Trump. 16 stati ricorrono in tribunale contro l’ordine di costruzione del muro.
Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
2019-02-22.
Il Presidente Trump ha emanato un Ordine in cui dichiara emergenza al confine con il Messico ed ordina la costruzione di un muro. Questo tipo di provvedimento si era reso necessario dopo che il Congresso aveva più volte negato al Presidente i fondi per la costruzione.
La risposta dei liberal democratici è stata molto rapida.
California, New York are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon e Virginia, tutti stati americani con governatori democratici hanno presentato istanza alla Corte Federale del Distretto di San Francisco per bloccare lo stato di emergenza dichiarato dal presidente Trump al confine con il Messico, con la seguente motivazione:
«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»
L’istanza è stata nominalmente presentata da Xavier Becerra, un politico e avvocato statunitense di origini messicane, membro del Partito Democratico e deputato al Congresso per lo stato della California dal 1993 al 2017. È Procuratore generale della California dal 2017.
Manco a dirlo, questa istanza è stata presentata alla Federal District Court in San Francisco.Tale Corte dispone di 21 giudici, dei quali diciotto sono liberal democratici e solo tre sono repubblicani: in poche parole la sentenza è già scritta ed alla fine ne verrà investita la Corte Suprema.
* * * * * * *
Prosegue spietata la guerra civile americana che contrappone i liberal democratici alla Amministrazione Trump.
Siamo arrivati, finalmente si potrebbe dire, allo scontro finale.
Mr Trump ha già un contenzioso in attesa di giudizio presso la Suprema Corte:
Ricordiamo che tale ricorso verte in buona sostanza sulla possibilità di voto che negli stati a governatorato democratico è concessa agli immigrati clandestini illegali, cui si oppone l’Amministrazione Trump. Nei fatti, il potere politico dei democratici affonda le sue radici proprio negli immigrati illegali, stimati essere, in via del tutto riduttiva, almeno 6.5 milioni.
*
Nessuno potrebbe al momento predire come evolveranno le cose: possiamo solo dire che una vittoria del Presidente Trump annienterebbe il potere politico ed economico dei liberal democratici.
Si resta tuttavia con la bocca amara, molto amara, al dover constatare quanto i liberal democratici siano determinati ad usare la giustizia come un gruppo di fuoco politico.
Il giudizio se costruire o meno il muro è di natura politica.
Ci si pensi bene. Giudici nominati non eletti saranno chiamati ad esprimere un giudizio politico che almeno pro tempore potrebbe essere vincolante per l’intera nazione. Questa è dittatura, non certo democrazia.
La tanto millantata divisione dei poteri è disattesa proprio da coloro che ogni giorno se ne sciacquano la bocca e vorrebbero tener lezione a tutto il mondo.
* * *
«The States of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Attorney General Dana Nessel on behalf of the People of Michigan (collectively, “Plaintiff States”), bring this action to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution. 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. This includes the diversion of funding that each of the Plaintiff States receive. Defendants must be enjoined from carrying out President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful scheme. ….
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff States respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor, and grant the following relief:
Issue a judicial declaration that the Executive Actions’ diversion of federal funds toward construction of a border wall is unconstitutional and/or unlawful because it: (a) violates the separation of powers doctrine; (b) violates the Appropriations Clause; and (c) exceeds congressional authority conferred to the Executive Branch and is ultra vires;
The States of California and New Mexico seek a judicial declaration that Defendants violated NEPA and the APA and further seek an order enjoining DHS, requiring it to comply with NEPA and the APA—including preparing an EIS—before taking any further action pursuant to the Executive Actions;
Permanently enjoin Defendants from constructing a border wall without an appropriation by Congress for that purpose;
Permanently enjoin Defendants from diverting federal funding toward construction of a border wall; and
Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.»
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 president’s own words,” he said, referring to Mr. Trump’s speech on Feb. 15 announcing his plan: “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d 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.
Congress is on its own separate track to challenge the president’s 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. Trump’s 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.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento