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.
Democrats would probably be pleased if SCOTUS affirmed it, it would open the door to them using an emergency declaration to handle all kinds of issues; gun violence, the environment, voter suppression, you name it! It would be about as stupid as Harry Reid's decision to use the 'nuclear option' on the 60 vote rule
The door was opened back in 1976 when Ford signed it into law. To date there have been 58 declared and 31 are still in effect.
You know how Trump always seems to have tweets from years ago that directly contradict what he's doing or saying now as president? Yep, he's got one for the State of Emergency.
This is what Donald Trump said about Barack Obama several years ago when Obama was considering declaring an emergency:
No. There is no emergency, so it would be a ridiculous thing to do.
I hope all the conservatives who support this will be okay with the next left-wing president declaring national emergencies for gun control and climate change issues.
That is what Obama effectively did when he signed us up for the Paris Climate Accords by executive order, refusing to submit the agreement to the US Senate as the treaty that it was.
Relax. What Trump is doing here is effectively the same as Obama's executive order on the Paris Climate Accords, which unless I miss my guess, you supported.
This emergency declaration has all of the staying power of an executive order. So if one of the clowns that are currently running to be the Democrat's nominee for President can step up and beat Donald Trump in 2020, they can start tearing down the wall on their first day in office.
Hopefully any candidate that supports doing that will campaign on that issue, because you know Trump will.
If there was an emergency, why did Trump wait until now, after he failed to negotiate the $5.7B that he wanted for the wall?
If Americans were in grave danger to where he could justify declaring a state of emergency, why not do it months ago? A year ago?
No. Trump and republicans controlled the entire United States gov't for two years. No wall, no declaration of emergency. But just 41 days after Democrats take take back the House, suddenly Trump caused the longest shutdown in gov't history and is now declaring a state of emergency.
I mean, sure why not? Obama used executive orders to pass whatever he wanted to pass so why should I have a problem with Trump working around the system to get what he wants passed?
Partisan judge is conservative speak for judges who don't rule the way conservatives want them to.
Just a note to Trumpies out there, you started it. National emergency declarations can now be used for pet projects that can't get enough support to make its way through congress. When the left does it in the future, keep your mouths shut, you've cheered for it already.
And what makes you think that Democrats wouldn't do this in the future if they could, even without Trump "setting a precedent"?
Fortunately, there are limited circumstances to the President's emergency powers, which is why fretting about"setting a precedent" is much ado about nothing.
How many create permanent law and spend billions of dollars, use eminent domain and approve actually construction projects that are happening (outside of war declaration) without Congressional approval?
"Most of these were for the purpose of restricting trade with certain foreign entities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)"
Example Obama ED:
"In 2014, the 44th president issued a national emergency referred to as "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine,"
Example Trump ED:
"imposes sanctions on foreign entities who seek to interfere in American elections."
Similar, it seems.
Quite a big difference between sanctions and a decade long construction project involving 10's of billions of dollars, purchase of private lands, etc.
It looks like the voting is coming down quite far on the side of "this isn't that type of issue". But time will tell. Sometimes the American public seems to know stuff...this and the shutdown were to examples where the general public (majority) thought "no, this isn't really as big of a deal as he is saying".
Power to the People. Hopefully.
Declaring the Emergency is the easy part and he can definitely do that. Taking actual actions after that is the tough part.
I think he has no idea what he is getting into. But, then again, he doesn't have to actually perform. He can just leave the declaration up in the air and then let the dozens of challenges take years to play out.
I think Mitch McConnell, who also advised Mr. Trump against this action, is playing Trump.
Senator McConnell did not want another government shutdown. To get Mr. Trump to sign the spending bill, he promised to support Mr. Trump's national emergency declaration.
Next, the House will approval a resolution of disapproval. The Senate then must vote on said resolution. No filibuster allowed, and only need a simple majority. However, I have a feeling Nancy and Mitch will make sure that said votes will be veto-proof.
Mr. Trump saves face with his base, for he can blame Congress.
Of course, the alternative is court action, with the courts quickly declaring the national emergency null and void for not meeting the 'emergency' standards (recall Mr. Trump's December 20, 2018, tweet declaring the southern border 'tight'?).
Again, face saved, for Mr. Trump may then rage against the courts.
As a bonus, at future rallies he can still rail about the need for a wall.
The national emergency statute provides wide latitude for the President to determine what is, in fact, an emergency. Courts normally would be reluctant to second-guess that decision.
Trump arguably appears to be usurping Congressional power-of-the-purse making this a Constitutional issue.
This he brought on himself by pre-announcing his intent "if he didn't get what he wanted."
That may well open the door to a Court examination of whether or not, in fact, there is a national crisis.
The national emergency statute provides wide latitude for the President to determine what is, in fact, an emergency. Courts normally would be reluctant to second-guess that decision.
Trump arguably appears to be usurping Congressional power-of-the-purse making this a Constitutional issue.
This he brought on himself by pre-announcing his intent "if he didn't get what he wanted."
That may well open to the door to a Court examination of whether or not, in fact, there is a national crisis.
And that could be an uphill battle.
Obama effectively did the same thing when he signed us up for the Paris Climate Accords unilaterally, which required much larger financial expenditures ($100 Billion Per Year) - without the specific approval of Congress - than the wall does ($5.7 Billion, One Time). Of course the Paris Climate Accords was in fact a treaty and should have been approved by the Senate as as treaty.
But you were OK with Obama hijacking the authority of Congress for that purpose, weren't you?
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.
