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.
Every president since 1976 has declared a national emergency. Only one of them has done so as an end run around a failed negotiation with Congress. (Hint: not Obama) Most of the 59 times a president has done this, it has been to apply sanctions and sucj to people, countries and groups who were lined to terrorists. This is a new kind of "national emergency" and it will be tested by the courts. Get your popcorn ready.
Obama EO on DACA,,,,, wasn't that after failed negotiation with Congress?
how about Congress declaring war first before invading and occupying countries since Vietnam?
the constitution demands that. The fact is for decades Congress has giving the Executive Branch lots of powers because they are too lazy or don't want the responsibility politically to handle.
Didn't Congress voted not to go to Syria and waged war and Obama did it anyway?
For decades Congress has given President powers on wars, EO and emergency act that now some want to put the cat back in the bag because Trump is using the powers Congress gave the Executive Branch.....well, good luck! the chickens have come home to roost.
Obama EO on DACA,,,,, wasn't that after failed negotiation with Congress?
how about Congress declaring war first before invading and occupying countries since Vietnam?
the constitution demands that. The fact is for decades Congress has giving the Executive Branch lots of powers because they are too lazy or don't want the responsibility politically to handle.
Didn't Congress voted not to go to Syria and waged war and Obama did it anyway?
For decades Congress has given President powers on wars, EO and emergency act that now some want to put the cat back in the bag because Trump is using the powers Congress gave the Executive Branch.....well, good luck! the chickens have come home to roost.
The OP asked a question about Obama's National Emergencies. Now that the question didn't reveal the answer many wanted, others are still on the "But Obama" trail. If Trump loyalists need to defend Trump by saying "But Obama," there's something wrong there. The answer is either that 1.) Obama didn't really do the things Trump and his supporters are claiming or 2.) Trump supporters are now saying that the things they attacked Obama for doing weren't really bad things that Obama was doing in the first place or 3.) OK, they were bad, but now that Trump wants to do them, it's OK. None of these are good looks for Trump supporters.
Truth is, in my opinion and may others, this "national emergency" by Trump is the sign of a bad president doing a bad thing tying to attain more power. I don't really need to need if it has been done before/
Again Obama knew our Constitutional Laws so it wasn't a "pass", the difference is that Trump thinks he can by-pass our Laws.
Big difference.
You dream. Trump is unable to enforce the immigration laws that congress passed and various presidents signed.
Yet, Trump is required to cause these laws to be enforced. He is (Article II) the "Singular Executive", so it is up to him and no one else to cause this enforcement.
The inability of the various departments to enforce existing immigration law constitutes a national emergency.
Trump does not want to "by-pass our laws", as you say. He wants to enforce them.
.............Truth is, in my opinion and may others, this "national emergency" by Trump is the sign of a bad president doing a bad thing tying to attain more power. I don't really need to need if it has been done before/
See the above comments, and then point to us what power The President is trying to attain.
The President is charged (Article II) with enforcing law. All presidents are. He is unable to enforce immigration law because people simply walk in. That's why we Republicans elected him - because he said he would enforce immigration law.
Enforcing existing immigration law, My Friend, is not "attaining power".
Enforcing existing immigration law, My Friend, is not "attaining power".
Where did I say it was? He's trying to get more power through this "national emergency." This year it's an "emergency" at the border. Next year who knows what the emergency is? And when Democrats regain the presidency, maybe they use this asinine reasoning for gun control or health insurance for all
You dream. Trump is unable to enforce the immigration laws that congress passed and various presidents signed.
Yet, Trump is required to cause these laws to be enforced. He is (Article II) the "Singular Executive", so it is up to him and no one else to cause this enforcement. The inability of the various departments to enforce existing immigration law constitutes a national emergency.
Trump does not want to "by-pass our laws", as you say. He wants to enforce them.
The only "National Emergency" that exists is under that coiffed Orange rat's nest Trump calls a brain and his delusional #Cult45# members.
You're partially correct - this whole thing is not about the money. As you said, $6 billion is pretty insignificant in relation to the entire budget.
It also has nothing to do with a wall or border security. If Trump really cared about illegal immigration, he would want to use more effective measures like mandatory e-verify and enhanced surveillance technology.
The whole dispute is about power. For two years Trump could do as he wished. Then Democrats got a little bit of power and said, "whoa, you can't just do whatever you want". And Trump is saying "Oh yes I can!". Both sides are just trying to look tough to impress their base.
Sure, there's some truth to that.
But regarding e-verify and enhanced surveillance technology.....
Those things have their own problems.
First, they don't actually stop anyone from physically crossing the border.
And second, they are only as effective as any given administration's willingness to use and enforce them.
Once a wall is up... it's up until it's torn down or falls down.
Sometimes "crude technology" has it's own unique advantages.
That executive order along with all others Obama wrote, raised no serious constitutional questions. Pubs whimpered and whined just for political posturing.
What we have now with tRump's so-called "emergency" is grounds for MANY lawsuits and will be strongly contested in court.
The Constitutional issue with Obama's executive order on DACA was that the President IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED TO SINGLE HANDEDLY WRITE IMMIGRATION LAW.
And I'm sure that Trump's emergency declaration will be "strongly contested in court"........
Eventually it will make it to the Supreme Court......
And when that happens, you should prepare for ....
Every president since 1976 has declared a national emergency. Only one of them has done so as an end run around a failed negotiation with Congress. (Hint: not Obama) Most of the 59 times a president has done this, it has been to apply sanctions and sucj to people, countries and groups who were lined to terrorists. This is a new kind of "national emergency" and it will be tested by the courts. Get your popcorn ready.
This post needs to go on loop or recording....If I may, Joe the Photog, I will be utilizing the concise explanation you have provided in future conversations etc......
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.
