PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Steingar on February 15, 2019, 10:19:44 AM
-
Trumplethinskin has declared an emergency.
-
Trumplethinskin has declared an emergency.
I gotta admit, I'm not necessarily supportive of this method. Next thing you know, President OAC will be declaring a national emergency over guns and climate change. Of course, if she gets elected, she would probably do that anyway.
-
Hopefully it gets slowed/halted/reversed. Calling an emergency because you didn't get your budget isn't exactly setting the best precedent(guess it wasn't one his first two years). Imagine how many other "emergencies" the side opposite yourself could come up with.
-
The bright side is that it keeps the Dems and their their anti-American-citizen howlings and chest beatings in the bright sunlight.
And I agree ... precedent with the Dems has already been set. They’ll do anything to stiff Americans and get control. What POTUS does today or next year won’t matter a jot.
But when crime goes down and footage of new barriers gets viewed by millions, the benefits of barriers may slowly seep into the rest of the national consciousness.
Yes, the media screechings and 24/7 news coverage of Mueller will be be replaced by this. But the barrier is FOR the American people. The investigation was merely AGAINST one man who is more and more being seen as representing his citizens, not global interests.
-
Obama declared thirteen National Emergencies. Eleven are still active.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/obama-declared-13-national-emergencies-11-are-still-active/
-
I gotta admit, I'm not necessarily supportive of this method. Next thing you know, President OAC will be declaring a national emergency over guns and climate change. Of course, if she gets elected, she would probably do that anyway.
This is one of the big reasons why this was an ill-advised course of action. That, and the dubious legal reasons he's citing for authorities to declare the emergency.
-
The bright side is that it keeps the Dems and their their anti-American-citizen howlings and chest beatings in the bright sunlight.
They didn't need any help with this.
And I agree ... precedent with the Dems has already been set. They’ll do anything to stiff Americans and get control. What POTUS does today or next year won’t matter a jot.
Lots of precedents have been set by lots of presidents. This is a new one. What's to stop the next Democratic president from declaring climate change or gun violence to be a national emergency? What the president did today was outside of his authority. He made an end-run around Congress when he didn't get his way with Congress. He did the exact same thing Obama did and the right correctly called Obama out for it.
-
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/535441553079431168
-
And here he is defeating his own argument:
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1096445850002305024
-
And here he is defeating his own argument:
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1096445850002305024
He wants to do it faster. So do I. I'd rather stop illegals coming here sooner than later. This is one of the few core, legitimate functions of the Federal Government, and the President is totally within his authority.
-
He wants to do it faster. So do I. I'd rather stop illegals coming here sooner than later. This is one of the few core, legitimate functions of the Federal Government, and the President is totally within his authority.
If he wants to do it faster, then get Congress to pass funding faster. Don't boast about getting funding for the wall and then announce that he didn't need to do it because that was kind of the point of declaring a "national emergency". If he didn't need to do it, then it's not much of an emergency.
Also, there's a debate that's going to be had on the legalities of this. It's not a sure fire thing that it's completely legal. There's conservatives questioning the legalities of this; not just Democrats declaring it so.
-
If he wants to do it faster, then get Congress to pass funding faster. Don't boast about getting funding for the wall and then announce that he didn't need to do it because that was kind of the point of declaring a "national emergency". If he didn't need to do it, then it's not much of an emergency.
Also, there's a debate that's going to be had on the legalities of this. It's not a sure fire thing that it's completely legal. There's conservatives questioning the legalities of this; not just Democrats declaring it so.
I'll take the actions of a President his own Party hates as much as the opposition. Tells me the action is correct. The Republicans, and their corporate masters, and orgs like the Chamber of Commerce LOVE the flood of cheap labor illegally into the U.S. They are fine with the risks they bring to the average citizen. They are insulated from it.
-
I'll take the actions of a President his own Party hates as much as the opposition. Tells me the action is correct. The Republicans, and their corporate masters, and orgs like the Chamber of Commerce LOVE the flood of cheap labor illegally into the U.S. They are fine with the risks they bring to the average citizen. They are insulated from it.
You are deflecting and trying to change the narrative and it's not working. It's either an emergency or it isn't.
I want a border wall and I want Congress to pass funding for it. But they didn't. And until they do, the president doesn't get to just do what he wants. Obama did that and the right correctly called him out for it.
-
The laws of declaring an emergency by a President are very clear. This has never become an issue, until President Trump.
Congress has an avenue to object, but that's about it.
The President is not doing "a power grab" or anything nefarious. And the Pelosi comment about a future President using emergency powers to enact gun control is preposterous and totally out of the realm of reality.
Read the applicable laws on the subject. I can assure you the President has had a team of lawyers looking at every nook and cranny of the laws before he declared. They are in the right.
Congress (dems and republicans) are just butthurt they aren't in charge and not getting their way.
-
You are deflecting and trying to change the narrative and it's not working. It's either an emergency or it isn't.
I want a border wall and I want Congress to pass funding for it. But they didn't. And until they do, the president doesn't get to just do what he wants. Obama did that and the right correctly called him out for it.
Where is Trump saying it's not an emergency? He said he could have done it slower, but wanted to do it faster. You are grabbing at straws because you just don't like Trump. Admit it. You let your dislike of Trump cloud your judgement.
-
They didn't need any help with this.
Lots of precedents have been set by lots of presidents. This is a new one. What's to stop the next Democratic president from declaring climate change or gun violence to be a national emergency? What the president did today was outside of his authority. He made an end-run around Congress when he didn't get his way with Congress. He did the exact same thing Obama did and the right correctly called Obama out for it.
If you had bother to actually research the applicable laws you'd see how preposterous it is to make such a post.
How about doing some reading and not using the MSM talking points.
-
Obama declared thirteen National Emergencies. Eleven are still active.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/obama-declared-13-national-emergencies-11-are-still-active/
I believe you're confusing emergency with Executive action. They're quite different.
-
I believe you're confusing emergency with Executive action. They're quite different.
Reading comprehension a little tough today?
-
I believe you're confusing emergency with Executive action. They're quite different.
Do we need to translate it to Yiddish? English not your first language? :)
-
Where is Trump saying it's not an emergency? He said he could have done it slower, but wanted to do it faster. You are grabbing at straws because you just don't like Trump. Admit it. You let your dislike of Trump cloud your judgement.
Read what I wrote. I never said that Trump isn't saying it's an emergency. I'm saying it's either an emergency or it isn't. If it is truly an emergency, legalities aside, then he wouldn't have said at a press conference that he didn't "need" to do it.
I'm not grabbing at straws. Many people disagree with this for a variety of reasons. I actually like many of Trump's policies and am pleased that he's governed far more conservatively than I expected. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he does, nor does it mean that I'm somehow anti-Trump because I disagree with certain things he does. Defaulting to "you just don't like Trump!" because I disagree is not a rational argument to make.
-
If you had bother to actually research the applicable laws you'd see how preposterous it is to make such a post.
How about doing some reading and not using the MSM talking points.
I have. I'll post some links, which I'm sure you'll promptly dismiss because they didn't come from an author you approve of, but here they are nonetheless:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-border-wall-national-security-pretext-courts-should-not-defer/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-is-there-a-national-emergency-if-trump-can-sign-the-spending-bill/
And one specifically on the applicable laws:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/no-trump-cant-build-a-wall-through-military-eminent-domain/
You'll note that National Review isn't part of the mainstream media. You'll also note that one of the articles is from Andrew C. McCarthy, an author which you've mentioned in the past you really like.
-
Read what I wrote. I never said that Trump isn't saying it's an emergency. I'm saying it's either an emergency or it isn't. If it is truly an emergency, legalities aside, then he wouldn't have said at a press conference that he didn't "need" to do it.
I'm not grabbing at straws. Many people disagree with this for a variety of reasons. I actually like many of Trump's policies and am pleased that he's governed far more conservatively than I expected. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he does, nor does it mean that I'm somehow anti-Trump because I disagree with certain things he does. Defaulting to "you just don't like Trump!" because I disagree is not a rational argument to make.
He said he didn't "need" to do it this quickly but WANTED to do it this quickly. He said it is an emergency which you acknowledge. You are really arguing semantics, not issues, or actions. He did the right thing. He is a man of action unlike most politicians. It is an emergency, we need to stop the illegal invasion. The fact that both Republicans and Democrats don't like it speaks volumes, and underscores that it is the right thing to do.
I do think you have something against Trump, like many of us do, mostly due to his personality.
-
I believe you're confusing emergency with Executive action. They're quite different.
Well, if you want to pick nits, I suppose you could say that he issued an executive order, to address a declared national emergency. But the point remains, Obama declared all of those national emergencies (which were mostly for other nations), and then placed an executive order to address that emergency.
Sort of like saying we won't allow a wall, but a fortified, enhanced fence might be ok. WTF is the difference?
-
He said he didn't "need" to do it this quickly but WANTED to do it this quickly. He said it is an emergency which you acknowledge. You are really arguing semantics, not issues, or actions. He did the right thing. He is a man of action unlike most politicians. It is an emergency, we need to stop the illegal invasion. The fact that both Republicans and Democrats don't like it speaks volumes, and underscores that it is the right thing to do.
What he said was, "I didn't need to do this". If you want to accuse me of arguing over semantics, at least get his quote right. This is all about the issue of immigration and his actions to address it. If you want to argue he's a "man of action" then we can say the exact same thing about Obama. Obama felt it was necessary and proper to protect millions of illegal aliens through DACA and DAPA and Republicans cried foul, as they should have. But somehow when Trump goes around Congress, he's completely justified in doing so. This is clearly partisan and hypocritical.
-
What he said was, "I didn't need to do this". If you want to accuse me of arguing over semantics, at least get his quote right. This is all about the issue of immigration and his actions to address it. If you want to argue he's a "man of action" then we can say the exact same thing about Obama. Obama felt it was necessary and proper to protect millions of illegal aliens through DACA and DAPA and Republicans cried foul, as they should have. But somehow when Trump goes around Congress, he's completely justified in doing so. This is clearly partisan and hypocritical.
Do you beleive border security is a national security issue or not? What is the President's role and responsibilty in these matters of national security?
-
Do you beleive border security is a national security issue or not? What is the President's role and responsibilty in these matters of national security?
Trump’s role as Commander in Chief under the Constitution provides broad authority for him to fulfill his obligations to protect this country.
Comparing this to Obama using EOs to grant DACA recipients status is not anywhere near the same. Any comparison is infantile.
-
Trumplethinskin has declared an emergency.
You are a useless, broken tool, in a plastic toolbox.
-
I’m constantly waiting for Trump to mess up. I am not at all blind to his weaknesses. But I can also see his strengths.
Here we have an issue that politicians and presidents for decades have somberly and repeatedly declared is a problem. But rather than stop it, with enhanced barriers on the southern border and strict, secure entrance policies at ports of entry, they have for the most part rolled out the welcome mat and bandied about policies “forgiving” illegals already here.
Can you believe there still is even ONE mile of unsecured southern border, let alone 200 miles? Worse, some of the weak or insecure areas are near American towns, and crime by illegals has created no-go zones for CITIZENS. When barriers go up, that crime goes down, and CITIZENS can reclaim their towns.
Reasonable people are fed up with politicians passionately decrying the situation at the border and within the country (crime, drugs, human trafficking, gangs, illegals killing Americans in various ways) but doing nothing about it, and that’s why they elected Trump. That, and to drain the swamp.
My feeling is that POTUS know he has to do this before he leaves office, because he promised it and then was duly elected, and because he knows it is the right thing to do for the future of America, for his progeny and all of ours, and for all future Americans who are or become legal citizens. The idea that a campaign promise should NOT be fulfilled is ludicrous. Obama certainly gave his voters some of what he promised.
I believe POTUS knows, as do all of us, except perhaps Steingar, that for the United States much more is at stake on the issue of illegal immigration than political shenanigans. The next Dem president could tear the border walls down, yes. Or NE gun confiscation and climate taxes. But look ... all the Dem candidates are running very close to those things AS WE SPEAK.
That is the real threat ... we are seeing how an unleashed Democrat Party would govern, and they must be stopped. There is one reason why Dems don’t want the wall, and it’s to get power, and keep power ... borders are very inconvenient for globalists and their lackeys in the American government.
The border barrier helps many and hurts no one except the vote farming Democrats.
-
I have. I'll post some links, which I'm sure you'll promptly dismiss because they didn't come from an author you approve of, but here they are nonetheless:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-border-wall-national-security-pretext-courts-should-not-defer/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-is-there-a-national-emergency-if-trump-can-sign-the-spending-bill/
And one specifically on the applicable laws:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/no-trump-cant-build-a-wall-through-military-eminent-domain/
You'll note that National Review isn't part of the mainstream media. You'll also note that one of the articles is from Andrew C. McCarthy, an author which you've mentioned in the past you really like.
I'm sure the President didn't consult National Review before making his decision, rather he relied on his team of lawyers. Hard to imagine, huh?
It's amusing watching the democrats and the establishment doing their chicken little routine. The bottom line is they are butthurt, nothing more. Had this been any other president other than Trump, this wouldn't have even made the news (except for Obama, he would have been praised for his "genius")
The republicans (primarily the establishment types) have shot themselves once again in their clever circular firing squad. Absolutely fuckin' pathetic. And watch as Mr. Turtle, who told the President if he signed their junk bill he would back him on the Emergency Action, turn and stab him in the back.
As far as McCarthy? Yes, he does most of the time give insightful opinions. Unlike you, that doesn't make me believe or follow everything he writes. He's been off base before.
-
If he didn't need to do it, then it's not much of an emergency.
It did not escalate to being an emergency until the Democrats did things that so severely handicap our border agents that it has become an emergency.
Still, I believe this was a really stupid thing to do. While he has the authority to declare an emergency, it's questionable whether 10 CFR 2808 gives him the authority to order the military to build the wall. The relevant text is: "may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects ... that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces." The authorization allows them to build bases and such. Using it to stretch to make it the objective of the military deployment is beyond what the law allows. A wall is not necessary to support the use of the armed forces.
The first leftist judge that gets this is going to slap it down and rightfully so. Maybe even the first non-leftist judge.
-
I’m constantly waiting for Trump to mess up. I am not at all blind to his weaknesses. But I can also see his strengths.
Here we have an issue that politicians and presidents for decades have somberly and repeatedly declared is a problem. But rather than stop it, with enhanced barriers on the southern border and strict, secure entrance policies at ports of entry, they have for the most part rolled out the welcome mat and bandied about policies “forgiving” illegals already here.
Can you believe there still is even ONE mile of unsecured southern border, let alone 200 miles? Worse, some of the weak or insecure areas are near American towns, and crime by illegals has created no-go zones for CITIZENS. When barriers go up, that crime goes down, and CITIZENS can reclaim their towns.
Reasonable people are fed up with politicians passionately decrying the situation at the border and within the country (crime, drugs, human trafficking, gangs, illegals killing Americans in various ways) but doing nothing about it, and that’s why they elected Trump. That, and to drain the swamp.
My feeling is that POTUS know he has to do this before he leaves office, because he promised it and then was duly elected, and because he knows it is the right thing to do for the future of America, for his progeny and all of ours, and for all future Americans who are or become legal citizens. The idea that a campaign promise should NOT be fulfilled is ludicrous. Obama certainly gave his voters some of what he promised.
I believe POTUS knows, as do all of us, except perhaps Steingar, that for the United States much more is at stake on the issue of illegal immigration than political shenanigans. The next Dem president could tear the border walls down, yes. Or NE gun confiscation and climate taxes. But look ... all the Dem candidates are running very close to those things AS WE SPEAK.
That is the real threat ... we are seeing how an unleashed Democrat Party would govern, and they must be stopped. There is one reason why Dems don’t want the wall, and it’s to get power, and keep power ... borders are very inconvenient for globalists and their lackeys in the American government.
The border barrier helps many and hurts no one except the vote farming Democrats.
Let's look at the real reason the dims and the establishment republicans are so butthurt over this. Let's stop pretending that the President has done something sooooooo bad and something against the law (it's not).
The dims and the establishment republicans know there are only two ways to defeat Trump in 2020. 1) The economy tanks, badly and 2) Demoralize his base and have them abandon him.
The campaign promise of border security is big with his base, and its big with most Americans. Giving Trump a win just solidifies his base even more, and, "gasp", may even attract more to his side.
That's the only thing they are actually concerned with. Had this come up between 2009-2016 and BHO said "I want $10 billion for a border wall", Paul Ryan would have given him $12 billion, Mitch McConnell would have backed it and he would have been praised. Had BHO used the Emergency Act not a peep would have come from inside the beltway.
-
something against the law.
Not against the law, but almost certainly outside the authority granted to him by the law.
Bottom line, the wall is not necessary to support the troops in the field. I don't think it's possible to even pretend that it is. But section 2808 only authorizes construction to support the troops, not to deploy the troops to construct. There's a world of difference in that.
-
Lest we forget, the chief enemies of our Republic are a major political party and the media that enables it. They do not play by the rules. Extraordinary times.
The President cannot stand by while a porous border inflicts suffering on American citizens.
https://moonbattery.com/beto-tear-down-wall-protecting-el-paso/
-
Lest we forget, the chief enemies of our Republic are a major political party and the media that enables it. They do not play by the rules. Extraordinary times.
The President cannot stand by while a porous border inflicts suffering on American citizens.
https://moonbattery.com/beto-tear-down-wall-protecting-el-paso/
I believe the chief enemy of any Republic is disregard for law, because a Republic is government by the rule of law. Once laws are completely ignored, a Republic is dead. We're just about there.
-
I believe the chief enemy of any Republic is disregard for law, because a Republic is government by the rule of law. Once laws are completely ignored, a Republic is dead. We're just about there.
Who is breaking the law?
-
Who is breaking the law?
Good question.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-28/
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-congress-and-president-obama-made-trumps-wall-possible
-
The biggest danger to the rule of law in this country is the radical left. Period end of story.
-
The biggest danger to the rule of law in this country is the radical left. Period end of story.
The DC establishment (R&D) have made it clear we now have a two tiered justice system. One for them and another for the rest of us. This is a breakdown of the rule of law as written and is another nail in the coffin of our republic.
-
Who is breaking the law?
And what law are they breaking?
It is Congress that writes the law. If they create something they don't like, it is up to them to rewrite it.
What we see here is the law of unintended consequences.
-
-
I believe the chief enemy of any Republic is disregard for law, because a Republic is government by the rule of law. Once laws are completely ignored, a Republic is dead. We're just about there.
Blah...blah... listen to me sermonize to you little people.
My name is flynn.
I am better than. My bullshit doesn’t stink because I am so superior and elite...
Wash, rinse, repeat...
-
Who is breaking the law?
Justice Roberts when he said he didn't want to strike down Obamacare out of emotion, not law?
Obama when he chose not to enforce immigration law, and others he didn't like?
The 22,000 gun laws that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and INFRINGEMENTS?
Who pushes this crap Bflynn? WHO? You are a hypocrite.
Is Border Security against the law? Well is it?
-
So I think I have the wrong of this. The Obaminator did indeed declare a bunch of emergencies. What I can’t find is where he appropriated finds absent the consent of Congress or despite the lack of it.
A good for instance. Super Callous Fragile Ego Extrbragadocius called troops to the southern border. Personally I think it a waste of the Army’s efforts, but I would never deny his right to do this as POTUS, he is commander in Chief.
But now he’s declaring his emergency to raid the govco piggy bank. And that lands straight into separation of powers. And you’d better pray to your fuzzy white god that he doesn’t get away with it. Because if he does most presidents will be able to do anything they want. Our government was set up to avoid giving any one person too much power, and the Founders were wise in so doing.
-
If there is enough congressional opposition to what Trump did or is doing all they have to do is change the law allowing it with enough margin to override a veto.
-
I'm sure the President didn't consult National Review before making his decision, rather he relied on his team of lawyers. Hard to imagine, huh?
I'm sure all presidents have listened to their team of lawyers and yet that doesn't make all of their actions legal. We can reference a number of Obama's decisions, but for the purposes of this conversation, DAPA works as a great example since it's related.
As far as McCarthy? Yes, he does most of the time give insightful opinions. Unlike you, that doesn't make me believe or follow everything he writes. He's been off base before.
I'm not sure where you get the "unlike you" bit from. I read a variety of sources, as most people here do. I just happen to think he's right on this, along with the others who say the president is wrong and that this was unnecessary (which Trump said himself he didn't need to do).
-
Do you beleive border security is a national security issue or not? What is the President's role and responsibilty in these matters of national security?
You know where I stand on this because I've said so before. A national security matter is not always a military matter, but you know that.
-
Let's look at the real reason the dims and the establishment republicans are so butthurt over this. Let's stop pretending that the President has done something sooooooo bad and something against the law (it's not).
But it might be. You saying it's legal does not make it so (the same holds true for me, just so we're clear).
-
Who is breaking the law?
Justice Roberts when he said he didn't want to strike down Obamacare out of emotion, not law?
That's a bold statement. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court broke the law because he didn't rule the way you and millions of others (myself included) wanted him to?
Obama when he chose not to enforce immigration law, and others he didn't like?
Obama didn't just refuse to enforce immigration law, he used his "pen and phone" to bypass Congress, even after admitting that he knew he couldn't do it. He just wanted to do it faster. He tried to write, pass, and enforce laws that he wanted.
-
But now he’s declaring his emergency to raid the govco piggy bank. And that lands straight into separation of powers. And you’d better pray to your fuzzy white god that he doesn’t get away with it. Because if he does most presidents will be able to do anything they want. Our government was set up to avoid giving any one person too much power, and the Founders were wise in so doing.
Where were you when Obama picked up his "pen and phone" and went around Congress, after admitting he couldn't do that, but then did it anyway? How is that not, at the very least, on the same level as this, if not worse?
There's a chance that Trump will get away with this because courts tend to defer to the president on national security matters for fear that they will tie a president's hands too much to protect the country. Presidents enjoy broad discretion when it comes to national security. That being said, I think this one might go against Trump for reasons that have already been listed in this thread. But don't come in here acting like Trump is the first person trying to stretch his power. He's certainly not the worst offender in history (Wilson and FDR come to mind immediately).
-
If there is enough congressional opposition to what Trump did or is doing all they have to do is change the law allowing it with enough margin to override a veto.
Probably not. Congress tends to not want to do their jobs anyway, so they'll probably rely on the courts to stop this. I'm sure some measures may pass the House, but they probably won't get passed the Senate.
-
It is unlikely that Congress will get organized enough to pass something that cancels the national emergency
-
That's a bold statement. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court broke the law because he didn't rule the way you and millions of others (myself included) wanted him to?
He admittedly did NOT follow the law he was sworn to uphold. That is "breaking the law" effectively. Do you remember the reason he gave? It was not based in law, it was because he "didn't want to be the one to strike it down" out of emotion.
Obama didn't just refuse to enforce immigration law, he used his "pen and phone" to bypass Congress, even after admitting that he knew he couldn't do it. He just wanted to do it faster. He tried to write, pass, and enforce laws that he wanted.
He did not enforce existing immigration law also.
-
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
-
He did not enforce existing immigration law also.
I believe LevelWing acknowledged that. He said Obama didn't just refuse to enforce immigration law, . . .
-
I can’t wait to see this jewel.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-plans-bill-to-block-trump-s-emergency-declaration#gs.oIJrmnp3
-
I can’t wait to see this jewel.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-plans-bill-to-block-trump-s-emergency-declaration#gs.oIJrmnp3
Somebody needs to take her out back and give her a good spanking. And while we are implementing term limits for Congress Critters, we need to implement a minimum AGE law for said Congress critters.
-
Must be 25 year old to be a Representative in Congress according to the Constitution.
Article 1
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
-
So I think I have the wrong of this. The Obaminator did indeed declare a bunch of emergencies. What I can’t find is where he appropriated finds absent the consent of Congress or despite the lack of it.
A good for instance. Super Callous Fragile Ego Extrbragadocius called troops to the southern border. Personally I think it a waste of the Army’s efforts, but I would never deny his right to do this as POTUS, he is commander in Chief.
But now he’s declaring his emergency to raid the govco piggy bank. And that lands straight into separation of powers. And you’d better pray to your fuzzy white god that he doesn’t get away with it. Because if he does most presidents will be able to do anything they want. Our government was set up to avoid giving any one person too much power, and the Founders were wise in so doing.
You don’t understand the appropriation process. Congress doesn’t dictate the number of #2 Dixon Ticonderoga pencils the Department of Indispensable Kitchenware (DIK) is allowed to purchase. Congress doesn’t care how the department allocates is funds to office supplies or kitchenware. It just finds the Deprtment, to be spent as the Secretary and Executive branch sees fit.
Congress takes slightly greater interest if the Navy wants to roll out a new ship, but in reality the Pentagon has a lot of leeway in its budget. And all these departments fall under the Executive Branch. So while the Executive doesn’t have unlimited authority to move money around between departments, there is nevertheless authority to spend money they has been authorized at the departmental level.
-
He admittedly did NOT follow the law he was sworn to uphold. That is "breaking the law" effectively.
Can we save this quote?
The law quoted by the president in this emergency order allows spending money to support the use of the military forces. Support is the key word there and it means that he's very likely to be judged to be not following the law he was sworn to uphold.
I know you don't like hearing that, but I suspect I'm going to be right, because I'm not looking at this through a partisan lens.
-
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/that-time-barack-obama-declared-a-national-emergency-to-stop-a-mexican-drug-cartel/
As it turns out, back in 2011 then-President Barack Obama issued an executive order “blocking property of transnational criminal organizations organizations.” Obama cited his authority as granted through the Constitution to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701, and the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601. The latter is the same legislation that Trump is citing to get funding for the wall to achieve his immigration reform goals. That executive order targeted a number of criminal organizations, including the Mexican Los Zetas cartel, an ally of the MS-13 gang President Trump has regularly called out as a danger to Americans.
“Drugs, gangs and people — an invasion,” Trump said on Friday. “We have an invasion coming into this country.”
Trump all but thanked his predecessor on Friday.
“We may be using one of the national emergencies that [Obama] signed having to do with criminal cartels… it’s a very good national emergency… we’re going to be using parts of it,” he said.
-
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430335-why-trump-will-win-the-wall-fight
In the matter of the border wall, Congress could not have been more clear where it was heading. It put itself on the path to institutional irrelevancy, and it has finally arrived. I do not agree there is a national emergency on the southern border, but I do believe President Trump will prevail. This crisis is not the making of Donald Trump. This is the making of Congress.
For decades, Congress frittered away control over its authority, including the power of the purse. I have testified before Congress, warning about the expansion of executive power and the failure of Congress to guard its own authority. The two primary objections have been Congress giving presidents largely unchecked authority and undedicated money. The wall funding controversy today is a grotesque result of both of these failures.
While Democrats insist this emergency declaration is simply an effort to use executive power to get what Congress would not give Trump, any litigation would be an effort to use judicial power to do much the same thing. The House of Representatives would try to convince a federal judge of the merits against a wall, after failing to convince enough members of Congress to override the emergency declaration and a presidential veto.
That brings us back to Holmes. Congress has the authority to rescind the national emergency declaration of Trump with a vote of both chambers. The legislative branch should do so. If Congress cannot muster the votes, however, a federal judge is unlikely to do so. Simply put, the courts were not created to protect Congress from itself. Congress has been heading to hell for decades, and it is a bit late to complain about the destination.
-
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/that-time-barack-obama-declared-a-national-emergency-to-stop-a-mexican-drug-cartel/
That article is a very shallow analysis. To say that both Obama and Trump used 50 U.S.C. 1601 to declare national emergencies is rather meaningless because that law IS the National Emergencies Act. Every national emergency has been declared using that law.
A deeper analysis reveals that when the president invoked a national emergency, then he must also declare which of the iterated powers that he intends to use during that emergency. Congress has defined a limited number of powers, no president can just do anything because it is an emergency.
-
Can we save this quote?
The law quoted by the president in this emergency order allows spending money to support the use of the military forces. Support is the key word there and it means that he's very likely to be judged to be not following the law he was sworn to uphold.
I know you don't like hearing that, but I suspect I'm going to be right, because I'm not looking at this through a partisan lens.
And you would be WRONG. The President is doing his job as Commander in Chief to enhance National Security. Get over yourself.
-
And you would be WRONG. The President is doing his job as Commander in Chief to enhance National Security. Get over yourself.
We will see. I will be amazed if the Democrats do not push this as the first argument. Then again, their reaction seems to be that Trump is not allowed to declare an emergency, so obviously they are reacting emotionally too.
I don’t say that the court will tell the president that he isn’t authorized to use 2808 to spend money to build a wall because I want that to be how it turns out. I say it because I have read the English text in the law and I don’t believe that he has that authority. My personal desires do not enter into that logic.
I get the feeling that me just posting here triggers you and makes you angry. Relax. This is fun, right? None of us would do this if it wasn’t fun.
If I am wrong about how the courts deal with 2808, then I will say so.
-
Somebody needs to take her out back and give her a good spanking.
We could pay for the wall through pay-per-view of this event alone.
-
Obama declared thirteen National Emergencies. Eleven are still active.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/obama-declared-13-national-emergencies-11-are-still-active/
Based on the National Emergencies Act, the article below says that "Each state of emergency is to end automatically one year after its declaration, unless the president publishes a notice of renewal in the Federal Register within 90 days of the termination date and notifies Congress of the renewal." If it's true that eleven of President Obama's emergency declarations are still active, then that means President Trump has renewed all but two of Obama's thirteen.
Personally, I'm less concerned by whether the wall gets built than I am by whether the National Emergencies Act really allows presidents to declare national emergencies based on a disagreement with Congress. If it does, then it should be amended, because that would be a threat to the Constitutional system of checks and balances that has kept us more-or-less free of tyranny for 230 years. If previous presidents have been abusing it, that just tells me that a change is overdue.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/emergencies-without-end-primer-federal-states-emergency
National Emergencies Act:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-pg1119.pdf
-
What is the Presidents role, and responsibility with regards to security of the United States? What does our Border represent? Sovereignty perhaps? Why are many people OK with the removal of sovereignty from the United States, and putting American citizens at more risk?
-
(https://i0.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/n8-2.jpg?w=960)
-
(https://i0.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/n8-2.jpg?w=960)
NEW Voters to hijack and screw over.
-
https://ijr.com/mark-meadows-trumps-national-emergency-plan/
-
https://ijr.com/mark-meadows-trumps-national-emergency-plan/
That’s a very interesting point.
-
So far, there has only been only one legal case filed against trump’s action and I wouldn’t expect it to prevail. The complaint is from 3 ranchers who say that their land will be seized and that is beyond the president’s authority to do when declaring a national emergency. It’s a pretty stupid/desperate claim as 1) no announcement has been made yet as to where the wall be built, so the ranchers don’t even have standing yet and 2) the government was not granted imminent domain authority by the emergency order, so the claim that the emergency order is the authority by which their land is being taken is bogus.
-
I’ve been thinking about this all weekend. It seems to me there are several directions this could take, but in general I am not thrilled with the NE.
I wonder if POTUS should have let the re-shutdown happen. He is best at trolling the left, as we saw at the SOTU where he garnered approval by 82% of independents polled simply by extolling the virtues and strengths of America and the importance of preserving liberty from being subsumed by socialism.
That 82% is staggering, really. But I think he loses a bunch of them with this. Not that he drove a stake in the hearts of the socialist perpetrators at the SOTU, but it was a grave wound. The news cycle quickly is healing it, even with AOC and her dumpkof blathering.
Even compromise, and beginning to build barriers in the weakest areas, letting falling crime and safer communities speak for the barriers’ success, might have been a better strategy.
-
I’ve been thinking about this all weekend. It seems to me there are several directions this could take, but in general I am not thrilled with the NE.
I wonder if POTUS should have let the re-shutdown happen. He is best at trolling the left, as we saw at the SOTU where he garnered approval by 82% of independents polled simply by extolling the virtues and strengths of America and the importance of preserving liberty from being subsumed by socialism.
That 82% is staggering, really. But I think he loses a bunch of them with this. Not that he drove a stake in the hearts of the socialist perpetrators at the SOTU, but it was a grave wound. The news cycle quickly is healing it, even with AOC and her dumpkof blathering.
Even compromise, and beginning to build barriers in the weakest areas, letting falling crime and safer communities speak for the barriers’ success, might have been a better strategy.
Had the republicans had any actual interest in border security, they could have forced the dims into a bill (CR) to only fund the government agencies while negotiations continued. Instead, they AGREED to a bill loaded with pork and to be voted on in less than 24 hours. McCarthy and McConnell own that.
The establishment republicans are in full concert with dims to split his base away from him in an attempt to defeat him come 2020. Let that sink in for a few.
In 2020 the dims will put forth another unknown carefully crafted empty suit. The establishment republicans will do everything they can to ensure the empty suit gets elected.
That's all this is about, nothing more.
-
I’ve been thinking about this all weekend. It seems to me there are several directions this could take, but in general I am not thrilled with the NE.
I wonder if POTUS should have let the re-shutdown happen. He is best at trolling the left, as we saw at the SOTU where he garnered approval by 82% of independents polled simply by extolling the virtues and strengths of America and the importance of preserving liberty from being subsumed by socialism.
That 82% is staggering, really. But I think he loses a bunch of them with this. Not that he drove a stake in the hearts of the socialist perpetrators at the SOTU, but it was a grave wound. The news cycle quickly is healing it, even with AOC and her dumpkof blathering.
Even compromise, and beginning to build barriers in the weakest areas, letting falling crime and safer communities speak for the barriers’ success, might have been a better strategy.
Becky, I’ve thought about it too, and I tend to disagree. (Hey, there’s a first for everything!)
HOW Trump gets the wall done is of little importance to many people. NE, EO, or anything else is really too much inside baseball for most people to get too excited about.
ACTUALLY getting something done (something that Congress has promised since at least 1981 but never had the stones to mean it) will matter to the base and to independents alike.
I’ve been stunned to look at the “independents” in polls about the border, the wall, socialism, infanticide, Medicare for all and other hot issues of the day. The independent voter is really, really close to the conservative side of issue, and not the liberal side. That gives me great hope.
-
Trump needed to act very fast. 2020 is almost on top of us.
-
Trump needed to act very fast. 2020 is almost on top of us.
I totally agree. If the Dems succeed in slow walking this achievement so it doesn’t get done, Trump’s base will be demoralized, which of course is the left’s entire strategy.
-
I totally agree. If the Dems succeed in slow walking this achievement so it doesn’t get done, Trump’s base will be demoralized, which of course is the left’s entire strategy.
Exactly. Trump was elected on this one issue above all others and the delay since 2016 has got the likes of Ann Coulter and our own invflatspin turned against him. He has to complete this promise and soon.
-
and now the “big” lawsuit has been filed and it is exactly as ridiculous as expected. The claims are multiple, but boil down to “we disagree with the president”. They are claiming that he doesn’t have the authority granted to him via the Nationa Emergencies Act, that their opinion is better than his on what constitutes an emergency, that the military isn’t required, and that he cannot reallocate money via 2808 at all, when Congress explicitly granted that power.
Basically, they are just emotionally arguing against every law the President quoted.
Rather sickening.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/19/trump-solid-legal-ground-declaring-border-emergency-build-wall/
A review of existing federal laws makes clear that President Donald Trump has clear statutory authority to build a border wall pursuant to a declaration of a national emergency. Arguments to the contrary either mischaracterize or completely ignore existing federal emergency declarations and appropriations laws that delegate to the president temporary and limited authority to reprogram already appropriated funding toward the creation of a border wall between the United States and Mexico.
To analyze the legal basis for Trump’s declaration of a national emergency and subsequent transfer of existing appropriations to respond to the declared emergency, we must begin and end with the actual text of underlying federal laws governing presidential declarations and appropriations of federal funding. The most important text regarding the latter is Section 9 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[.]”
This law is what grants Congress the so-called “power of the purse” and effectively makes Congress the most powerful branch of the federal government. Not one dime may be spent by the federal government in the absence of an act of Congress. As a result, no mere declaration of emergency by the president is sufficient to allow the expenditure of funding that Congress has not already appropriated.
Much news coverage of Trump’s national emergency declaration has suggested that he is unilaterally spending money that has not been appropriated to fund construction of a wall (or fence, or security barrier, or whatever you want to call it) on the U.S. southern border, but that is simply not the case. In fact, the formal declaration of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border cites two specific federal statutes that provide him the legal basis to use emergency funds to secure the border: one authorizing the president to declare national emergencies (50 U.S.C 1601 et. seq.) and the other authorizing the president to reprogram existing federal appropriations in response to an emergency declaration (10 U.S.C. 2808).
-
McConnell wanted this bill signed, so he promised the President he would back him on the EO.
Now McConnell is preparing to back stab him.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/mitch-mcconnells-about-to-betray-the-president/
-
The aclu was founded onthe principle of worldwide communism.
The aclu said they would achieve their goal by using the courts to circumvent democracy.
The communist party (for some reason they call themselves democrats) is hard at work doing just that.
-
The aclu was founded onthe principle of worldwide communism.
The aclu said they would achieve their goal by using the courts to circumvent democracy.
The communist party (for some reason they call themselves democrats) is hard at work doing just that.
To clarify, this is pretty much literally accurate. So much stuff posted here comes across as rhetoric, but the founder of the ACLU, Roger Nash Baldwin, was a devoted communist when he founded the ACLU. He later recanted after the evil of Joseph Stalin became known and by 1940 was working to purge known communists from the ACLU.
Obviously he didn't get them all.
-
To clarify, this is pretty much literally accurate. So much stuff posted here comes across as rhetoric, but the founder of the ACLU, Roger Nash Baldwin, was a devoted communist when he founded the ACLU. He later recanted after the evil of Joseph Stalin became known and by 1940 was working to purge known communists from the ACLU.
Obviously he didn't get them all.
No, they had to repackage it. It's called "post modernism" and "identity politics". Listen to the part of the video I referenced here; fantastic summary:
http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=3389.msg60243#msg60243