OPINION | This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.


Ninth Circuit Says Trump Violated Constitution Using Military Funds For Border Wall

It never fails. Activist judges supported by the Democratic Party routinely stick their hands into the political arena to tip the scales.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is by far the most liberal federal court in the nation. Decided on Friday that President Donald Trump’s  use of military funds to build a border wall with Mexico violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, The Washington Post reported.

The Appropriations Clause gives Congress the power of the purse in terms of what is funded and how much it is funded for.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills,” Article I, section 7, clause 1 says.

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time,”  Article I, section 9, clause 7 says.

The court ruled that the president’s diversion of funds from the military to the building of the wall violated these clauses, in a case that is likely to head to the Supreme Court.

“These funds were appropriated for other purposes, and the transfer amounted to ‘drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the Appropriations Clause,’” the majority said in its opinion. “Therefore, the transfer of funds here was unlawful.”

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, who was appointed to the court by former President Bill Clinton, penned the majority opinion.

He was joined in his opinion, on the three-judge panel, by Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, who was also appointed by Clinton.

The lone dissenting vote in the case was given by Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins, who was appointed to the court by President Trump.

“The panel concluded that the district court correctly determined that the border wall was not an unforeseen military requirement, and that funding for the wall had been denied by Congress. Absent such statutory authority, the Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to transfer the funds at issue here,” Judge Thomas said in the opinion.

“The panel noted that the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress,” it said. “The ­panel held that the transfer of funds violated the Appropriations Clause, and, therefore, was unlawful.”

The decision was, as expected, celebrated by liberals like Sierra Club attorney Gloria Smith,\who said the decision was “monumental” and said that the 9th circuit had “put a stop to Trump’s unconstitutional wall construction.”

“We should be protecting communities, our democracy, and the environment, not tearing these things apart as Trump hoped to do,” she said.

Democrat California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has made a career of challenging he president’s plans to build a wall, also celebrated.

“While the Trump administration steals public funds to build an unauthorized wall at the southern border, families across the country are struggling to pay their bills,” the attorney general said.

“They deserve to know that their hard-earned dollars are going where Congress intended — to benefit them and their communities,” he said.

On response to the decision Department of Homeland Security spokesman Alexei Woltornist said “We are sorely disappointed in this decision,.”

The administration is expected to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court which has overturned more decisions from the liberal 9th circuit than it has for any other court.