Border wall

Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows Supports Asset Forfeiture, National Emergency Declaration to Fund Wall

You know, for a caucus called "freedom"...

|

Meadows
JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS/Newscom

Rep. Mark Meadows (R–N.C.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, tweeted on Friday morning that President Trump should "use asset forfeiture money or other discretionary fees to start construction" on the wall, and declare a national emergency if Democrats won't negotiate.

Because nothing screams freedom like the president using ill-gotten gains to pay for a public works project the legislature has refused to authorize.

In an interview with POLITICO, Meadows sounded a bit more concerned about setting a bad precedent that would empower future executive branches to sidestep Congress and act unilaterally, but noted Trump "would find broad support if it's determined that ultimately he has to do it."

That's a fairly damning statement. According to its bio, the House Freedom Caucus purportedly supports "open, accountable & limited government, the Constitution & the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety & prosperity of all Americans." One might expect more of its members to recongize that Trump's proposed course of action violates many of these principles and weakens them in the long term.

Unfortunately, the caucus is largely supportive of Trump doing whatever he wants. From that same POLITICO story:

Freedom Caucus member Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) urged Trump to make the emergency declaration in an op-ed in the Daily Caller, while Rep. Mark Green, a freshman and newly minted Freedom Caucus member, is also girding for action on securing the border.

"I support whatever means it takes to get it done," the Tennessee Republican told Fox Business Network's Lou Dobbs. "We have a crisis at the southern border. It's time to act."

"Whatever it takes to get it done" and "time to act" are not phrases associated with constrained government and the protection of individual liberty. But with the noted exception of the uncommonly principled Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.)—who is also a member of the much more libertarian (and much smaller) Liberty Caucus—this group of legislators ostensibly dedicated to preserving freedom seem perfectly willing to jettison their priorities if they stand in the way of Donald Trump and his wall.

NEXT: The Democrats' Alternative to Trump's Wall Isn't Good for Privacy or Property Rights Either

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. People thought that libertarian elements could infiltrate and reform the Republican Party, but it ended up being the other way around.

    1. This comment just about sums it up.

    2. It’s time to put Meadows out to pasture.

    3. Man, you hit that on the head in one sentence. Kudos.

  2. Question:
    Has the internet increased or decreased the ability of politicians to control our lives?

    1. “I support whatever means it takes to get it done,”

      “If I have to chop out a child’s beating heart and eat it on live television, then by god I’ll do it as long as we get a big beautiful freedom wall and an authoritarian police state. I mean, a wall, just the wall. Forget the other thing. One child per thing. The other stuff may take more children, but for now, one child, one wall. For freedom.”

      1. Hey, you gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet!

        Yum….. omelet!

        1. It’s *omelette* you neanderthal.

          Get it together.

          1. Only 1/1024 th Neanderthal, thank you very much!

    2. Neither. But it has increased the ability of people to demand that government control their and everyone else’s lives.

  3. “use asset forfeiture money or other discretionary fees to start construction” on the wall, and declare a national emergency if Democrats won’t negotiate.

    To be fair, he did say “…other discretionary fees to start construction…”.

    While asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when used as anything but criminal penalty for sentencing, asset forfeiture could mean some other kind of money seized constitutionally. We dont know because Robby wont find out. Outrage over border security takes priority to getting clarification to public statements.

    It is funny that people like Robby are so falling for Trump’s “n” th D chess moving them into ‘Check’.

    Trump okayed a bloated defense budget because he knew he would stand on this issue for a long government shutdown that mostly covered non-essential federal employees. Lefties underestimated Trump…again. meanwhile tens of thousands of federal employees will quit before this over, saving taxpayers billions on bureaucrats that were difficult to fire.

    If Democrats dont concede to wall funding, they lose in every way. Then Trump uses military funding to build the border wall extensions.

    1. Poor troll has to come up with some way to cover for government theft. Good job, troll.

      1. Preferably the money will come from the avoided salaries of those nonessential parasites.

        1. Yup BigT.

          Taxpayers will save tens of billions from federal employees that quit and from federal departments that didnt spend as much money over 30 days for operating costs.

          1. 800,000 nonessentials $60,000 salary = $4.8 B in a year.

            And that doesn’t take into account benefits or direct costs (office space, utilities, etc)

      2. Asset forfeiture is not against the law, therefore it is legal and just.

      3. Poor SprkY troll. Still having trouble reading.

        1. You are a fucking statist.

      4. Quite frankly it’s sad. The mental gymnastics “whocaresabouttheconstitution1789” has to do to justify anything Trump does…

  4. Extend that wall Trump!

    MAGA!

    700 miles of border wall/obstacles and counting!

    1. We still can’t understand a word your saying when you have Trump’s cock so far down your throat, statist.

      1. Wait, my bad, so far up your ass.

        Meh, no difference.

        1. I think Trump alternates with that guy.

          More degrading that way, but this one appears to enjoy it.

      2. Say Pete, just how much of the land that comprises the southern border itself is privately owned vs private land that is adjacent and provides access to the border region?
        Look it up. Journalists hate making this definition, hurts the narrative.

        Forfeiture isn’t the issue it’s made to be.

  5. Alt-text: Hey, I spotted some liberty lurking over there. I’m skeered!

  6. In time asset forfeiture will become a criminal activity. Without doubt. Authorities cannot be trusted that far.

  7. I guess Trump isn’t quite as excited and glorified to use his executive pen as Obama was.
    I dare to think if Obama was in office the pen would’ve striked before the plan ever even hit the afternoon news.

    Either way though; The legislative body should be the final say. Just because Democrats have dismissed EVERYTHING in the Constitution except the basic existence of the 3-branches. It won’t help our country to dismiss that too.

    1. Come to think of it wasn’t DACA and executive order?

  8. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  9. The absolute degeneration of the modern conservative movement on full display. Pathetic.

  10. Note that the U.S, did not sign the United Nations Compact on Immigration of 19 Dec., 2018. We hold that American Citizenship is a privilege, not an inalienable right. Our Declaration of independence recognizes a degree of political equality for humankind, but our Constitution created our Government, and the privileges of National Citizenship. We maintain that visitors, immigrants and refugees may only enter our country by permission, subject to valid restrictions.
    We subscribe to the Rule of Law, and have a specific Constitution and Code of Law. Aliens entering our borders must comply with our laws, all of them, at all times.
    Our government needs to know who is within our borders: both their identities and their locations. We periodically conduct a Census for this information.
    The Globalists reject our traditional concepts of national citizenship and national responsibilities as selfish. They preach a radical form of political equality that characterizes all political distinctions as forms of invidious discrimination. The Global Altruists also posit theories of physical, mental, moral, financial, sexual, religious and cultural equality, which demonstrably does not exist. This demand for radical equality is worse than blind and wishful thinking; it is an inversion of morality. America should export what we have, instead of importing the misery that the Globalists have created.

    1. Yes.

      No border = no country.

      By definition.

  11. “Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows Supports Asset Forfeiture”

    Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t.

    All you’ve documented here is that he supports using asset forfeiture money for the Wall.

    Is this just another full of shit Reason article title, or does he say somewhere that he’s a big fan of asset forfeiture?

    1. You’ve got to be pretty moronic to write what you just wrote. How about you read the article and get back to us. Or hell, just read the title you put in your own post.

  12. Christ, what an asshole.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.