(02-25-2019, 03:57 PM)Last42min Wrote:

(02-24-2019, 11:17 PM)jj82284 Wrote: You still haven't illustrated how the commander and chief of the armed forces directing the military to construct a fence using congressionally delegated authority constitutes an "expansion" of government powers.

(01-09-2019, 05:28 PM)Last42min Wrote: It was clearly not designed to be used as a bargaining tool and/or a tool to let the President bypass congressional oversight. There's nothing in our defense strategy about securing the southern border. We are not at war with Mexico. The Mexican government is not sending invaders; people are voluntarily leaving to look for economic opportunity. He's not building a wall on Mexico's soil; He's building it on US soil (negating the foreign aspect). He is deliberately circumventing congress who is expressly opposing funding the wall. 

This is not difficult. The President, from a constitutional standpoint, does not and should not have the power to go around congress. National Emergencies are not clearly defined. The ways the President can use military funding are not clearly defined. This has abuse written all over it. It should be universally condemned by all parties that want to keep government in check. Here are some more "illustrations" for  you.

Climate change is a national emergency. Use military funding to build windmills and hydro power.

Overpopulation is a national emergency. Use military funding to build planned parenthoods.

School shootings are a national emergency. Use military funding to do a gun buyback program.

This can go on and on. What do you want to bet the military housing and construction budgets balloons to allow for this newfound freedom? One is only limited by marketing and creativity. Who would be better at abusing this? Dems or Reps? The former has almost exclusive control of media, art, and education narratives. It will be easier to stretch the definition of national emergency AND easier for them to justify their solution. If you think it will be limited to the border, you are just being naive. 

The BEST possible solution is that the SC forces congress to clarify the National Emergencies Act. The worst solution (long term) is for the Supreme Court to uphold this law as it stands. This is not a power enumerated to the executive branch. I get that congress delegated the Presidency with an authority, but it is subject to supreme abuse at the expense of the people. Sorry, man. Can't get on board with that. 

Again, you want war, go to war. I can't abide by the whataboutisms that allows for the inevitable unification of powers. Why not let him interpret his own laws, too?

I thought you were done with this? In any case, your right, this is not difficult.

The President has broad Constitutional authority as executive power is vested into his office. Article II states he has power "by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate. The National Emergencies Act has specific power with Congressional consent. You say it should be universally condemned, however, it was universally passed into Federal Law!

1.) What specific Congressionally approved statute deals with climate change? Answer: NONE You can't even get scientists to universally agree climate change is anything but a natural occurrence.

2.) Perhaps we can build a wall and reform immigration policy to address overpopulation? Good luck trying to nail down supportive definition and analytics directly related to overpopulation here.

3.) What specific measureable states school shootings are a National Emergency? School shootings, more specifically homicide by firearm-specifically, doesn't even register in the Top 100 causes of death in the US. Specific Constituonionally approved statute? Answer: NONE Better ban motor vehicles and fast food before attempting to pull this rabbit. 

This can't go on and on, because you refuse to except that the National Emergencies Act gives SPECIFIC powers as delegated by Congress to the POTUS. There are over 500 discretionary powers by way of this Act and when applied in different manners, you essentially have given the POTUS power to run a country with minimum input from Congress. Did you know COngress has not once rescinded a declared emergency? A 2/3 majority of both chambers of Congress could extinguish this National Emergency and show it is universally condemned, but it won't happen.

FYI, the SC cannot legislate from the bench. They deal with Constitutional Law and the National Emergencies Act has already stood the test of time through multiple court challenges. In fact, it was the Supreme Court that enforced the POTUS veto power as it related to the Act in a 1985 Ammendment. You state this isn't an enumerate power, but it is. It is the President’s duty to implement and enforce the law Congress makes. Congress established Immigration law and the National Emergencies Law. The President is using his independent judgement (executive powers) to uphold his oath of office as per the Constitution and Congress' enumerated powers.

I think if you review associated case law and history of this Act, you'll find a case of Congress attempting to limit Executive powers and having it backfire. Not the first time and won't be the last. People love checks and balances until they don't!!

---