Didn't the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional ruling by giving trump the ok to use military...

[brush]

funds for construction of his wall? The Constitution gives the House the power of the purse. Anyone have an idea how this will be challenged since there is no higher court?

[elleng]

1. No.

Justice Kagan received a request for an emergency stay of a lower court order and passed it

to the court at large. It's just a "stay" not a final decision of the constitutionality of an action.

(Justice Kagan is the "circuit judge" for the 9th circuit, see: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitAssignments.aspx )

Test of the order (.pdf): https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6219678/7-26-19-SCOTUS-Sierra-Club-Order.pdf

This from PoliticAverse.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. The Supreme Court decides what is and isn't constitutional, so

by definition their rulings can't be unconstitutional. Anyhow, they decided only that "the administration could tap the money while litigation over the matter proceeds. But that will most likely take many months or longer, allowing Mr. Trump to move ahead before the case returns to the Supreme Court after further proceedings in the appeals court." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/us/politics/supreme-court-border-wall-trump.html

The Supreme Court said the groups challenging the administration - private parties, not Congress- did not appear to have a legal right to do so. In other words, it wasn't a decision on the merits, but only one having to do with standing to sue. So it isn't over yet.

[brush]

10. Their ruling though essentially gave trump the power to decide how funds are to be spent while...

litigation is going on to decide the matter. And we know that's trump's game—tying things up in court for as long as possible. They're allowing him to circumvent Congress and spend funds how he wants.

What's to stop him now from doing this with other appropriations?

[FBaggins]

3. No.

Congress does have the power of the purse... but they delegated some of that power to the president if he declares an emergency. The current question. Is whether the President abused that discretion... not whether it exists.

[Joe941]

4. It's not really in question...

TRump has abused the power without a doubt.

[FBaggins]

6. True enough... but...

... five Supreme Court justices appear to disagree with us.

[NewJeffCT]

7. Yes, there is no question that Trump has abused his power

but, before Trump there have been dozens of national emergency declarations and they've mostly never been challenged or repealed. They may grant #DonnyDollhands some leeway because of that.

[StarfishSaver]

12. This exactly

We should remind Trump supporters at every opportunity that "Trump has gone so far as to declare a national emergency and bring in the U.S. Supreme Court so he can force you to foot the bill for the wall he promised he'd make Mexico pay for."

[jmowreader]

5. I think this works in our favor

Trump's been running around with his "support the troops, support the troops, you're not an American if you don't love the troops as much as I do!" schtick. Then he decides to pull $5 billion in funds from the troops? If we don't make "Trump Fucked The Troops Harder Than He Fucked Stormy Daniels" into a huge campaign issue, we deserve to allow Trump to continue destroying the country.

[former9thward]

8. But it is not being "taken from the troops" and they know it.

It is being taken from other Pentagon construction projects over two years. The Defense budget is $693 billion a year now. $5 billion from a two year budget of $1.4 trillion is a rounding error that no one will notice.

[kentuck]

9. The ruling may have been a harbinger of decisions to come.

The Courts have been infected by partisanship to a dangerous degree.

[UTUSN]

11. K&R

[panader0]

13. Is it not true that those funds will be used to replace old barriers?

And that no new wall will be built?

[GulfCoast66]

14. Not the way I read it...

Congress gave away huge power with the Emergency Declaration act.

It was during the Cold War and no one could see a president like trump. But it was a huge give away.

The question is will any party in power be willing to give that power back to congress. In other words, would any president, Democratic or republican, be willing to sign a law repealing that law.

I would love to see that as a debate question. And the answer might get me to change my preference.

We have got to get Presidential Power back to preWWII levels. Which I understand will hamstring Democratic Presidents as well as republican.