels in against President Trump and his border wall agenda, effectively taking 800,000 Americans hostage in the process.

The stagnation has temporarily been delayed thanks to the benevolence of President Trump.

take our poll - story continues below

Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?

  • Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: NEVER FORGET: Bernie Was Asked to Leave Hippie Commune for Refusing to Work

With less than 14 days to go until the federal operating budget goes up for a vote again, the President is weighing the option of declaring a national emergency to have the wall built.  The left is seething over the idea, but it looks as though they are legally out of luck. 

It seems increasingly likely that President Trump will declare a national emergency at our southern border in order to access funds to build a wall. Last week, I had the pleasure of debating National Review’s very own David French on the legality of such a move in a Federalist Society-sponsored tele-conference. I wanted to take the opportunity to further explain my defense of Trump’s legal authority in response to David’s excellent points.

David and I agree that Congress has not placed any serious limits on the president’s power to declare an emergency and that the Supreme Court was unlikely to second-guess him. For much of our history, presidents have understood the Constitution’s grant of “the executive power” to include a power to declare national emergency. Thomas Jefferson effectively did so in response to Aaron Burr’s effort to raise a rebellion in Louisiana; Abraham Lincoln did so, with far more justification, at the start of the Civil War; FDR did so, with far less justification, at the start of his presidency in response to the Great Depression; and Harry Truman did so at the start of the Korean War.

Even Nixon’s abuses didn’t sire any real restrictions on the ability of a President to declare a National Emergency.

In 1976, Congress enacted the National Emergency Act in its burst of post-Watergate reforms designed to restrict presidential power. While the new law terminated most existing emergencies, it did not set out any definition of a national emergency or limit the president’s ability to declare one. The law only sets out the process for publication and congressional notification of the president’s declaration. So David and I agree that there are few limits on the president’s ability to declare an emergency for good reason. Indeed, every president since 1976 has used the NEA to declare a national emergency, several under circumstances far less immediate than this one, and the Supreme Court has never overturned one.

So, no matter how much ranting and raving the left is willing to do, and how many times they purport that this battle will go all the way to the Supreme Court, legal experts seem to agree that this is nothing but posturing and pontificating from the progressives.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

REPORT: AOC’s Chief of Staff Was Hired After Funneling Money Through Her Boyfriend

Here we go…

John Salvatore

Published

on

This report is absolutely wild.

It is also entirely believable given the way Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attempts to skirt the truth.

Apparently, AOC’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, was given his position on Alexandria’s staff after funneling cash for her campaign through her boyfriend, Riley Roberts.

take our poll - story continues below

Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?

  • Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Check it out…

“A rich guy used a PAC to pay @AOC’s boyfriend $6,000 when her campaign was running out of money. After AOC won, she gave that rich guy a job in her office. Follow me on a journey,” author Luke Thompson said.

“Last week, @AOC and her Chief of Staff @saikatc (the rich guy in question) freaked out on me when I pointed out it looked like she’d hired her boyfriend. I did some digging in the FEC. Turns out Saikat has “hired” her boyfriend, before…just not to do any actual work,” he said.

[email protected] paid Brand New Congress LLC, which @saikatc owns, for strategic consulting. @BrandNew535, the PAC Saikat ran in parallel to his LLC, turned around and paid Riley Roberts – the boyfriend – the same amount as its sole “marketing consultant”. How swampy,” he said.

“The payments to Roberts are the largest payments made by @BrandNew535 to any person or group other than Brand New Congress LLC. Oh, and Roberts doesn’t work in marketing,” Thompson said.

https://twitter.com/ltthompso/status/1098217840862220289/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1098217842477015043&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalistpapers.org%2Fopinion%2Focasio-cortez-caught-red-handed-helping-ton-money-get-funneled-boyfriend

More from Medium:

A quick tour through AOC’s campaign expenditures reveals the extent to which Brand New Congress midwifed her campaign into existence, precisely as the FAQ described above would have it. But AOC’s campaign was different from the others backed by Brand New Congress PAC, and not simply because she won. Like other candidates, AOC paid Brand New Congress LLC for strategic consulting, in her case totaling $18,880.14. Unlike in the other cases, Brand New Congress PAC turned around and paid her boyfriend as a “marketing consultant”.

Indeed, while Brand New Congress PAC’s ten largest expenditures were paid to Brand New Congress LLC for “strategic consulting,” a sum that totaled $261,165.20 over the course of the campaign, its eleventh and twelfth largest expenditures were paid to Riley Roberts.

Brand New Congress PAC paid Roberts $3,000 on August 9th:

Eighteen days later, AOC’s campaign paid Brand New Congress LLC $6,191.32:

A month later Brand New Congress PAC then turned around and paid Riley Roberts another $3,000.

Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff is a supporter of a man who was an “ally of Adolf Hitler.”

Check it out, per Liberty Nation:

-Bose was an ally of Adolf Hitler and met with him personally in 1942.

-Bose founded the Free India Legion (FIL) made up of troops captured by Nazi Field Marshal Rommel’s Afrika Korps.

-The FIL swore an oath to Hitler and was under SS command.

-Bose teamed up with the Japanese in 1943.

-Bose was an admirer of the USSR and sought to implement its authoritarian practices in India.

Stay tuned for more on this story…

Continue Reading

News

Chicago Police RUIN Jussie Smollett’s Day, Officially Charge Him With Felony [Details]

He’s toast!

John Salvatore

Published

on

Things just went from bad to worse for “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett.

After being caught orchestrating a hate crime against himself and lying about it on national TV during an interview with Robin Roberts, Jussie has now been declared a “suspect” by the Chicago Police Department.

From Daily Wire:

take our poll - story continues below

Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?

  • Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Chicago law enforcement officials have officially declared actor Jussie Smollett to be a suspect in a criminal investigation on Wednesday for allegedly committing the felonious act of filing a false police report.

Chicago Police Chief Communications Officer Anthony Guglielmi tweeted: “Case Update: Jussie Smollett is now officially classified as a suspect in a criminal investigation by #ChicagoPolice for filing a false police report (Class 4 felony). Detectives are currently presenting evidence before a Cook County Grand Jury.”

Smollett has also officially been charged with a felony:

Check this out:

In 2007, Smollett “provided false information” to police after receiving a DUI.

From Daily Wire:

Jussie Smollett pleaded no contest to DUI, driving without a license, and providing false information to law enforcement officials in 2007, according to new reports released on Tuesday.

“Tuesday the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office confirmed that in August of 2007 Smollett pleaded no contest to DUI, driving without a license and providing false information to law enforcement,” CBS Chicago reported. “He was sentenced to two years probation and a choice of a fine or jail. Officials at the office could not confirm which Smollett chose. A spokesman for the Chicago Police Department said the department was already aware of the plea.”

This latest revelation follows several significant developments over the last few days, and could end up impacting how prosecutors handle potential false report charges.

Senators Kamala Harris (CA) and Cory Booker (NJ) are both running for president. The chances that either person secures the Democrat nomination are slim, at best.

After hearing that Empire actor Jussie Smollett was the “victim” of a “hate crime,” both Booker and Harris rushed to slam the “attack” as a “modern day lynching.”

Of course, the country now knows that Smollett faked the attack and paid two brothers to orchestrate the whole thing.

Now, Harris is at a loss for words when confronted by a reporter asking about Smollett:

WATCH:

Check out Booker:

Jussie said he was baffled that people didn’t believe him. Apparently, he’s just not that good of an actor, huh?

If Smollett was being written off the show prior to this insane “hate crime,” what will happen to him now?

Will social justice warriors voice their support? Will he maybe get his own spinoff?

How about Smollett pays for his crime and serves his time? That seems like the most appropriate response.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for lefties to say they were sorry for jumping on the Jussie bandwagon, though.

They’ll hold strong togetther and attempt to steer the conversation toward “racism in America.” They’ll make it seem as if Smollett is the true victim.

Count on it.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend