(02-15-2019, 08:14 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think Pelosi is making a valid point. If you think the President has the right to do this, then the next President can do the same thing. Take money that congress has appropriated for one thing, and spend it on something else entirely.
It's a major erosion of the constitutional separation of powers, and makes the President more like a king. "Just appropriate the money, and I'll decide how to spend it."
So President Elizabeth Warren takes money from the Pentagon budget and spends it on housing for the homeless.
I think it's time for the spineless Republicans in congress to take a hard look at themselves and decide if they want to give the Presidency this kind of power.
You’re ignoring the fact that this won’t serve as any precedent because it has been done multiple times before by both Dem and Rep presidents. There are still several active to this day. This money is also money that is extra with no appropriated mandate.
As far as erroding constitutional separation that is bogus. The POTUS has a constitutional responsibility to secure the borders and have a working immigration system. This is perfectly within his right. Whether Dems want to believe it or not, that constitutional responsibility is to the American people, not those of another country. The American people should be pissed that we are about to provide legal amnesty to illegal immigrants (economic migrants is the new term) while providing them food, money, and transportation. Crazy how there is this social apocalypse over tax returns but the government is about to dedicate billions every fiscal year to provide stability to members of another country over their very own and we get to pay for it!
Is anybody aware that Trump has already declared 3 national emergencies during his presidency?
Having said that, DT needs to veto this bill. Giving the stipulation of local officials signing off for the approval of wall funding is a non-starter.
(02-15-2019, 09:01 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Is anybody aware that Trump has already declared 3 national emergencies during his presidency?
Having said that, DT needs to veto this bill. Giving the stipulation of local officials signing off for the approval of wall funding is a non-starter.
Not just Trump but there are currently active emergencies going back to 1975.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/...index.html
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-11/u...what-means
The bill in its current form needs to be burned. It provides amnesty, puts specific language handcuffing barrier placement/funding, specific language to tie up barrier placement in local courts, cuts off dissemination of illegal activity to all DHS entities specifically ICE, provides funding to place safehouses along border, ecourages trafficing of persons, etc. It contains a ton of dangerous poison pills that we all know once they get funded will rarely if ever go away.
https://congress.gov/bill/116th-congress...on/31/text
(02-15-2019, 09:44 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 09:01 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Is anybody aware that Trump has already declared 3 national emergencies during his presidency?
Having said that, DT needs to veto this bill. Giving the stipulation of local officials signing off for the approval of wall funding is a non-starter.
Not just Trump but there are currently active emergencies going back to 1975.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/...index.html
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-11/u...what-means
The bill in its current form needs to be burned. It provides amnesty, puts specific language handcuffing barrier placement/funding, specific language to tie up barrier placement in local courts, cuts off dissemination of illegal activity to all DHS entities specifically ICE, provides funding to place safehouses along border, ecourages trafficing of persons, etc. It contains a ton of dangerous poison pills that we all know once they get funded will rarely if ever go away.
https://congress.gov/bill/116th-congress...on/31/text
If I had to take ANY positive out of it, it would provide choke points at the wall and shine a light on which public officials are in bed with the drug cartels. I mean, can you imagine if Jacksonville were a border city and Lenny Curry refused to build a fully funded wall?
Also, how can any set of human beings be expected to digest the contents of that 1000+ page bill in a single night? Trump needs to sit on this for the weekend and sign a CR if necessary.
(02-15-2019, 09:01 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Is anybody aware that Trump has already declared 3 national emergencies during his presidency?
Having said that, DT needs to veto this bill. Giving the stipulation of local officials signing off for the approval of wall funding is a non-starter.
No President has ever used emergency powers to do something that Congress specifically refused to do.
(02-15-2019, 10:40 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 09:01 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Is anybody aware that Trump has already declared 3 national emergencies during his presidency?
Having said that, DT needs to veto this bill. Giving the stipulation of local officials signing off for the approval of wall funding is a non-starter.
No President has ever used emergency powers to do something that Congress specifically refused to do.
If Congresspeople refuse to fulfill their duty to the constituents who elected them, someone has to step in and do it for them.
I hate the Republican party... What use r they?
(02-15-2019, 10:42 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 10:40 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No President has ever used emergency powers to do something that Congress specifically refused to do.
If Congresspeople refuse to fulfill their duty to the constituents who elected them, someone has to step in and do it for them.
Wow - your true colors show. So much for the hypocrisy of being "a small government conservative". You just want a full-on dictator. Moving to Venezuela anytime soon?
What planet do you guys live on? Game over man. Donald is going to sign the bill. And because Sean Hannity told him to he's going to declare an "emergency". We get more legal drama! That's what Donald lives for. And this one is nothing like the other run of the mill emergencies.
FWIW, Fox's Judge Neopolitano says this has no chance in the courts. The Judge has spoken! - lol.
(02-15-2019, 10:42 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 10:40 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No President has ever used emergency powers to do something that Congress specifically refused to do.
If Congresspeople refuse to fulfill their duty to the constituents who elected them, someone has to step in and do it for them.
Their duties are to meet when the speaker calls them to meet, and vote by yays and nays when called on to vote. They are never obligated under the Constitution to vote a certain way.
(02-15-2019, 10:42 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 10:40 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No President has ever used emergency powers to do something that Congress specifically refused to do.
If Congresspeople refuse to fulfill their duty to the constituents who elected them, someone has to step in and do it for them.
Who's to decide what is their duty? The President? Then the President becomes the King.
First... I kinda agree with the premise of Pelosi's statement. Things like this start a precedent.
It's always my first argument against anything.
i.e. Yeah it may not be bad to change something for now, but what precedent does it set for the next person or persons who want to change something.
It's why I push back on more gun limits (like restricting types of guns or certain clips or whatever) it creates a stepping stone for the next person to move it further.
We're seeing it with abortion... and while I have always been a pro-choice guy, the newer laws allowing for more late term abortions and relaxed laws on it kinda make me sick. And none of it would have ever happened without Roe v Wade.
But I digress...
Illegal immigration has already "cost" taxpayers 5 times the amount Trumps wanted for border wall funding. Dems want to play partisan politics and that crap goes both ways in D.C.
I don't like it, but Trump should do what he needs to get this done.
Personally I think he should just declare the emergency and not sign that stupid bill that has excessive spending in it.
1100 pages I think it was or some crazy crap? I'd say no to that much reading every time.
I'm not sure if any POTUS has ever declared a national emergency because he couldn't get Congress to cooperate with his agenda... but I do know executive orders and actions have been used and overused by every sitting POTUS since I can remember.
364 by Clinton
291 by W
276 by Barry
Since 1976 POTUS' have declared 59 states of emergency not related to weather events and disasters.
Many of which have to do with FOREIGN affairs.
Yeah..... real good use of presidential power.
Please stop complaining about stuff this POTUS is doing if you didn't complain about the previous POTUS when they did it.
Not just Obama either..... W, Clinton, HW, Carter....
All of them have misused or overused or abused their power.
If anyone thinks the one after Trump won't do more of the same.... you're a fool.
(02-15-2019, 11:57 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]But I digress...
Illegal immigration has already "cost" taxpayers 5 times the amount Trumps wanted for border wall funding. Dems want to play partisan politics and that crap goes both ways in D.C.
I don't like it, but Trump should do what he needs to get this done.
Personally I think he should just declare the emergency and not sign that stupid bill that has excessive spending in it.
1100 pages I think it was or some crazy crap? I'd say no to that much reading every time.
I'm not sure if any POTUS has ever declared a national emergency because he couldn't get Congress to cooperate with his agenda... but I do know executive orders and actions have been used and overused by every sitting POTUS since I can remember.
364 by Clinton
291 by W
276 by Barry
Since 1976 POTUS' have declared 59 states of emergency not related to weather events and disasters.
Many of which have to do with FOREIGN affairs.
Yeah..... real good use of presidential power.
going back to George Washington, the President has had more leeway to act unilaterally in foreign affairs than in most other areas.
(02-15-2019, 12:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 11:57 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]But I digress...
Illegal immigration has already "cost" taxpayers 5 times the amount Trumps wanted for border wall funding. Dems want to play partisan politics and that crap goes both ways in D.C.
I don't like it, but Trump should do what he needs to get this done.
Personally I think he should just declare the emergency and not sign that stupid bill that has excessive spending in it.
1100 pages I think it was or some crazy crap? I'd say no to that much reading every time.
I'm not sure if any POTUS has ever declared a national emergency because he couldn't get Congress to cooperate with his agenda... but I do know executive orders and actions have been used and overused by every sitting POTUS since I can remember.
364 by Clinton
291 by W
276 by Barry
Since 1976 POTUS' have declared 59 states of emergency not related to weather events and disasters.
Many of which have to do with FOREIGN affairs.
Yeah..... real good use of presidential power.
going back to George Washington, the President has had more leeway to act unilaterally in foreign affairs than in most other areas.
uhhh OK?
What about Somalia is a national emergency for us?
hint: its not.
It's just more nonsense brought to you by American politics.
Here's the first national emergency brought up by Woodrow Wilson
"I have found that there exists a national emergency arising from the insufficiency of maritime tonnage to carry the products of the farms, forests, mines and manufacturing industries of the United States, to their consumers abroad and within the United States"
Whereas we have Obama's first national emergency declaration for:
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia – Intended to help combat Somali pirates.
Good thing we're declaring national emergencies for something that literally doesn't affect us
But hey... Trump has already done something similar twice... Nicaragua and Myanmar.... with his other national emergency order being for sanctions on any country interfering with elections.
All in all most of the national emergencies used outside of weather and disasters are stupid executive orders that are signed so that the POTUS doesn't have to get congressional bills and approvals. Most of which I would deem an overuse or abuse of power.
But that's the system we live in currently.
(02-15-2019, 01:13 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 12:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]going back to George Washington, the President has had more leeway to act unilaterally in foreign affairs than in most other areas.
uhhh OK?
What about Somalia is a national emergency for us?
hint: its not.
It's just more nonsense brought to you by American politics.
Here's the first national emergency brought up by Woodrow Wilson
"I have found that there exists a national emergency arising from the insufficiency of maritime tonnage to carry the products of the farms, forests, mines and manufacturing industries of the United States, to their consumers abroad and within the United States"
Whereas we have Obama's first national emergency declaration for:
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia – Intended to help combat Somali pirates.
Good thing we're declaring national emergencies for something that literally doesn't affect us
But hey... Trump has already done something similar twice... Nicaragua and Myanmar.... with his other national emergency order being for sanctions on any country interfering with elections.
All in all most of the national emergencies used outside of weather and disasters are stupid executive orders that are signed so that the POTUS doesn't have to get congressional bills and approvals. Most of which I would deem an overuse or abuse of power.
But that's the system we live in currently.
there are statutes that specifically give the president the authority to freeze bank accounts and other assets of foreigners.
That kind of thing can't be debated in Congress on a case-by-case basis.
If they start moving a bill with your name on it, you'll get your money out to Panama or some other place before they are done debating.
(02-15-2019, 01:18 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 01:13 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]uhhh OK?
What about Somalia is a national emergency for us?
hint: its not.
It's just more nonsense brought to you by American politics.
Here's the first national emergency brought up by Woodrow Wilson
"I have found that there exists a national emergency arising from the insufficiency of maritime tonnage to carry the products of the farms, forests, mines and manufacturing industries of the United States, to their consumers abroad and within the United States"
Whereas we have Obama's first national emergency declaration for:
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia – Intended to help combat Somali pirates.
Good thing we're declaring national emergencies for something that literally doesn't affect us
But hey... Trump has already done something similar twice... Nicaragua and Myanmar.... with his other national emergency order being for sanctions on any country interfering with elections.
All in all most of the national emergencies used outside of weather and disasters are stupid executive orders that are signed so that the POTUS doesn't have to get congressional bills and approvals. Most of which I would deem an overuse or abuse of power.
But that's the system we live in currently.
there are statutes that specifically give the president the authority to freeze bank accounts and other assets of foreigners.
That kind of thing can't be debated in Congress on a case-by-case basis.
If they start moving a bill with your name on it, you'll get your money out to Panama or some other place before they are done debating.
Obviously it's "legal".
So was everything Hitler did in Germany
Doesn't make Somali pirates a national emergency situation for the US.
Or whatever is happening in Myanmar either.
So you can keep dodging the point if you want but it stands. Declaring a national emergency for whatever one person thinks is best without having it debated in Congress has precedent... and it seems to get worse the more our POTUS' do it
(02-15-2019, 01:23 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 01:18 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]there are statutes that specifically give the president the authority to freeze bank accounts and other assets of foreigners.
That kind of thing can't be debated in Congress on a case-by-case basis.
If they start moving a bill with your name on it, you'll get your money out to Panama or some other place before they are done debating.
Obviously it's "legal".
So was everything Hitler did in Germany
Doesn't make Somali pirates a national emergency situation for the US.
Or whatever is happening in Myanmar either.
So you can keep dodging the point if you want but it stands. Declaring a national emergency for whatever one person thinks is best without having it debated in Congress has precedent... and it seems to get worse the more our POTUS' do it
I think you're equivocating the terms "emergency" and "national emergency." Not the same thing.
(02-15-2019, 01:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 01:23 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously it's "legal".
So was everything Hitler did in Germany
Doesn't make Somali pirates a national emergency situation for the US.
Or whatever is happening in Myanmar either.
So you can keep dodging the point if you want but it stands. Declaring a national emergency for whatever one person thinks is best without having it debated in Congress has precedent... and it seems to get worse the more our POTUS' do it
I think you're equivocating the terms "emergency" and "national emergency." Not the same thing.
So you're saying what....? That "national emergency" doesn't have to be an actual emergency?
Isn't that the kind of idiotic political rhetoric nonsense we need to get rid of?
Definition of national emergency
:
a state of emergency resulting from a
danger or threat of danger to a nation from foreign or domestic sources and usually declared to be in existence by governmental authority
Definition of emergency
1: an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action
2: an urgent need for assistance or relief
I think you're arguing semantics and still dodging my point. This was not what Truman had in mind when he invented the "national emergency" declaration.
And every one in my lifetime has used more national emergencies than the guy before him it seems and I think it should be limited to actual emergencies for our nation.
(where a surplus of illegal aliens crossing our border would be more of a threat of danger than pirates in Somalia)
Uh oh, here comes Webster's!
(02-15-2019, 02:09 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Uh oh, here comes Webster's!
Laugh all you want, but when a word is not defined in a statute, lawyers are supposed to break out their Webster's Legal Dictionary.