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.
Trump isn't doing anything the Constitution doesn't grant him the power to do. The left just doesn't like it. Too bad.
Presidential authority doesn't apply only when the left agrees with it.
You have to remember that when a Democrat President does the same thing on an issue you don't like.
That's the thing -- it's a dangerous precedent and you have to think about how it can be used to go against what you support.
Sometimes because you can do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
And from Trump's mouth -- his own words, this was not an emergency -- it was a way to not have to deal with Congress.....and that MIGHT be unconstitutional....I'm not expert there.
Trump isn't doing anything the Constitution doesn't grant him the power to do. The left just doesn't like it. Too bad.
A President's powers extend beyond the Constitution.
A President as sovereign is head-of-State and has all the powers and rights inherent to the position of sovereign, which go all the way back 7,000 years to the first Sumerian king.
A US President also has extra-Constitutional powers and the US Supreme Court has cited the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress and the Stamp Tax Congress as the source of those powers and rights in a number of Supreme Court decisions starting with the Truman Administration and the last three decisions being issued during the Clinton and Bush Administrations (the last in 2005).
The Constitution, rather than listing every power and right, which are too numerous to list, identifies those powers and rights that have restrictions or prohibitions.
For example, it is a traditional right and power of a sovereign to declare war, but the Constitution denies the President that right, and gives that power to the House and Senate.
It's also a traditional right to engage in treaties, but the Constitution denies the President that right, and gives it to the Senate instead.
It's the inherent right of the sovereign to appoint ambassadors, cabinet members, judges and other key officials, and while the Constitution doesn't deny the President that right, it does restrict it by requiring the President to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Taxation is another inherent right of the sovereign, but our Constitution denies the President that power and gives it solely to the House.
That's what constitutions typically do. Our Constitution happens to also create a frame-work for government, but not all constitutions do, but the all either grant the sovereign additional powers, or place restrictions and prohibitions on powers.
We use the terms "absolute monarch," "absolute dictator" or "absolute ruler" to identify those sovereigns who have zero restrictions or prohibitions on power.
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.
It's not that simple.
Any fair, objective analysis will be based on the understanding that what constitutes a national emergency will be the subject of legal argument and congressional debate and not just a matter of political preference.
I do not believe that Trump will succeed with his interpretation of the National Emergencies Act, but I could be wrong.
But one thing is indisputably clear, current immigration laws should be uniformly enforced. And Congress has wholly failed in doing so.
I think we need the wall, but I would actually advocate that this law is unconstitutional and that the SCOTUS should invalidate it. Congress should never have given the President this power.
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.
Elections have consequences. The latest election of House of Representatives was a direct reply to Trump being in office. The American voter decided No Wall. Congress voted that way. With Trump usurping Congress, he's violating the Constitution. SCOTUS HAS TO AGREE.
he didn't bypass Congress's Appropriation's Clause ---that's the difference
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.
