Wall Construction Lawsuit

PUBLISHED: 5:34 PM 24 May 2019

Judge Rails Against House Lawsuit Trying To Block Border Wall Construction

At least there are a few judges out there who still respect the rule of law.

Pelosi and other Dems are trying to nullify the powers of the executive office, but this judge follows the law.

Democrats are doing everything possible to ensure that President Donald Trump cannot carry out the will of the American people, and mostly, that involves bringing frivolous lawsuits that challenge the authority granted to the executive office in the Constitution.

However, in a case before U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, House democrats got an earful from a man who understands the rule of law. The lawsuit is trying to block border wall construction.

The extremely liberal Washington Post reported:

The Democratic-led House filed suit in Washington on April 5 to prevent work after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused the administration of “stealing from appropriated funds” by seeking to transfer $6.7 billion more for the effort than the $1.375 billion Congress approved, a shift of money from other projects lawmakers authorized.

Trump declared a national emergency in February to redirect mostly military-designated funding for the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border after losing a grueling two-month fight over fully paying for it that prompted a government shutdown.

But over nearly three hours of arguments, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the District said there were few cases to guide how courts should rule on a major test of the constitutional separation of powers, and pressed House general counsel Douglas Letter to point to historical precedent allowing one chamber of Congress to sue the president to settle political differences.

Whether the House has legal standing to sue is “problematic” and a “significant issue in this case,” said McFadden, citing the bedrock legal requirement that a party prove it is being harmed and show that only a court can address it.

“Courts are not there to adjudicate just interesting constitutional or political questions between the branches,” he added later.

McFadden did not say when he would rule on the House motion’s to block spending while litigation continued. But he said he expected the outcome to be appealed.

“I’m not sure how much necessarily our views will carry the day for the courts above us,” he said. He added that he did not find binding a 2015 ruling by a federal judge on the D.C. court that the then-GOP-led House could sue the Obama administration for allegedly spending on an Affordable Care Act program that Congress did not approve.

This is not the only case pending. Democrats are doing their utmost to ensure that the drug trade and invasion of migrants across the Southern Border is unimpeded.

Meanwhile, the president is working on other measures to crack down on the invasion crisis.

But in court Thursday, Deputy Assistant Attorney General James M. Burnham argued “For over 200 years of our Constitution’s history, Congress and the executive branch resolved their political disputes through political means.”

In this case, Congress should have passed a law explicitly saying that “no money shall be obligated” in any form to construct a border barrier, he added.

Burnham also argued that the nation’s founders would have been “horrified’ and “appalled” at lawmakers trying to get the courts to take their side in such a dispute, “making the president subservient to the courts.”

“The founders were very careful to give the branches what they needed to defend themselves,” he said. “The Constitution nowhere even hints at the possibility of inter-branch litigation.”

And, given the overwhelming use of national injunctions ordered against this president, they would certainly roll over in their graves.

Democrats are desperately trying to hang on to their power and money, thus, the offensive and outrageous attempts to overthrow the constitutional powers granted to the president.