billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2019 11:15:22 GMT -5
Sorry, but it isn't. This is a serious constitutional situation that has been developing for some time. President Trump is pushing it to a new level. If unchecked, it marks the end of Legislative control of allocation of government funds, an essential part of separation of powers. It will fundamental change our governmental system. If we allow him to do this, I don't see any way we can continue to call ourselves a democracy. If the president can just do whatever he wants - what do we need congress for? They will just be figureheads. Disagree. If "We the People" choose to elect one person with absolute power, we would still be a democracy. We could also choose to elect a group to rubber stamp whatever the person wants. But that is not the current system of government we are supposed to be operating under.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2019 11:20:00 GMT -5
Absolutely totally true. HOWEVER, it is not the job of the Legislative Branch to do what the President says should be done. The Congress is an equal branch of government that is tasked with spending decisions (No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law ...). The president may "... recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; ...". His recommend of spending money for a wall was considered and rejected. Constitutionally. Especially when Congress is acting at the will of the people - most voters don't want to blow all that tax money on Trump's stupid wall.
If the wall was overwhelmingly popular with the voters, Trump could at least claim he's doing what the voters want Congress to do.
There could be total support for the wall and declaring a national emergency would be wrong. The solution for that would be electing different members to the legislative branch in the next election.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 15, 2019 11:59:50 GMT -5
I just read that when he announced the national emergency he said he was going to siphon money from the counterdrug efforts. So in order to build the wall that he says will stop drugs, he's going to take money from the people trying to stop drugs from getting in? I guess that makes trump sense. Definitely rather him take it from there than elsewhere.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 15, 2019 12:09:43 GMT -5
I just read that when he announced the national emergency he said he was going to siphon money from the counterdrug efforts. So in order to build the wall that he says will stop drugs, he's going to take money from the people trying to stop drugs from getting in? I guess that makes trump sense. Definitely rather him take it from there than elsewhere. That's because Trump would like you to believe that the only source of illegal drugs in the country is Mexico.
Once we build that wall, all the drug addicts will be cured, all the illegal drugs will vanish, the economy will jump by 11 million percent (because all those drug addicts will be busily back at work and no illegals stealing all the jobs), dogs and cats will live in harmony, and a new age of prosperity and enlightenment will descend on our nation.
It's such a magical, wonderful thing, why would we NOT want this wall?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 15, 2019 12:33:23 GMT -5
So I need the next Democratic President to announce : - the state of the national healthcare to be a national emergency. - DACA to be a national emergency - Global warming to be a national emergency Cannot go back now! Once we open the door; let’s go all the way! You go Donald, for once I am rooting for you!GO GO GO DONALD!!! Democrats have lost the DACA argument. They refuse to even bring it up anymore. Trump does. maybe you should fill him in.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 15, 2019 12:36:36 GMT -5
if this is the hill that Trump dies on, wouldn't that be fitting?
an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem that the majority never supported ends up being his Waterloo.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2019 13:19:58 GMT -5
if this is the hill that Trump dies on, wouldn't that be fitting? an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem that the majority never supported ends up being his Waterloo. It continues to be important to me to point out that the topic here is the declaring of a national emergency to gain funding for something that President Trump recommended and Congress refused to fund. I think that the fitting"ness" of it relates to the American people electing a person with no experience in government being undone by his unwillingness to follow the US Constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:33:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 14:43:56 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2019 14:50:51 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 15, 2019 15:49:58 GMT -5
this is funny- from the article. Trump said this:
"I didn't need to do this. I just want to get it done faster, that's all."
if there is a legal challenge to the state of emergency, best guess is that this statement will be used against him.
he is as bad with legal strategy as he is at making deals.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,898
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 15, 2019 16:03:52 GMT -5
Well 61% of us out here don't want to spend money on a dang border wall, so that has something to do with why it was not voted in.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,106
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Feb 15, 2019 16:10:55 GMT -5
The legislative branch is doing what the people want, which is their job. The executive branch is doing what he wants which isn't his job. Trump said he expects to lose in the 9th district court because they hate him but will win in the Supreme Court (because he stacked it). Oh just wait and he'll get a lesson on government.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 15, 2019 16:17:16 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me how many times Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton used Executive priviledge and now tell me how many of those priviledges are still open today? Executive privilege and declaring a national emergency are two different things. Sadly Trump as already used his share of executive privilege and the media has already documented the many national emergencies that have not been rescinded.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Feb 15, 2019 16:20:24 GMT -5
I say Democrat’s should save their energy, do not appeal, do not engage... focus on getting a Democrat elected.
And when one is; use the hell out of the national emergency!
You go Donald!!! Show them how a big boy does it!!
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 15, 2019 16:26:49 GMT -5
I just read that when he announced the national emergency he said he was going to siphon money from the counterdrug efforts. So in order to build the wall that he says will stop drugs, he's going to take money from the people trying to stop drugs from getting in? I guess that makes trump sense. Definitely rather him take it from there than elsewhere. That's because Trump would like you to believe that the only source of illegal drugs in the country is Mexico.
Once we build that wall, all the drug addicts will be cured, all the illegal drugs will vanish, the economy will jump by 11 million percent (because all those drug addicts will be busily back at work and no illegals stealing all the jobs), dogs and cats will live in harmony, and a new age of prosperity and enlightenment will descend on our nation.
It's such a magical, wonderful thing, why would we NOT want this wall?
The drug issue is far more complex than many people realize including myself. I just finished watching the brilliant TV series The Wire. Its a great look at drug culture and other factors set in Baltimore roughly a decade ago. I highly recommend watching it if you haven't already. It explores the issue from various facets from drug dealers, corner boys, the police, the law, politicians, and education. One takeaway would simply be that getting rid of one dealer or one network does not stop the issue, it just changes who the players are for now.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 15, 2019 16:56:34 GMT -5
Emergency, my ass! This "executive action" was slammed as an impeachable offence, by none other than your hero, Trump. Trump in 2014 said Obama could 'be impeached’ for executive action on immigration President Trump declared a national emergency on Friday in order to build $8 billion in barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border. But just four years ago, he was slamming then-President Obama over the issuance of an executive action on immigration. Trump said Obama's move could “certainly” lead to impeachment in an interview in 2014 with “Fox & Friends,” which was resurfaced by CNN’s KFile this week. Obama’s actions were “unconstitutional” and could be considered impeachable offenses, Trump said. thehill.com/homenews/administration/430226-trump-told-fox-friends-in-2014-that-obama-could-certainly-beHow does that snake oil taste?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,513
|
Post by chiver78 on Feb 15, 2019 17:10:00 GMT -5
merging with the Politics thread.
- chiver mod
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Feb 15, 2019 17:23:12 GMT -5
It's pretty telling that even his supporters don't understand what he did today. Yet, they like to blame everyone else for being against it. Maybe if they had a clue they would get it.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,440
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 15, 2019 17:26:47 GMT -5
When your supporters turn on you. Ann Coulter Fires Back at Trump: 'The Only National Emergency Is that Our President Is an Idiot'Ann Coulter says she’s thankful President Trump distanced himself from her on Friday after he disappointed her once again by signing a bipartisan border deal while simultaneously declaring a national emergency to fund his wall. “I haven’t spoken to her. I don’t follow her. I don’t talk to her, but the press loves to bring up the name Ann Coulter,” Trump told reporters from the Rose Garden Friday morning. “Probably if I did speak to her, she would be very nice, but I just don’t have time to speak to her,” he added, before saying he thinks she’s gone “off the reservation” when it comes to her increasingly loud criticism of him. The president's “mandate,” Coulter said, was to build the wall. And even though that’s what he plans to do by declaring a national emergency, she’s not happy about it. “The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot,” she said. Complete article here: Ann Coulter Fires Back at Trump: 'The Only National Emergency Is that Our President Is an Idiot'
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,505
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 15, 2019 17:35:39 GMT -5
When your supporters turn on you. Ann Coulter Fires Back at Trump: 'The Only National Emergency Is that Our President Is an Idiot'Ann Coulter says she’s thankful President Trump distanced himself from her on Friday after he disappointed her once again by signing a bipartisan border deal while simultaneously declaring a national emergency to fund his wall. “I haven’t spoken to her. I don’t follow her. I don’t talk to her, but the press loves to bring up the name Ann Coulter,” Trump told reporters from the Rose Garden Friday morning. “Probably if I did speak to her, she would be very nice, but I just don’t have time to speak to her,” he added, before saying he thinks she’s gone “off the reservation” when it comes to her increasingly loud criticism of him. The president's “mandate,” Coulter said, was to build the wall. And even though that’s what he plans to do by declaring a national emergency, she’s not happy about it. “The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot,” she said. Complete article here: Ann Coulter Fires Back at Trump: 'The Only National Emergency Is that Our President Is an Idiot'From your link.....we tried to tell you!
Coulter predicted that the courts will use the bill Trump just signed to block him from building the wall, once again calling him a “lazy” and “incompetent” president who is surrounded by “absolute morons” like son-in-law Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,440
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 15, 2019 18:04:49 GMT -5
As usual, trump has offered us White House "alternative facts". AP FACT CHECK: Trump declares emergency with faulty claimsWASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the southern border while acknowledging that rapid construction of a wall is not a necessity, but rather his preference. In justifying the extraordinary step, he brushed aside his administration's conclusions that drugs come into the country primarily at official points of entry, not over remote territory that a barrier could seal off. Trump invoked what his aides called the "common authority" of presidents to take unilateral action through the declaration of a national emergency. But there's nothing common about a president taking command of billions of dollars without the approval of Congress to pay for a campaign promise. "I could do the wall over a longer period of time," Trump said, raising questions about why he sees an emergency unfolding today. "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster." At a Rose Garden news conference, Trump also claimed progress on wall construction that hasn't occurred. A look at some of his comments: Complete article here: AP FACT CHECK: Trump declares emergency with faulty claims
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,898
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 15, 2019 18:07:07 GMT -5
And now we know what kind of dealmaker he is. No wonder he kept going bankrupt and had to go to Russian mafia for money.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 15, 2019 18:21:50 GMT -5
And now we know what kind of dealmaker he is. No wonder he kept going bankrupt and had to go to Russian mafia for money. Yep. Turned down the first deal, shut down the government, and then settled for less money. The Art Of The Deal! What a deal-maker! Brilliant.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2019 18:33:08 GMT -5
Every six months, Congress can consider whether to put forward a "joint resolution" to terminate the emergency. Link Not true. Here is the law: (b) Termination review of national emergencies by Congress
Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated. link So they can meet today, tomorrow, or next Monday and as often as they wish. But they have to meet at least each six months.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 15, 2019 18:40:32 GMT -5
Every six months, Congress can consider whether to put forward a "joint resolution" to terminate the emergency. Link Not true. Here is the law: (b) Termination review of national emergencies by Congress
Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated. link So they can meet today, tomorrow, or next Monday and as often as they wish. But they have to meet at least each six months. they SHOULD meet tomorrow. that would be bril.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2019 18:43:16 GMT -5
Every six months, Congress can consider whether to put forward a "joint resolution" to terminate the emergency. Link Not true. Here is the law: (b) Termination review of national emergencies by Congress
Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated. link So they can meet today, tomorrow, or next Monday and as often as they wish. But they have to meet at least each six months. they SHOULD meet tomorrow. that would be bril. They should have met today to consider legislation that should have been ready to be introduced for over two months.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2019 19:02:31 GMT -5
So they are moving: Hours after Trump’s announcement, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee said it had launched an investigation into the emergency declaration.
In a letter to Trump, committee Democrats asked him to make available for a hearing White House and Justice Department officials involved in the action. They also requested legal documents on the decision that led to the declaration, setting a deadline of next Friday.
“We believe your declaration of an emergency shows a reckless disregard for the separation of powers and your own responsibilities under our constitutional system,” said the letter signed by Chairman Jerrold Nadler and other top Democrats on the panel. link
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 15, 2019 19:06:35 GMT -5
LOL! I just read this from an article in the Post:
“This is authority given to the president in law already,” said acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. “It’s not as if he just didn’t get what he wanted so he’s waving a magic wand and taking a bunch of money.”
um....yeah. that is actually EXACTLY what it is like.
Mulvaney is hilarious.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 15, 2019 19:08:48 GMT -5
So they are moving: Hours after Trump’s announcement, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee said it had launched an investigation into the emergency declaration.
In a letter to Trump, committee Democrats asked him to make available for a hearing White House and Justice Department officials involved in the action. They also requested legal documents on the decision that led to the declaration, setting a deadline of next Friday.
“We believe your declaration of an emergency shows a reckless disregard for the separation of powers and your own responsibilities under our constitutional system,” said the letter signed by Chairman Jerrold Nadler and other top Democrats on the panel. link I think he is being really stupid about this.
he can take about $3.1 billion without the declaration, according to the Post. combine that with the $1.4 billion he just got, and we have $4.5 billion.
so basically, he is throwing himself into court because he only got 80% of what he demanded.
fucking amazing.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,034
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 15, 2019 19:23:43 GMT -5
BTW, based on general principles of political philosophy, this is something that should particularly get true conservatives and so-called "constitutionalists" really upset. I am amazed how many are just folding up like cheap lawnchairs on this. Kudos to Rand Paul and a few others for standing tall. How many of these people actually understand such things as "constitutionalist" as a construct of meaning vs jaw flapping on fox news? Sean hannity or some jamoch condemns something and key words constitutional and so they go around spouting that tune but 2 years later same is applauding trump on this and since they didn't really have a grounding on what it meant they don't consider the disconnect? Or it was hogwash all along? Who knows. I'll wager 50/50 on how many one or the other!!
|
|