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.
I'm thinking if Congress didn't sweat the other 110 (123-13) that gives the President his authority without their declaration for 40 plus years, tough *******. Maybe if they actually did their job (both Democrats and Republicans), they wouldn't whine so much.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here. It's very clear that Congress was incredibly naive and foolish to grant these Emergency powers to a sitting President. It was stupid for them to undermine one of the most important cornerstones of our democracy - the balance of powers. Our Founders understood the importance very clearly, maybe because being under the boot of a King was still fresh in their memories.
In 1976, Congress wasn't wise enough to look forward to a time when someone like Trump would be sitting in the Oval Office. Who would have thought back in those days, that the people would freely elect a wanna-be-fascist to the most powerful position in the Administration?
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.
what you fail to realize is that presidents have some leeway to move money around, money that has already been appropriated by congress. that includes trump. he isnt trying to find money out of thin air, he is just moving money around, which is his right to do since congress has given him that power, along with every other president since the 70s.
in other words trump is using the tools that congress has already given him, and its all perfectly legal, unlike obama setting up the DACA program, even obama admitted that it wasnt legal for him to do so, which is why he kept it limited, to avoid legal issues.
as i have noted before, trump is like the crew chief of a race car, he reads the rule book, and then uses it to his advantage, or in this case to the advantage of the american people.
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.
You are correct. Trump expects to be sued, and lose, in district courts and then go to the Supreme Court, where he hopes to win. However, he may be underestimating the integrity of the Supreme Court. This is not a question of a wall or a partisan disagreement about immigration. It is about maintaining the separation or powers, which is one of the most important roles of the Court.
The SCOTUS may well rule that the entire national emergency law is unconstitutional because, in its vagueness, it allows for potentially wide-ranging transfer of responsibilities from legislative branch to the executive branch for any reason. In that way, Trump's bringing this issue to the fore may turn out to be in the long-term interest of this country.
You are correct. Trump expects to be sued, and lose, in district courts and then go to the Supreme Court, where he hopes to win. However, he may be underestimating the integrity of the Supreme Court. This is not a question of a wall or a partisan disagreement about immigration. It is about maintaining the separation or powers, which is one of the most important roles of the Court.
The SCOTUS may well rule that the entire national emergency law is unconstitutional because, in its vagueness, it allows for potentially wide-ranging transfer of responsibilities from legislative branch to the executive branch for any reason. In that way, Trump's bringing this issue to the fore may turn out to be in the long-term interest of this country.
This is a hopeful outlook. I agree with you that Trump really has almost zero understanding of law or the responsibilities of the SCOTUS. If this case does get to the Supreme Court it will be one of the most important tests of the strength of our democracy in our lifetimes.
I'm thinking if Congress didn't sweat the other 110 (123-13) that gives the President his authority without their declaration for 40 plus years, tough *******. Maybe if they actually did their job (both Democrats and Republicans), they wouldn't whine so much.
Usually there is general agreement from the authorities to declare a national emergency, I don't see that to be the case. I also don't see this even coming close to solving his claimed national emergency if he actually believes that a wall is a solution $5B doesn't get us there.
"The border is tight" Donald Trump 12-20-18
"I don't have to do this" Donald Trump 2-15-19
And trump supporters keep sticking their fingers in their ears, stomping their feet, screaming in tantrums “LALALALA, I CANT HEAR YOU!!†Is it any wonder they’re children, just like trump?
what you fail to realize is that presidents have some leeway to move money around, money that has already been appropriated by congress. that includes trump. he isnt trying to find money out of thin air, he is just moving money around, which is his right to do since congress has given him that power, along with every other president since the 70s.
Here, you're talking only about funds reachable under the National Emergencies Act, which is good since that's the law. Earlier, some poster(s) appeared to imply the President had unlimited power under the Constitution to spend any funds appropriated to the Executive Branch as he wished. It wasn't clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
in other words trump is using the tools that congress has already given him, and its all perfectly legal, unlike obama setting up the DACA program, even obama admitted that it wasnt legal for him to do so, which is why he kept it limited, to avoid legal issues.
as i have noted before, trump is like the crew chief of a race car, he reads the rule book, and then uses it to his advantage, or in this case to the advantage of the american people.
Are you willing to look at how limited his access is to money through the National Emergencies Act. The power is broad; the money pots limited.
In accessing whether this is the "advantage of the American people," will you consider the impact that reallocating certain funds might have not only on other government functions (i.e., the military) but on the very situation the wall is to prevent.
What impact would taking military drug counterintelligence funds - that I think are used to destroy overseas drug supply - might have on drugs flowing into our country. (Technically, those funds aren't under the Act but the theory is the same). This isn't just about the border. Lots of drugs (e.g. cocaine) enter via Florida etc., into the NE.
Obviously, we should each draw our own conclusions. I only say first evaluate the relevant data, issues when adopting a position. To broadly say "this is to the advantage of the American people" is far from clear.
Here, you're talking only about funds reachable under the National Emergencies Act, which is good since that's the law. Earlier, some poster(s) appeared to imply the President had unlimited power under the Constitution to spend any funds appropriated to the Executive Branch as he wished. It wasn't clear.
Are you willing to look at how limited his access is to money through the National Emergencies Act. The power is broad; the money pots limited.
In accessing whether this is the "advantage of the American people," will you consider the impact that reallocating certain funds might have not only on other government functions (i.e., the military) but on the very situation the wall is to prevent.
What impact would taking military drug counterintelligence funds - that I think are used to destroy overseas drug supply - might have on drugs flowing into our country. (Technically, those funds aren't under the Act but the theory is the same). This isn't just about the border. Lots of drugs (e.g. cocaine) enter via Florida etc., into the NE.
Obviously, we should each draw our own conclusions. I only say first evaluate the relevant data, issues when adopting a position. To broadly say "this is to the advantage of the American people" is far from clear.
Oddly enough, even the DEA says 90% of drugs are coming in thru border checkpoints, by truck, rail, ship, cargo, etc, so any big wall is unlikely to reduce or stop the drug flow.
Imo, if they really want to take money from somewhere else and direct it towards wall construction and STILL hope to reduce the drug flow, de-funding the DEA and other narco law enforcement would be the most effective, Im not sure what the annual budget is for the DEA, but it would be a great start.
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.
