If trumps national emergency succeeds in getting a wall built (something i truly couldnt give less of a fluff about), in the future, our judicial system will rely on that precedent in regards to that natl emergency act. In so far as the next president could do a national emergency after the first shooting to take our guns away. And due to a judicial precedent there would not be legal action in the courts. The military would just mobilize immediately. That's simply a scary thought to me. Can you imagine if a pro population control or pro gun control or even pro-prohibition president gets access to these same rights?

Because there is no precedent now, trumps wall will get hung up in court for a time (I assume the courts will deny the overreach of the act to be completely honest but you never know). If it succeeds tho, it will set the precedent that the president can use the natl emergency act in non-emergency situations. After that the military will be able to mobilize against the citizens for any reason. Whether you support the wall or not (which again....5b is chunk change to the us Gov. This is so far from a real issue) if you aren't worried about what your opposition can do given the same rights, you're completely missing the point.

I'm not opposed to a wall. I'm opposed to giving the president that much power. Checks and balances are goddamned important.