Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the basic ideas of the Constitution is that (1) Presidents don't make the laws, and (2) certain powers - including Power of the Purse - are reserved for the Congress.
With this "national emergency," you conservatives support your guy just bypassing Congress altogether and implementing his policies (which he couldn't get support through Congress) via royal decree.
That's basically called a dictatorship. Might as well disband Congress and just annoint Donald as King.
If you're for this stuff, then you're opposed to the spirit and concept of the Constitution.
In fact, its conditions like this, that the Constitution permits 'the people', AKA citizens, to stand up and remove a govt from power, (by force if necessary), however when this becomes an actual DUTY/ requirement, versus when its just 'optional', Im not sure on that.
I am certain though, refusing to do ones duty as an American citizen is tantamount to treason, I believe this would also apply if it happened to be 'too inconvenient' or 'too risky', (those excuses would not be justifiable.)
Its not one party or another, its 'Govt as a whole'. its only an illusion that there are separate political parties....THAT is the very tool they are using to divide the people right now.
All those who are hyperventilating over Trump using a national emergency to bypass congress, were you equally upset when Obama did it 13 times?
Obama never did this because he was trying to get around a vote of the Congress. The Congress has, according to the Constitution, the "power of the purse." It seems unconstitutional for the president to seize control of spending.
President Barack Obama
April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.
February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).
May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.
March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.
April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.
March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.
April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.
Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.
You may notice that every one was about blocking the property of various groups of people. Not one was over a spending bill or authorization of funds.
In fact, its conditions like this, that the Constitution permits 'the people', AKA citizens, to stand up and remove a govt from power, (by force if necessary), however when this becomes an actual DUTY/ requirement, versus when its just 'optional', Im not sure on that.
I am certain though, refusing to do ones duty as an American citizen is tantamount to treason, I believe this would also apply if it happened to be 'too inconvenient' or 'too risky', (those excuses would not be justifiable.)
Agree all you want...it doesn't matter.
Since 1935, the Court has not struck down a delegation to an administrative agency. Rather, the Court has approved, “without deviation, Congress’s ability to delegate power under broad standards.” The Court has upheld, for example, delegations to administrative agencies to determine “excessive profits” during wartime, to determine “unfair and inequitable distribution of voting power” among securities holders, to fix “fair and equitable” commodities prices, to determine “just and reasonable” rates, and to regulate broadcast licensing as the “public interest, convenience, or necessity require.” During all this time the Court “has not seen fit . . . to enlarge in the slightest [the] relatively narrow holdings” of Panama Refining and Schechter
The way we get new alphabet agencies (FAA, DOE, EPA, etc.) in the executive branch is by Congress passing a law that that creates such an agency.
NFN, FDR's buddies in the Congress created all sorts of new federal agencies that were under the direct control of the executive.
After legislation that creates a new agency is enacted, powers are transferred from the legislature to the executive for the purpose of enforcing the law(s) and regulations that the new agency is to act upon and enforce.
Nothing new here, and nothing the left objected to when it was the EPA, IRS, EEOC, etc. doing things the left liked under the supervision of a president like Obama, Clinton, Carter, etc.
One of the basic ideas of the Constitution is that (1) Presidents don't make the laws, and (2) certain powers - including Power of the Purse - are reserved for the Congress.
With this "national emergency," you conservatives support your guy just bypassing Congress altogether and implementing his policies (which he couldn't get support through Congress) via royal decree.
That's basically called a dictatorship. Might as well disband Congress and just annoint Donald as King.
If you're for this stuff, then you're opposed to the spirit and concept of the Constitution.
Trump supporters don't want a constitution, they want a right-wing dictatorship, that will suppress all those not on their radical side of things. If Trump is allowed to succeed in this attempt to destroy democracy, he will keep going and take away all our rights. We would end up in no better shape than Venezuela, if we don't stop him now. And his ignorant supporters think they would be favored and privileged by such a regime. But they would have a grim revelation, when they were treated no better than any of this dictator's subjects.
Last edited by Steve McDonald; 02-17-2019 at 03:07 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
