A moment of your time, please

[Geo Patric]

Cite the clause that the president can declare a national emergency.

not all law is IN the constitution. that is is not in the Constitution does not mean that it is UNconstitutional. The constitution does not anywhere say that the you cannot park in front of a fire hydrant. but you cannot. and that you cannot is not unconstitutional.

the idea that the executive has (or should have) such powers dates back to the writings of John Locke (Two Treatises). Himself a propenent of a nation "of laws, not men", he nevertheless saw that there would be instances where the "public good' may depend on such powers.

Such powers predate the Constitution in the U.S. The Continental Congress granted such powers.

Resolutions of the Continental Congress Expanding the Continental Army and Extending Emergency Powers to Washington, 27 December 1776.

Resolved, That General Washington be empowered to use every endeavour, by giving bounties and otherwise, to prevail upon the troops, whose time of inlistment shall expire at the end of the month, to stay with the army so long after that period, as its situation shall render their stay necessary: . . . .

Resolve, That General Washington shall be, and he is hereby, vested with full, ample, and complete powers to raise and collect together, in the most speedy and effectual manner, from any or all of these United States, 16 batallions of infantry, in addition to those already voted by Congress;. . . .to displace and appoint all officers under the rank of brigadier general . . .to take, wherever he may be, whatever he may want for the use of the army, if the inhabitants will not sell it, allowing a reasonable price for the same; to arrest and confine persons who refuse to take the continental currency, or are otherwise disaffected to the American cause . . .That the foregoing powers be vested in General Washington, for and during the term of six months from the date hereof, unless sooner determined by Congress.

the argument that the president may do ONLY what the Constitution specifically states or that he may not do only those things granted to other branches is a long fought difference. it was essentially established when Teddy Roosevelt and WH Taft disagree.

ultimately, this disagreement reappears and is decided by the President and Congress at the time.

Emergency powers are not solely derived from legal sources. The extent of their invocation and use is also contingent upon the personal conception which the incumbent of the Presidential office has of the Presidency and the premises upon which he interprets his legal powers. In the last analysis, the authority of a President is largely determined by the President himself.

Albert L. Sturm, “Emergencies and the Presidency,” Journal of Politics courtesy CRS Report for Congress - National Emergency Powers -Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division (2001)

not good enough? not surprised. nor was it for many people which is why in 1973, Congress took action to end then existing emergency action and began discussing what it meant and how it could be effectively employed, resulting, in 1976, in the National Emergency Act wherein congress formalized the need for and the right of the president to declare national emergencies"

With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

and it has been used plenty of time since, sometime for good cause, sometimes, not:

DECLARATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY BY REASON OF
CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS
Proc. No. 7463, Sept. 14, 2001, 66 F.R. 48199, provided:
A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at
the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and
the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the
United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States
of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by
the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby
declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11,
2001

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C34.txt

so, yes, POTUS has that power, implied by the constitution and granted specifically by Congress.

geo.

 

[The_Patriot]

not all law is IN the constitution. that is is not in the Constitution does not mean that it is UNconstitutional. The constitution does not anywhere say that the you cannot park in front of a fire hydrant. but you cannot. and that you cannot is not unconstitutional.

the idea that the executive has (or should have) such powers dates back to the writings of John Locke (Two Treatises). Himself a propenent of a nation "of laws, not men", he nevertheless saw that there would be instances where the "public good' may depend on such powers.

Such powers predate the Constitution in the U.S. The Continental Congress granted such powers.


the argument that the president may do ONLY what the Constitution specifically states or that he may not do only those things granted to other branches is a long fought difference. it was essentially established when Teddy Roosevelt and WH Taft disagree.

ultimately, this disagreement reappears and is decided by the President and Congress at the time.

Albert L. Sturm, “Emergencies and the Presidency,” Journal of Politics courtesy CRS Report for Congress - National Emergency Powers -Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division (2001)

not good enough? not surprised. nor was it for many people which is why in 1973, Congress took action to end then existing emergency action and began discussing what it meant and how it could be effectively employed, resulting, in 1976, in the National Emergency Act wherein congress formalized the need for and the right of the president to declare national emergencies"


and it has been used plenty of time since, sometime for good cause, sometimes, not:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C34.txt

so, yes, POTUS has that power, implied by the constitution and granted specifically by Congress.

geo.

Massive failure on your part. I'm done with you.

 

[Geo Patric]

I'll disregard the SC from FDR's era since their rulings were not consistent with what the Constitution of the United States actually says.

of course. YOU get to determine that, NOT the United States Supreme Court.

i forgot.

""the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court"

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Massive failure on your part. I'm done with you.

good. hide. you got nothing anyway.

geo

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

and... whom would you say was the intended user of Executive Orders aside from the Executive?

Executive orders should not exist in the first place.
The executive is only meant to execute law, as written by Congress.
It trumps the authority of the people.

convenient to condemn the WPA now. every president since 1973 has 'violated' Congresses right to declare war. Every president that served in congress spouted about the WPA while IN congress.. and ignored to afterward, claiming it as unconstitutional, not applicable in their own actions.... The WPA is mostly irrelevant. Even so, it has not yet been 'violated'. and, Congress is already drafting a resolution in support of m. Obama's actions.


geo.

WPA is not Constitutional period.
Only congress has the power to commit military forces.
The president does not.
Again, it trumps the authority of the people.

Both are wrong no matter which party or president does it.

 

[haymarket]

His leadership and programs avoided a second Great Depression. If he had done nothing else, that would be of supreme historical significance which helps the daily life of 300 million Americans.

 

[roguenuke]

All four of those things are well documented. They aren't just accusations.

BTW, I'm against DOMA, but it's his Constitutional duty to enforce it.

He is enforcing it, since not a single same sex couple is being given federal government level recognition for their marriage, even those legally married in certain states. What he isn't doing is defending the law in court, which is not the same thing as not enforcing the law.

 

[ksu_aviator]

1. Growing the deficit has created a vacuum in of available capital for lending to business and individuals causing a prolonged recession.
2. Health Care Reform will artificially raise the cost of health care while decreasing availability
3. Legal actions taken against Arizona for enforcing the federal government's laws has weakened the legitimacy of immigration laws and the states.
4. Bailing out non-governmental entities (read private companies) while supporting increased taxes rewards risky behavior and punishes positive performance
5. Bailing out defunct home owners has prolonged and worsened the housing industry slump
6. His "energy reform" plan (read cap and trade) created economic uncertainty that prevents the job market from recovering
7. His moratorium on drilling in the gulf has slowed world wide production of oil and gas creating increased costs as demands exceed revenue
8. Printing of money (Both Bush and Obama to be fair) has created real inflation for goods (housing price declines have kept us from seeing the full effects)
9. Established "Czars" with seemingly no oversight

That's just off the top of my head...and don't buy me anything.

 

[BDBoop]

That's just off the top of my head...and don't buy me anything.

Nada problem.

 

[Geo Patric]

Executive orders should not exist in the first place.
The executive is only meant to execute law, as written by Congress.
It trumps the authority of the people.

and yet congress, as the represnetative of the people, has never really taken any action against it. They are constitutional and some of our most important actions are based on them... Lincoln established the freedom of slaves using an EO (proclamation). IT still required an amendment to become law, but it made a huge statement.

WPA is not Constitutional period.
Only congress has the power to commit military forces.
The president does not.
Again, it trumps the authority of the people.

and again we have someone who knows better than the SC what is and what is not constitutional.

I think that in seeing the WPA as extending the powers of the presidency, you are looking down the wrong end of the tube. consider - without the War Powers Act, we got Vietnam. How is giving Congress the authority to restrict that power not a good thing?

geo.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

and yet congress, as the represnetative of the people, has never really taken any action against it. They are constitutional and some of our most important actions are based on them... Lincoln established the freedom of slaves using an EO (proclamation). IT still required an amendment to become law, but it made a huge statement.

1 good does not erase all the bads.
Congress forgoes their duty, they shouldn't be reelected.

and again we have someone who knows better than the SC what is and what is not constitutional.

I think that in seeing the WPA as extending the powers of the presidency, you are looking down the wrong end of the tube. consider - without the War Powers Act, we got Vietnam. How is giving Congress the authority to restrict that power not a good thing?

geo.

Vietnam war was junk but we haven't declared a war since WW2, clearly, offensive action against a nation is war.
The president does not have the authority to use forces, undeclared.

 

[soccerboy22]

and again we have someone who knows better than the SC what is and what is not constitutional.

I think that in seeing the WPA as extending the powers of the presidency, you are looking down the wrong end of the tube. consider - without the War Powers Act, we got Vietnam. How is giving Congress the authority to restrict that power not a good thing?

geo.

So you are saying that the War Powers Act actually restricts Presidential power?

 

[Geo Patric]

1 good does not erase all the bads.

bads are a matter of opinion. what is not is that the practice of using EO is properly in the purview of POTUS.

Congress forgoes their duty, they shouldn't be reelected.

solid democratic principle. here is another - the WERE reelected and THAT validates their actions in as much as they are not unconstitutional.

Vietnam war was junk but we haven't declared a war since WW2, clearly, offensive action against a nation is war.

a rational statement. and I do not disagree. now all we have to do is convince everybody else.

I do not think that the President should be able unilaterally initiate military action except under truly emergency conditions... like, chinese troops marching up the beach at malibu, missiles on the pad... when we are actually threatened. THEN - yes, he has every right to defend the nation using the military. This president simply followed precedent in acting against Libya - he didn't create anything new.

The president does not have the authority to use forces, undeclared.

now, see? it does not say THAT anywhere.

geo.

 

[BDBoop]

Anybody else want in on this?