Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans seek to reinstate border wall construction funding
Construction Dive ^ | 18 Mar 2021 | Kim Slowey

Posted on 03/18/2021 9:43:06 AM PDT by BeauBo

Biden's order gave federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security 60 days to come up with a plan to redirect border wall funds and to determine how much of the wall under construction should resume or be modified or terminated.

That order expires Saturday, March 20.

Forty U.S. Republican senators on Wednesday sent a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office Comptroller Gene L. Dodaro asking him for a legal opinion as to whether President Joe Biden's suspension of U.S.-Mexico border wall construction and a freeze on funding for those projects violates the Impoundment Control Act.

The act prevents the president, the senators wrote, from unilaterally withholding funds obligated by Congress.

(Excerpt) Read more at constructiondive.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: immigration; impoundment
This would cover the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo Sectors in South Texas, where the wall was funded by direct Congressional appropriations.

The areas that were to be funded with diverted Military funds are likely a lost cause, with radicals controlling the Presidential pen.

1 posted on 03/18/2021 9:43:06 AM PDT by BeauBo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

THe article also notes:

“Earlier this month, Republican (Texas State) Rep. Bryan Slaton introduced legislation (in Texas) that would continue construction of a wall along its border with Mexico and invest in ports of entry infrastructure. If passed by the Texas legislature, the state would initially fund the projects but seek reimbursement from the federal government.”


2 posted on 03/18/2021 9:44:35 AM PDT by BeauBo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

Republicans pretend that they want to actually do something. The evidence gained from GOP control of Congress 4 years ago would dispute that.


3 posted on 03/18/2021 10:09:25 AM PDT by brownsfan (Term limits! Without term limits, we are doomed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

If only Republican senators were this active when they were in power.


4 posted on 03/18/2021 10:09:47 AM PDT by aimhigh (THIS is His commandment . . . . 1 John 3:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

I am of the opinion that they first need a court order preventing the use of those funds in any other manner. The Dems have been known to shift the funding and spend it before the case is settled.


5 posted on 03/18/2021 10:16:08 AM PDT by taxcontrol (You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo
You RINO A-Holes had TWO YEARS from 2016-2018 to fund the wall, and you instead did everything in your power to undermine the President.

RINOs always grow a spine when they know for certain that their cause is already lost.

6 posted on 03/18/2021 10:16:26 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

I don’t think so because I believe the US Supreme said it was a go using those funds.


7 posted on 03/18/2021 10:22:54 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

Why don’t they just sue for the funding, citing the overwhelmingly bi-partisan-passed Secure Fence Act of 2006?


8 posted on 03/18/2021 10:29:29 AM PDT by montag813 ("Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the Great")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

“I believe the US Supreme said it was a go using those (Military) funds.”

If the President wants to, not that the President has to.

It depends on the President declaring an emergency, which President Trump did, but which Biden has already ended.


9 posted on 03/18/2021 10:29:57 AM PDT by BeauBo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo
Easy peasy ... redirect daily coffee and donut money for the morning break and buy all the lunches.

Finish the wall.

BOTH directives answered.

stfu, joe

10 posted on 03/18/2021 10:31:33 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true, I have no proof, but they're true !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

They had absolutely unfettered opportunity to fund the wall when Republicans controlled Congress and the Executive branch. They refused to do it. No, they prevented it. Now they simply want to score cheap political points at absolutely no cost as everyone knows there will never be a vote. Once again the assistant Democrats are simply trying to fool the base.

Never again will I fall for their lame drooling.


11 posted on 03/18/2021 10:40:18 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo
"The act prevents the president, the senators wrote, from unilaterally withholding funds obligated by Congress."

This is the E.O. I really don't get. Since when can the Admin branch over-ride a duly passed Congressional and signed law that's been on the books since 2006? And then when Congress finally partially funds said law, this Exec. Branch can just cancel those appropriations signed by Trump?

The lawsuits regarding separation of powers should have been filed the next day. Also, what about the contracts that the wall construction companies signed with the Fedgov? Is this not a breach?

If Texas actually starts to build more wall with State funds, watch the lawsuits pop up immediately. Their claim will be that Texas has no say in immigration issues. Arizona got shot down for something similar. However, I read that Texas would be doing such on private property removed from the actual border.

12 posted on 03/18/2021 11:02:40 AM PDT by A Navy Vet (USA Birth Certificate - 1776. Death Certificate - 2021.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
"I don’t think so because I believe the US Supreme said it was a go using those funds."

Yes, but I would think since the Exec. Branch controls DOD funds, Bitem will just say no. Still, Bitem should have no authority over already lawful Congressional funding, even with this worthless 60 day investigation by DHS. Maybe there is a temporary with-holding of funds somewhere in the Act or elsewhere.

13 posted on 03/18/2021 11:09:56 AM PDT by A Navy Vet (USA Birth Certificate - 1776. Death Certificate - 2021.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

Where were they during the first 2 years of the Trump admin when it WOULD HAVE MATTERED.
I hate these a holes for their political theater then disappearing when it could really have made a difference.


14 posted on 03/18/2021 12:53:52 PM PDT by Kozak (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

I wouldn’t hold my breath.


15 posted on 03/18/2021 1:03:31 PM PDT by VTenigma (The Democrat party is the party of the mathematically challenged )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

“The act prevents the president, the senators wrote, from unilaterally withholding funds obligated by Congress.”

Isn’t this the same Act that the House used to impeach Trump vis a vis Ukraine?


16 posted on 03/18/2021 3:51:41 PM PDT by blueplum ("...this moment is your moment: it belongs to you... " President Donald J. Trump, Jan 20, 2017) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet

“Bitem should have no authority over already lawful Congressional funding”

I think there is a strong legal case, to that effect.

Nonetheless, I expect they will find a hundred ways to impede any further construction (e.g. revoke environmental waivers, and begin multi-year “reviews”).


17 posted on 03/18/2021 5:33:01 PM PDT by BeauBo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson