State of emergency?

[edwardmurphy]

I have no idea if he has the power to do this. If he doesn't, then he gets it shut down.

Some things just shouldn't be attempted. Trump is working at Pandora's Box with a crowbar. This is a bad thing. This is our Dreadnought.* The Congressional GOP should be screaming bloody murder, but it's mostly crickets. That's bad, too.


* So look it up.

Nice to see some vigorous discussion, though.

[Philip]

Philip wrote: As for progressives, they seem to think immense debt is no biggie.

Ed: That's false, Phil.

Liberals want to invest in America. We want to put money into education, research and development, job training, public health, and infrastructure so that we have a secure, healthy, educated population that's ready to work at a high level and infrastructure that's adequate to the task. We want to keep America great for everybody, not just a handful of rich guys. We want to raise wages, raise taxes, and spread the wealth around so that it can work for us all. We want to follow Henry Ford's tried and true method - pay the workers more so that they can spend more in their communities, so that everybody will have more money, so that Ford can sell more cars, hire more workers, and sell more cars. That's not socialism, it's free market capitalism. A consumer economy works best when the money is out and working, not locked away in an account in the Caymans.

But none of that, Ed, refutes what I insist is true. While progressives might want whatever they consider positive things, their leadership certainly hasn't shown great concern or worry over our massive debt. In fact, every time, they go right along with the Republicans who increase the debt ceiling. But all you have to do to refute this is show progressive leadership collectively, much less individually, addressing our trillions of debt as a grave danger or that we need to immediately have a plan in place to begin reducing it - and certainly not growing it - ASAP. See, I'm not asserting the Republicans in Congress, excepting a few, give it more than brief mention - so both parties on this are about just as bad!

Ed: It's also worth noting that the idea that deficits don't matter is classic Reaganomics, that the last time we had a balanced budget it was under Bill Clinton, and that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are the reason that the deficit is so insanely high today.

That doesn't refute my assertion either. But are you using it to defend the danger of the debt, or to attack it?

Ed: The reality is that the liberals want to tax and spend (meaning invest) and the conservatives want to cut taxes and spend anyway until there's a budget crisis that they can use to justify cutting benefits for the poor. That's literally happening right now, by the way.

So, then, the bottom line is that both parties have failed to compromise and find a budget that they will commit to staying within - to stop the spiraling debt monster! Because that's the bottom line. And until leaders in at least one - and hopefully within BOTH parties agree A) that the ever-growing debt is dangerous and a threat and B) are BOTH willing to compromise on a budget they'll stick to, and a commitment to stop raising the ceiling - it's going to continue. So, it's a bi-partisan failure of leadership and responsibility! And as Trump is at the top of the government - as he has the "bully pulpit" - then he should be warning and planning on this issue more than anyone!

[edwardmurphy]

It's not bipartisan, Phil. I do my best to be balanced in my views, but sometimes one side is to blame, period. The GOP shotgunned Trump's tax bill through over the objections of the Democratic minority. The Dems would have stopped it if they could have, but they couldn't. They have literally nothing to do with the massive new deficit increase.

As far as raising the debt ceiling, what else can they do? Government shutdowns cost billions of dollars and add to the debt while simultaneously weakening the economy and disrupting people's lives. Raising the debt ceiling is like spraying water on a fire - the water is going to damage the house, but the fire is worse so you do what you have to do. Then, once the crisis has passed, you make a plan and you rebuild.

So yeah, the Dems went along with raising the debt ceiling, but Clinton got us a balanced budget and Obama inherited a financial catastrophe and handed Trump a growing economy with a reduced deficit. The GOP exploded the deficit before and after Clinton and again after Obama. Those GOP "fiscal conservatives" talk a good game, but at the end of the day what they want is to cut taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor, and to do it at all costs.

[Philip]

Ed, again, my question is a request to show me evidence of key elected progressives showing concern about the grave dangers of ignoring our debt - I'm not asking for a he said, she said, or "what else can they do?" Believe me, I'm just as upset at the Republicans who likewise pretend it's not an important thing to address. But as NEITHER parties' leaders are drawing attention to it, then it truly is a BI-PARTISAN failure to address an important issue. And I realize compromise over a complex issue is very difficult. But admitting there is a serious danger and drawing attention to it would be a start! Apparently we're all out of "Paul Reveres" in the upper leadership of this country!

OH, but then there is the issue of taxpayers - as no one want's to sacrifice cuts in anything. So the politicians don't want to serve up cold, hard reality of what the debt dangers represent - of both now and later, to voters!

I just don't look at things as being one party of saints and the other of sinners (remember, we're talking about politicians here, many of them also lawyers)!

[Kurieuo]

All previous US presidencies stated a wall being needed, while they all failed to really deliver much it seems (given it's still an issue). So I don't see what the hoo-ha is about, except Trump campaigned on the wall, and Dems (and those who dislike him) are digging in their heels against a Trump-ism. It's really blown out of proportion like most political things in the US.

[DBowling]

All previous US presidencies stated a wall being needed, while they all failed to really deliver much it seems (given it's still an issue). So I don't see what the hoo-ha is about, except Trump campaigned on the wall, and Dems (and those who dislike him) are digging in their heels against a Trump-ism. It's really blown out of proportion like most political things in the US.

The "hoo-ha" is about Trump using a state of emergency as a ruse to get around Congress' refusal to allocate money for the wall.

Ed actually does a pretty good job of describing the problem here

We aren't alarmed because Trump declared a national emergency; that's nothing new. We're alarmed because he's transparently faking a national emergency in order to make a blatantly unconstitutional attack on the separation of powers. The President isn't a king. He's supposed to protect, uphold, and obey the Constitution of the United States of America, and that Constitution states very clearly that Congress, not the President, has the power to allocate funds.

According to the US Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse.
In this case Congress explicitly refused to give Trump as much money as he wanted for his wall.

How does Trump respond?
He is violating the Constitutional separation of powers by attempting to use a declaration of emergency as a ruse to sidestep Congress' Constitutional authority to allocate funds.

Trump was unable to fulfill his campaign promise to get Mexico to pay for the wall.
Trump was unable to get Congress to give him as much money as he wanted for the wall (even when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress). .
So Trump is now attempting to sidestep the Constitution's separation of powers and use a declaration of emergency as a ruse to spend the money he wants for his wall.

The 'hoo-ha' is Trump attempting to violate the US Constitution's separation of powers to spend money on something that he does not have the Constitutional authority to spend money on.

The Courts (and eventually the Supreme Court) will have to decide whether Presidents can use a 'state of emergency' to override Congress when Congress refuses to allocate funds for something the President wants.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
The Courts (and eventually the Supreme Court) will have to decide whether Presidents can use a 'state of emergency' to override Congress when Congress refuses to allocate funds for something the President wants.

Hypothetically, if the courts decide that Presidents can use a state of emergency to override congress, then would Trump still be "violating the Constitutional separation of powers"?

[Philip]

To me, I think it is ill advised that one person overides the entire Body of our elected representatives to get all that he wants - because of how might that play out far more dangerously in the future. But by not compromising, no party or faction will get even part of what each wants.

[DBowling]

DBowling wrote:
The Courts (and eventually the Supreme Court) will have to decide whether Presidents can use a 'state of emergency' to override Congress when Congress refuses to allocate funds for something the President wants.

Hypothetically, if the courts decide that Presidents can use a state of emergency to override congress, then would Trump still be "violating the Constitutional separation of powers"?

The President does not have that power based on the Constitution. That's not the question here.

The question at hand is whether or not Congress inadvertently ceded that power to the President with the National Emergencies Act in 1976.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
The Courts (and eventually the Supreme Court) will have to decide whether Presidents can use a 'state of emergency' to override Congress when Congress refuses to allocate funds for something the President wants.

Hypothetically, if the courts decide that Presidents can use a state of emergency to override congress, then would Trump still be "violating the Constitutional separation of powers"?

The President does not have that power based on the Constitution. That's not the question here.

The question at hand is whether or not Congress inadvertently ceded that power to the President with the National Emergencies Act in 1976.

Ah, so Congress may have inadvertently opened up the door to allow Trump to do what he's doing? And If that's the case, Trump is actually playing within the rules which are now allowed(because of Congress)?

Sounds like a smart politician.

This Trump guy may turn out to be a politician after all.

[DBowling]

Ah, so Congress may have inadvertently opened up the door to allow Trump to do what he's doing?

"may have" are the operative words here.
Whether Congress did or did not cede their Constitutional power to the President in 1976 has not been tested in the courts yet.
Because prior to Trump, Presidents have generally recognized and respected the Constitution's separation of powers.

That's why what the courts decide in this case is so important.

[Philip]

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

That's why what the courts decide in this case is so important.

Well, there is what might be technically legal, but also what might be best for the country. And one man unnecessarily overriding the entire Congress can't be a good precedent! No president, unless absolutely necessary / facing some grave danger, should override all of the people's representatives, because then they effectively rule as does a dictator. And so many who come after Trump might be tempted to take the same route.

[RickD]

Ah, so Congress may have inadvertently opened up the door to allow Trump to do what he's doing?

"may have" are the operative words here.
Whether Congress did or did not cede their Constitutional power to the President in 1976 has not been tested in the courts yet.
Because prior to Trump, Presidents have generally recognized and respected the Constitution's separation of powers.

That's why what the courts decide in this case is so important.

I think you have Trump blinders on. Just do a google search on "Presidential overreach", and you'll see that many presidents have tried to overreach their executive powers.

In fact, Obama tried to overreach his powers in 2014, regarding deportation laws.

[DBowling]

Ah, so Congress may have inadvertently opened up the door to allow Trump to do what he's doing?

"may have" are the operative words here.
Whether Congress did or did not cede their Constitutional power to the President in 1976 has not been tested in the courts yet.
Because prior to Trump, Presidents have generally recognized and respected the Constitution's separation of powers.

That's why what the courts decide in this case is so important.

I think you have Trump blinders on. Just do a google search on "Presidential overreach", and you'll see that many presidents have tried to overreach their executive powers.

In fact, Obama tried to overreach his powers in 2014, regarding deportation laws.

I opposed Obama when he overreached his powers as well.
So I am very consistent on the issue of Presidential overreach.

The people with blinders are those who pushed back against Obama's overreach but are rolling over to Trump.

However, the unconvenient fact remains that no President prior to Trump has tried to bypass the constitutional power of Congress to allocate money with the ruse of declaring an emergency (that Trump said in public he really didn't need to do)

[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.

http://hipporeads.com/trumping-the-exec ... -balances/