MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 18, 2019 13:12:45 GMT -8
Again somebody is taking the bulls by the horn. Yes, somebody taking the bull by the horns may be admirable in the abstract. But a president unconstitutionally usurping the powers reserved to congress by the Constitution has to give us pause. Regardless of the intent and impact, it's not a trivial thing, and it changes the very nature of our federal government. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 18, 2019 22:35:03 GMT -8
I don't think that Trump's declaration is unconstitutional, because Congress gave the Executive Branch the authority that Trump is now using with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Whether one agrees that the current border situation is a "crisis" (which is fairly subjective judgment) is not the main issue. It is not a legal question--the President is clearly exercising the authority given by Congress--but rather a political issue. The Democrats can make their case to the voters in 2020 that securing the borders is not important, and Trump can make the opposite case. I think we know how that will turn out.
IMHO, even though the border apprehensions in recent years are lower than they were 15 years ago, the situation remains a major problem (a "crisis" if you will) and has been for more than 40 years. The D.C. establishment wings of both parties have plenty of incentives to maintain the status quo of allowing massive illegal immigration, and Trump is fighting an uphill battle in finally addressing what Congress has failed to do for decades.
Jonathan Turley, professor at GWU, who seems like a very non-partisan guy, lays out the case Why Trump will win the wall fight in the Supreme Court (like the travel ban case) in The Hill:
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 18, 2019 22:40:34 GMT -8
Democrats, heading over the cliff....
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Feb 19, 2019 0:02:09 GMT -8
I have to agree with Credo. I don't see how it can be said that the president is usurping the power of the Congress, since the power to declare emergencies was given to the president BY CONGRESS with the NEA of 1976. And all that talk about not being able to re-purpose funds that Congress designated for other use, kind of ignores the fact that a huge chunk of that money was designated BY CONGRESS, for military construction. President Trump is the commander-in-chief of the military, and he is using the military to help build the wall, and to protect our southern border, so how is that not military construction? It's protecting our sovereignty, right SK80?  In addition other funds are designated BY CONGRESS, for use in drug interdiction, and Trump has made it clear that he sees the unprotected areas of the border, as drug smuggling corridors. The only thing I would not approve of would be using the funds intended for disaster relief (Puerto Rico and California) on the wall. That, is where I would draw the line. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 19, 2019 6:24:47 GMT -8
A couple of things i see: The first is not at all surprising: California Sues Trump Ovr Emergency DeclarationMind you, California is the only actual border state involved in the lawsuit, but the rest are all democrat controlled states: The second is, I don’t think they have any basis for a suit (other than they hate Trump) because the Emergency powers act allows authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), passed 1982) using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions ($10.4 billion in FY2018[18]); |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 19, 2019 8:26:17 GMT -8
"IMHO, even though the border apprehensions in recent years are lower than they were 15 years ago, the situation remains a major problem (a "crisis" if you will) and has been for more than 40 years."
I don't think you can have it both ways. If a situation has existed for more than 40 years and is decreasing, then it's not suddenly an emergency.
"And all that talk about not being able to re-purpose funds that Congress designated for other use, kind of ignores the fact that a huge chunk of that money was designated BY CONGRESS, for military construction."
Calling a border wall "military construction" is a bit of a stretch. If I designate money for landscaping, but I use it instead for leasing a Ferrari and buying porn, I can't really call it landscape spending, can I?
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,377
|
Post by SK80 on Feb 19, 2019 8:34:38 GMT -8
Does a Ferrari in your driveway equipped with porn not change the landscape out front...
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 19, 2019 9:10:09 GMT -8
" IMHO, even though the border apprehensions in recent years are lower than they were 15 years ago, the situation remains a major problem (a "crisis" if you will) and has been for more than 40 years." I don't think you can have it both ways. If a situation has existed for more than 40 years and is decreasing, then it's not suddenly an emergency. " And all that talk about not being able to re-purpose funds that Congress designated for other use, kind of ignores the fact that a huge chunk of that money was designated BY CONGRESS, for military construction." Calling a border wall "military construction" is a bit of a stretch. If I designate money for landscaping, but I use it instead for leasing a Ferrari and buying porn, I can't really call it landscape spending, can I? I see an exception to your rule in that it is not “suddenly an emergency.” By my observation, illegals crossing our borders with impunity has been an emergency for decades, but no one, least of all any president or any elected official at all, has been willing to do anything about it other than talk. to that last point, every elected official in Washington DC has, at one time or another, complained about illegals crossing the border: Republican or Democrat, every one of them. This has been one of my frustrations when the republicans controlled both houses of Congress AND also just took back the White House. They complained about it, they knew a out it, and they did nothing about it. To it being called a military construction project, I assume Trump HAS TO call it military construction. Because military construction is one of the 136 actions specifically named in the Emergency Powers Act of 1976. But, again, I would prefer he not do,it this way: I would prefer our elected representatives actually do their jobs. But that clearly is not going to happen... and we do need a barrier. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 19, 2019 9:50:21 GMT -8
To it being called a military construction project, I assume Trump HAS TO call it military construction. Because military construction is one of the 136 actions specifically named in the Emergency Powers Act of 1976. But, again, I would prefer he not do,it this way: I would prefer our elected representatives actually do their jobs. But that clearly is not going to happen... and we do need a barrier. Without actually reading the Emergency Powers Act, my sense is that it was not created to effect what Trump is doing. I believe the Founders had it correct that in the absence of concurrence by our representatives, the status quo remains. But most importantly, I don't believe our elected representatives doing their jobs should be a preference item, and the absence of it allows for usurping their authority. It was the argument Obama used to ram home ACA because we "needed" to address healthcare...and it was coincidentally a key part of his agenda. Tyranny comes in both blue and red. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 19, 2019 10:18:18 GMT -8
Speaking of "our elected representatives doing their jobs", we elected Kamala Harris in November, 2016, to represent California in the U.S. Senate. She is paid $174,000 a year, or almost $700 a day, to fulfill that responsibility. Barely two years into her six year term, she announced her candidacy for president, and she has been photographed or recorded on the campaign trail almost every day since. How many days since her announcement has she spent in the Senate doing her job? How is she representing the people of this state, and why is she still getting paid to do so? What a joke of a representative for her constituents she has become.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 19, 2019 10:33:02 GMT -8
Speaking of "our elected representatives doing their jobs", we elected Kamala Harris in November, 2016, to represent California in the U.S. Senate. She is paid $174,000 a year, or almost $700 a day, to fulfill that responsibility. Barely two years into her six year term, she announced her candidacy for president, and she has been photographed or recorded on the campaign trail almost every day since. How many days since her announcement has she spent in the Senate doing her job? How is she representing the people of this state, and why is she still getting paid to do so? What a joke of a representative for her constituents she has become. Almost exactly like a former state senator in Illinois whose entrance onto the public stage was a speech at the democrat national convention. He won election to the U.S. Senate from IL and ran rather quickly started campaigning for, and then, Winning the White House.... |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 19, 2019 10:36:49 GMT -8
Now's there's a change worth considering...no salary while campaigning. Think they'll vote for it?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 19, 2019 10:37:55 GMT -8
To it being called a military construction project, I assume Trump HAS TO call it military construction. Because military construction is one of the 136 actions specifically named in the Emergency Powers Act of 1976. But, again, I would prefer he not do,it this way: I would prefer our elected representatives actually do their jobs. But that clearly is not going to happen... and we do need a barrier. Without actually reading the Emergency Powers Act, my sense is that it was not created to effect what Trump is doing. I believe the Founders had it correct that in the absence of concurrence by our representatives, the status quo remains. But most importantly, I don't believe our elected representatives doing their jobs should be a preference item, and the absence of it allows for usurping their authority. It was the argument Obama used to ram home ACA because we "needed" to address healthcare...and it was coincidentally a key part of his agenda. Tyranny comes in both blue and red. Oh yes, we agree on this. Again, I think that is why he has to refer to it as a ,military construction in order to fit it in under the Emergency Powers Act. I also do not believe that act empowers a president to circumvent Congress. However, I believe it will stand and rightly or wrongly, he will use it to build the wall. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 19, 2019 10:50:15 GMT -8
Doesn't military construction require some kind of military purpose, like the countering of a military threat? How does this definition even apply in this case?
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,377
|
Post by SK80 on Feb 19, 2019 12:57:31 GMT -8
Do any of you see it this way, that this illegal invasion of foreigners threatens the United States and it's sovereignty? Sovereignty is an important part of a nation state's government. Without it, the rights and liberties of its citizens are not fully protected by national or international standards. This being true, is the unlawful invasion of migrants and caravans a threat to our nation? I say "YES" it is. Thus giving power and authority to protect this sovereignty by any means. If military need be.
|
|
