State of emergency?

[Kurieuo]

There is good reason for the president to hold exective power. People elect a leader to lead, for good or ill. Majority doesn't always rule, and neither is it always correct.

Politics can get in the way. Opposing sides will stiffle each other, simply because they want power. That's isn't productive, and generally what I see happening. BUT, at the end of the day, Trump wins because he is most executive as POTUS within the bounds of how the system work. Julius Caesar was a brilliant leader, and he actually DID assume control and change how the system worked, from a republic into a empire.

As Rick points out, Trump isn't doing anything outside of his jurisdication. You may not like it, but there's no Trump "Empire" being created. Trump isn't setting up a dictatorship under himself. And certainly, it's not like Russia where there is really only one person to elect, and that leader (Putin) continually plays his nation's democratic system to be re-elected over and over again.

It's just a wall, which funnily, everyone on both sides has at some point said is important for the US to have.

[DBowling]

DBowling wrote:
Because prior to Trump, Presidents have generally recognized and respected the Constitution's separation of powers.

That's just plain false. And this statement just shows that your dislike for Trump, is clouding your thinking. It's getting to the point with your anti-Trump rants, that I'm taking you as seriously as I take ACB, with regard to discussions about Trump. I know you dislike the guy, but Why do you feel the need to be dishonest? Trump is not the first President to attempt to go against what congress has said, and I'm sure he won't be the last.

Oh please... that is pure and utter nonsense...
I'm not the one being dishonest here.

I have clearly defined my terms... the separation of powers that I am referring to is the Constitutional power of Congress to allocate funds. And Trump's attempt to bypass the constitutional authority of Congress by instituting a state of emergency that Trump publicly admitted that he didn't need to do.

If you can show me where previous presidents have used a declaration of emergency to bypass Congress's power of the purse, then I will be happy to admit that I'm wrong on this.
If you can't, then I would respectfully ask you to stop making untrue derogatory assertions about me.

I have not asserted that Trump is the only President to engage in presidential overreach.
In fact in my previous post I noted that I was opposed to presidential overreach by Obama.
Let me be very explicit...
I think presidential overreach is wrong when Republican Presidents attempt it.
I think Presidential overreach is wrong when Democratic Presidents attempt it.
So 'presidential overreach' is just a straw man argument, because we both agree that previous Presidents have attempted to engage in presidential overreach.

So I have no idea why you feel compelled to make the absurd and untrue assertion that I am being dishonest on this particular topic.
Like I said, if you can show me where I am factually incorrect, I will be happy to publicly acknowledge my lack of omniscience.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
Because prior to Trump, Presidents have generally recognized and respected the Constitution's separation of powers.

That's just plain false. And this statement just shows that your dislike for Trump, is clouding your thinking. It's getting to the point with your anti-Trump rants, that I'm taking you as seriously as I take ACB, with regard to discussions about Trump. I know you dislike the guy, but Why do you feel the need to be dishonest? Trump is not the first President to attempt to go against what congress has said, and I'm sure he won't be the last.

Oh please... that is pure and utter nonsense...
I'm not the one being dishonest here.

I have clearly defined my terms... the separation of powers that I am referring to is the Constitutional power of Congress to allocate funds. And Trump's attempt to bypass the constitutional authority of Congress by instituting a state of emergency that Trump publicly admitted that he didn't need to do.

If you can show me where previous presidents have used a declaration of emergency to bypass Congress's power of the purse, then I will be happy to admit that I'm wrong on this.
If you can't, then I would respectfully ask you to stop making untrue derogatory assertions about me.

I have not asserted that Trump is the only President to engage in presidential overreach.
In fact in my previous post I noted that I was opposed to presidential overreach by Obama.
Let me be very explicit...
I think presidential overreach is wrong when Republican Presidents attempt it.
I think Presidential overreach is wrong when Democratic Presidents attempt it.
So 'presidential overreach' is just a straw man argument, because we both agree that previous Presidents have attempted to engage in presidential overreach.

So I have no idea why you feel compelled to make the absurd and untrue assertion that I am being dishonest on this particular topic.
Like I said, if you can show me where I am factually incorrect, I will be happy to publicly acknowledge my lack of omniscience.

Again, you said:

DBowling wrote:
Because prior to Trump, Presidents have generally recognized and respected the Constitution's separation of powers.

Which is a load of BS. Prior to Trump, presidents have generally tried to get whatever advantage they could. And the link that I posted, if you care to read it, shows some examples of presidents who have gone against decisions by congress.

It looks like Trump is just doing the same old crap that many other presidents have done. Typical politicians.

[RickD]

There is good reason for the president to hold exective power. People elect a leader to lead, for good or ill. Majority doesn't always rule, and neither is it always correct.

Politics can get in the way. Opposing sides will stiffle each other, simply because they want power. That's isn't productive, and generally what I see happening. BUT, at the end of the day, Trump wins because he is most executive as POTUS within the bounds of how the system work. Julius Caesar was a brilliant leader, and he actually DID assume control and change how the system worked, from a republic into a empire.

As Rick points out, Trump isn't doing anything outside of his jurisdication. You may not like it, but there's no Trump "Empire" being created. Trump isn't setting up a dictatorship under himself. And certainly, it's not like Russia where there is really only one person to elect, and that leader (Putin) continually plays his nation's democratic system to be re-elected over and over again.

It's just a wall, which funnily, everyone on both sides has at some point said is important for the US to have.

K,

I didn't exactly say that Trump isn't doing anything outside his jurisdiction. I just don't know. As DBowling pointed out, that's up to the courts to decide.

And my personal opinion on the wall, is that from what seems to be coming from those who actually work the border, a wall is needed in certain areas of the border. I just don't like how Trump(again, typical politician) promised one thing, but when that failed, he wants taxpayer money instead. He did not campaign on the promise that Americans would be paying for the wall.

On principle, that just irks me. I expect politicians to make false promises, but it still irks me.

[DBowling]

Again, you said:

DBowling wrote:
Because prior to Trump, Presidents have generally recognized and respected the Constitution's separation of powers.

Which is a load of BS. Prior to Trump, presidents have generally tried to get whatever advantage they could. And the link that I posted, if you care to read it, shows some examples of presidents who have gone against decisions by congress.

Uh... I did read it...

And...
One...
More...
Time...
I also said...

I have not asserted that Trump is the only President to engage in presidential overreach.
In fact in my previous post I noted that I was opposed to presidential overreach by Obama.
Let me be very explicit...
I think presidential overreach is wrong when Republican Presidents attempt it.
I think Presidential overreach is wrong when Democratic Presidents attempt it.
So 'presidential overreach' is just a straw man argument, because we both agree that previous Presidents have attempted to engage in presidential overreach.

And Trump is NOT "just doing the same old crap that many other presidents have done"
I also said...

If you can show me where previous presidents have used a declaration of emergency to bypass Congress's power of the purse, then I will be happy to admit that I'm wrong on this.

Now... here's a link for you to read...
This is from Andrew Napolitano from Fox News
(which should put to rest the absurd premise that my position in this thread is a function of anti-Trump bias and 'dishonesty')

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump's brazen, unconstitutional overreach
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-a ... -overreach

[RickD]

And napolitano may be correct.

It's actually refreshing to see him disagree with Trump. I'm growing tired of some on FoxNews, who defend Trump no matter what.

My point about Trump doing the same BS as past presidents, means that if he is in fact found to be overreaching his authority, he'll be just one of way too many others who have done the same.

Is Trump doing it in a different way? Sure, every case is different. But it ends up being the same old crap. Presidents doing whatever they want, because for the most part, there are no repercussions.

[edwardmurphy]

It looks like Trump is just doing the same old crap that many other presidents have done. Typical politicians.

No, it's really not. All Presidents lie, but none has ever lied as blatantly, constantly, and unapologetically as Trump. All Presidential candidates run on limiting executive overreach and then push the limits when they're in office, but none have ever blatantly faked a national emergency in order to circumvent Congressional oversight. All Presidents spar with the media, but none has ever undermined them, attacked their credibility, and incited violence against them like Trump. Most Presidents have had scandals and run into legal challenges, but none has ever been investigated as a potential foreign agent based on their own public words and actions.

While being investigated by a special counsel...

And being sued for violating the emoluments clause...

While his family charity is being investigated for fraud...

With half his staff either in jail or under indictment...

Rick, it's a matter of scale. Politicians do all kinds of shady stuff. We all know that. Trump does all of the shady stuff and more, and he does it all the time. This isn't anti-Trump hysteria, it's an evidence based conclusion.

That's not to say that there's not something to this:

The legitimacy of American political institutions is waning. Media outlets must, additionally, bring attention to specific institutions and behaviors which undermine American democracy rather than single out Trump. For, in many ways, Trump is a caricature of a failed political system.

But I don't think that the author's point was that Trump is just another politician.

It's just a wall, which funnily, everyone on both sides has at some point said is important for the US to have.

No, they haven't. That claim is a lie, regardless of how many times it gets repeated. The Secure Fences act of 2006 called for 700 miles of border fence and, contrary to claims by some pundits, 93% of that fencing was built. The current Democrats are fine with maintaining and upgrading that fence, and with improving security in other ways, although they'll obviously expect some permanent action on the Dreamers as part of the package. The claim that we need a wall from the Gulf to the Pacific is Trump, and only Trump.

[Kurieuo]

What do the people on border security think and say?

[RickD]

What do the people on border security think and say?

They say, "Vete a casa. Tu no eres bienvenido aqui."

[Philip]

Personally, the whole argument over calling it a "wall" vs. a "fence" is silly! The first issue should be, what is ANY barrier trying to accomplish, and which is most effective per security vs. cost.

K: It's just a wall, which funnily, everyone on both sides has at some point said is important for the US to have.

Which tells me, there has been some level of consensus that security is needed. Meaning, whatever is put in place needs to be effective.

[RickD]

I think I have a solution to the Guatemalan immigrant problem. We should just put up signs like DisneyWorld, that say, "Must be 60" tall to come into the United States".

Voila! No more Guatemalans!

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm curious what people think about this issue.

Personally, I think that Trump is making a gigantic mistake, and the GOP is screwing up bigly by not reigning him in. First off, illegal immigration is lower than it has been in years, and it's trending down. Moreover, if this was a true emergency then why didn't Trump declare it the second he realized it, presumably 2 years ago? Why did he spend a couple of months waffling while waiting to see what kind of deal Congress would give him? He basically made a show of waiting to see if he got what he wanted before trying an unconstitutional end-run around Congress. It's like his number one goal prior to making the declaration was to comprehensively undermine his own argument.

Beyond that, what effect is this going to have on the future of our government? If the SCOTUS (despite supposedly supporting a strict interpretation of the Constitution) decides that Trump is right then we'll have a precedent for any future president to declare that their pet initiative (Gun control? Global warming?) is a national emergency and start stripping funds from where ever to pay for their plans.

Anyway, to me it seems like Trump has, yet again, brought us to the edge of a major crisis. Anybody else have any thoughts?

And Hortense, I recognize that you're a special snowflake, so I promise to go easy on you if you deign to reply.

This is another time when I tell you the truth and you listen to the MSM and ignore the truth I speak only to be proven wrong again,while I'll be proven correct. I told you that this whole fight over the wall was all political strategy to expose the Democrats.I told you that Trump ALREADY had the money to build the wall that he had it set aside. Now the Democrat Party is exposed for everybody to see that they refuse to protect the American people and they refuse to put America first. They put Mexico first. Meanwhile the wall has already been being built which the MSM denies but they are liars because not only has the wall started being built but it will continue to be built and the Democrats will challenge this in the courts as Trump said and by that time either most or all of the wall will be built and Trump will win in the Supreme Court.We knew from Q months ago that the Army Corps of engineers will build the wall.

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm curious what people think about this issue.

Personally, I think that Trump is making a gigantic mistake, and the GOP is screwing up bigly by not reigning him in. First off, illegal immigration is lower than it has been in years, and it's trending down. Moreover, if this was a true emergency then why didn't Trump declare it the second he realized it, presumably 2 years ago? Why did he spend a couple of months waffling while waiting to see what kind of deal Congress would give him? He basically made a show of waiting to see if he got what he wanted before trying an unconstitutional end-run around Congress. It's like his number one goal prior to making the declaration was to comprehensively undermine his own argument.

Beyond that, what effect is this going to have on the future of our government? If the SCOTUS (despite supposedly supporting a strict interpretation of the Constitution) decides that Trump is right then we'll have a precedent for any future president to declare that their pet initiative (Gun control? Global warming?) is a national emergency and start stripping funds from where ever to pay for their plans.

Anyway, to me it seems like Trump has, yet again, brought us to the edge of a major crisis. Anybody else have any thoughts?

And Hortense, I recognize that you're a special snowflake, so I promise to go easy on you if you deign to reply.

Ed... what goes around comes around...
If Trump's 'emergency' (which Trump admitted in public before cameras he really didn't have to do) actually survives the courts then just be patient.

As you already noted, our next President could very easily consider Global Warming or Gun Violence in our country to be national emergencies and bypass Congress and take unilateral action.
Who needs Congress when you can just declare an emergency and do whatever you want?

I am astounded that constitutional conservatives are buying into the Trumpian narrative that a Presidential Monarchy is in any way, shape, or form what the framers of the Constitution had in mind!

Why are you going along with Congress trying to take executive powers every US President has granted to him by the US Constitution away? They will lose in the courts because they cannot take a President's executive powers away just because they don't like the President. I guess you forgot about Obama threatening to use his pen if Congress does not approve Obamacare.Also you are use to Republicans losing in the courts and Democrats always winning their way in the courts,you are use to it and now even expect it because it happened so much but the Supreme Court is conservative now thanks to President Donald Trump. The days pf liberals getting what they want through the courts is about to end and you should be glad as a conservative,I am.Where is RGB? Is she alive or dead and the media is keeping her alive?

[abelcainsbrother]

From what I understand, there have been 59 national emergencies declared since 1976, when President Ford started the ball rolling.

If this happened 58 times prior to President Trump doing it, how is that setting a precedent?

Even if Trump didn't do it, who's to say a future president wouldn't do it?

It seems pretty clear that Trump will use anything in his power, to get funding for the wall. And whether we agree with it or not, if it's in his power to do it...

The real issue is using the 'emergency' as an excuse to reallocate funds thus sidestepping the explicit direction of Congress.
How many times has a President declared a national emergency as a ruse to subvert Congress' power of the purse?

I don't know, and it's not relevant to my point. Either he's acting within the power given to him, or he isn't. If he's acting within his power, then it's tough noogies for any of us who disagree. If he's not acting within his power, then he should pay the same penalty that Hillary paid for what she did. Oh wait...

Trump ran on the campaign promise that he's going to build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it! And by hook or by crook, he's going to get his wall built. He's just going to get us to pay, instead of getting Mexico to pay. Small tiny distinction.

I'd vote for a president who wants universal healthcare for all Americans, if he/she can get Mexico to pay for it.

I think some presidents in the recent past have agreed that we need a wall in certain areas along the border. So Trump isn't some radical because he wants a wall. But where I vehemently disagree with him, is that he wants taxpayer money to pay for it, when he promised otherwise.

Sorry I know you'll probably think I'm up Trump's butt,however it one thing to criticize Trump for legitimate things but not when it is not totally truthful. You see,Trump never ran on having <Mexico write him a check for the wall.He ALWAYS made it clear that Mexico would pay for the wall by him renegotiating the trade deal,which he has done as he said. More money is coming into the US Treasury because Trump renegotiated the trade deal with Mexico.So Mexico is paying for the wall just like Trump always said they would. Yet the Democrats and media refuse to admit it and give him the money he made to pay fore the wall. And not only with Mexico but also China,the UK,Saudi Arabia,etc.An example is low gas prices that are now lower than when both Bush and Obama were President.It is nice to have gas prices around $2.00 a gallon now because Trump won't allow the Saudi's(OPEC) to manipulate our gas prices while the US provide military protection for their country. Not only that but now the US is the number one producer of oil and gas also which also makes America money. This is not spin,but the truth.

[abelcainsbrother]

For all of you Trump naysayers

Ace In The Hole. For you.
https://youtu.be/WkAnOetp2Bs