committee is to get two different bills and put them together. right now congressman henry cuellar, the negotiator, is a no when it comes to any physical barrier, a wall being part of it. thank you very much, congressman. we ll see what comes out of the meeting. thank you so much. i appreciate it. that s an important note today. we ll be right back. er it takes, use every possible resource, to fight cancer. and never lose sight of the patients we re fighting for. our cancer treatment specialists share the same vision. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. and these are the specialists we re proud to call our own. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com. appointments available now. learn more at cancercenter.com. for a nasty cold, take new dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. [a capella] whoa! and vaporize it with an intense rush of vicks vapors. [a capella] ahhhhhhhhhh! new dayquil severe with vicks
goals. he would be pursuing a wall. he would be taking executive action. he likes to portray himself as a man of action and it would get him out of neg ative consequencs of the government shutdown. he s gotten some sworn about the idea of the right from republican senators who don t like it on use of executive authority grounds and from other who is say this is just an escape from the shutdown. it s not going result in the wall being built which is correct. i think it will not result in the wall being built. i think the principal goal ot the president is not the wall, it s to erodes support in his base. the country is not under siege but president trump is under siege legally and politically and what he s trying to do is act in a way that does not cause his base to defect.
is hard to imagine the courts finding a plaintiff withstanding, a plaintiff with the legal right to sue to stop this at any early point in the process. reporter: the washington post is lawyers who think an emergency declaration would be unconstitutional are hard-pressed to say who would stop the president. the supreme court could but that might not happen until after the wall was built. the post notes presidents have been moving money around for years and a little-known code governing the military allows the defense secretary to undertake military construction project in times of emergency. others argue it would come down to the president s definition of emergency. the national emergency act doesn t offer a definition. the most plausible legal challenge might come from someone who is actually harmed by the wall being built meaning
to sue, to stop this at any early point in the process. the washington post went a step further saying, lawyers who take an emergency declaration thinking of unconstitutional are also hard-pressed to say exactly who would stop the president. for example, the supreme court could, but that might not happen until after the wall was built. the post also said the president cited moving money around for years and that a little known code governing military allows the defense secretary to military construction products in times of emergency. others argue it will come down to the president s definition of emergency. the problem is the national emergency act doesn t offer a definition. the most plausible legal challenge might come from someone who was actually harmed by the wall being built, meaning their property is taken through eminent domain. one woman, whose land sits along the rio grande, told the associated press she would not
he said something similar in the cabinet meeting. when they say the wall s immoral, you have to do something about the vatican. the vatican has the biggest wall of them all. how do you negotiate with that? i don t even know where to go with that. here s the thing, the president actually began the year where he ended it. about the wall being built already, about, you know, a staggering number of people would were here in the country illegally three times. i think he said something like 30, 35 million people here illegally. which is just an absolute lie. the negotiation has to be between the house and the senate. the president is going the president will go out and call it what he wants anyway. no matter what it is. so he s not going to be able to sustain having this government