If you support "national emergency" to bypass Congress, you are an enemy of the Constitution (Reagan, March)
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.
Good that Shanahan has announced upfront he won't allow the civilian infrastructure funds within DOD to be used (that's the housing and the daycares). They were reachable under a national emergency declaration.
Sadly childcare is a MAJOR issue in the military world. Especially the availability of CDC's (child development centers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
We know this assertion is dishonest and wrong.
How do we know?
Because when a future Dem President uses "national emergency" to justify appropriating billions to a policy he or she couldn't pass through Congress - be it climate change, gun control, or healthcare - you will promptly **** yourself and cry foul about the abuse of power. And so will all the other "this is cool in our book" conservatives on here.
It is obvious that the spirit of the Constitution was and is to have distribution of power across different branches of government, and that emergency powers were assumed for REAL EMERGENCIES, not to engineer the policy result that POTUS can't win through Congress. Get out of here with this nonsense about how this is in keeping with the way the system is intense to work. Nobody here is stupid enough to actually believe this.
Not every loophole is airtight closed in the Constitution because there used to be a premise that someone with some baseline integrity would be in the position of POTUS - they did not Trump-proof the thing.
As I posted before, there is still a system of checks and balances that has to be gone through before funds are available for the National Emergency that Trump has called.
It's pretty crappy that our congress cant put their personal differences aside and actually do the job representing their constituents that elected them into the job. Instead they are too busy making a name for themselves (and some not in a good way).
We have two clear "national emergencies" today; 1) Trump and 2) Confirmation bias.
Reading through the same old tired comments in this thread, it's amazing to see the time and effort devoted to making arguments to nowhere, as if ANYONE is going to change their mind about Trump's damn wall. If you are for Trump and his wall, everything about promoting Trump and his wall is good, okay, no matter much else. If you are not for Trump or Trump's wall, everything related to Trump and his wall is bad, not okay, no matter much else.
If that ain't confirmation bias at its worst, I don't know what is, and if ANYONE can argue otherwise, I'd sure like to know what that argument might be!
If you support "national emergency" to bypass Congress, you are an enemy of the Constitution
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
It's really that simple.
...
I agree. It does not matter the reason, if it was done to deliberately bypass congressional authority to appropriate funds it is an attack on the constitution.
Sadly childcare is a MAJOR issue in the military world. Especially the availability of CDC's (child development centers).
As I posted before, there is still a system of checks and balances that has to be gone through before funds are available for the National Emergency that Trump has called.
It's pretty crappy that our congress cant put their personal differences aside and actually do the job representing their constituents that elected them into the job. Instead they are too busy making a name for themselves (and some not in a good way).
When clearly people have very strong opinion about Trump's wall and what is or is not a national emergency, how can we expect any politician not to line up on one side or the other? Nobody gets attention, maintains office or gets elected by getting lost in the gray zone of compromise. Whatever that compromise might be, it ticks off too many people/votes, including those in your own party who are counting on you to maintain the party line.
Instead, the battle is over proving who is more right than wrong. Unfortunately in the world of American politics today, that's a battle not really won with facts, reason and logic, but cheer-leading rallies, propaganda, fear-mongering and an ongoing avalanche of falsehoods up to and including this RIDICULOUS claim of a national emergency!
You would think if there was any such thing, the border states would be all for Trump and his wall. Right? Yet, the opposite. If there was any sort of emergency, people would be leaving these states in droves for fear of their lives! Instead those leaving are doing so mostly to escape the high cost of living, pricey real estate. How does that happen in a state under siege? Just TOO RIDICULOUS!
You are hilarious. What Majority Leader McConnell envoked was perfectly legal, with precedence afforded by former Majority Leader Reid. May God rest his soul.
If you support "national emergency" to bypass Congress, you are an enemy of the Constitution
I agree. It does not matter the reason, if it was done to deliberately bypass congressional authority to appropriate funds it is an attack on the constitution.
You mean like how Obama bypassed congress and implemented DACA and DAPA by EO?
You mean like how Obama bypassed congress and implemented DACA and DAPA by EO?
You are more than a little confused if you start mixing your national emergencies with executive orders. "Apples and oranges."
Obama’s 13 Emergencies
Most of the national emergencies declared by Obama are still in effect.
In 2010, Obama blocked transactions that would contribute to the conflict in Somalia. The next year, ahead of U.S. military intervention in Libya’s civil war, he blocked Libyan assets in the United States and prohibited certain transactions.
In 2011, Obama blocked access to assets by those threatening peace and stability in Yemen.
During his second term, in 2014, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea through military action, Obama blocked assets of “certain persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine.”
Later that year, he took similar actions by declaring separate emergencies regarding U.S.-held assets of persons contributing to conflicts in South Sudan and the Central African Republic.
In 2015, Obama declared emergencies to block assets of persons engaged in cyber crimes, and of those contributing to the conflict in Burundi.
No longer in effect is Obama’s emergency declaration from 2009 regarding the H1N1 virus and the swine flu, which he opted not to renew in 2010.
Obama also declared a national emergency to block access to enriched uranium for Russia, which his administration later dropped.
Obama was the king of Executive Orders and declaring national emergencies. 12 times he did it. Something happening in Yemen is a national emergency? lol
Where are all the Tea Baggers to complain about the rampant spending of funds and ballooning deficit? Someone must have taken that inbred snake and not only tread on it but crushed its skull - - haven't heard from them in years now. What a bunch of ineffectual hypocrites.
What does testicle licking have to do with this subject?
Again, not that facts matter, but fact remains, declaring a national emergency is much more rare and very different from issuing an EO. The title of this thread speaks to national emergencies.
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.
