• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Emergency/No Emergency (1 Viewer)

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
65,132
Reaction score
55,680
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What constitutes a “national emergency?” Trump pretty much states that a “national emergency” is contingent on whether he gets his way or not. If he cannot “get it done” any other way? Can an emergency be based on how the opposition party votes?

To those who know the Constitution better than I, is he on solid ground stating he has the “right” to declare an “emergency?”
 
Yes, as POTUS he has the power to declare an emergency. (The government does not have "rights").

As for what constitutes an "emergency"....well....that can be subjective.

IMO......

According to DHS roughly 30k people per month are apprehended trying to cross into the US. The government also bases how many illegal aliens are in the country on how many people are apprehended at the border. So essentially we have 60k people trying to enter the US illegally every month with half of them being caught and the other half making it into the US undetected. Is this less than in previous years? Yes it is. Does that mean its not a crisis? Nope. If a town gets fully flooded one year and then the next 2 years only 3/4ths of the town gets flooded and then the next 3 years it only gets half flooded that does not mean that it still cannot to be considered a crisis. 60k people attempting to enter the US monthly which adds up to 720k per year with half of that succeeding is most definitely a crisis.
 
What constitutes a “national emergency?” Trump pretty much states that a “national emergency” is contingent on whether he gets his way or not. If he cannot “get it done” any other way? Can an emergency be based on how the opposition party votes?

To those who know the Constitution better than I, is he on solid ground stating he has the “right” to declare an “emergency?”

The national emergency POTUS power is not in the constitution at all - it is in a law passed by congress in 1976.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act
 
What constitutes a “national emergency?” Trump pretty much states that a “national emergency” is contingent on whether he gets his way or not. If he cannot “get it done” any other way? Can an emergency be based on how the opposition party votes?

To those who know the Constitution better than I, is he on solid ground stating he has the “right” to declare an “emergency?”

Now to answer your question as it regards the Wall and him using his Emergency Powers to build it.

I don't honestly know.

While I personally might view 60k per month of illegals attempting to enter our country illegally as a crisis this does not mean that Congress or the law will see it as such.

Trump is going to have to prove that there is an emergency based off of what is in existing law. I do not know the law well enough to know if there is a provision in existing law that allows for the type of emergency that Trump is referring to. If he can't then he has no standing to declare this an emergency and will be shot down by the courts.

If however he can tie it to existing law then he can declare an emergency and the courts (assuming no bias getting involved which frankly now a days I doubt) will not shoot him down.

However if Congress disagree's with Trump and regardless if he can tie it to existing law, Congress can over ride it with a simple majority vote and a Presidential signature OR with a 2/3rds vote that will over ride Trumps ability to Veto.
 
What constitutes a “national emergency?” Trump pretty much states that a “national emergency” is contingent on whether he gets his way or not. If he cannot “get it done” any other way? Can an emergency be based on how the opposition party votes?

To those who know the Constitution better than I, is he on solid ground stating he has the “right” to declare an “emergency?”

Now that I've answered your questions in two different ways and to the best of my ability I'd like to ask you a question if you don't mind....

60k people trying to enter this country every month is a LOT of people. In fact that is more people than Coeur D'alene (50k population, the largest city closest to us). Yearly that's 720k people yearly which is larger than most regular sized cities in the US (Spokane WA for example has 208k population). Why wouldn't that be considered a crisis iyo?
 
Now that I've answered your questions in two different ways and to the best of my ability I'd like to ask you a question if you don't mind....

60k people trying to enter this country every month is a LOT of people. In fact that is more people than Coeur D'alene (50k population, the largest city closest to us). Yearly that's 720k people yearly which is larger than most regular sized cities in the US (Spokane WA for example has 208k population). Why wouldn't that be considered a crisis iyo?

Kal, the numbers bandied about are all over the map. 1000 a day, your number is 2000 a day. This Administration is all over numbers as well. This Administration had a majority in Congress for two years and now it is deemed a crisis?I am not for open borders, but I have yet to see a “concrete” plan. Which prototype does he like where? What about private land? Who will be hired to construct this wall? “The Wall” has become a rallying slogan. The latest 5.something billion is going to be spent how?
 
Kal, the numbers bandied about are all over the map. 1000 a day, your number is 2000 a day. This Administration is all over numbers as well. This Administration had a majority in Congress for two years and now it is deemed a crisis?I am not for open borders, but I have yet to see a “concrete” plan. Which prototype does he like where? What about private land? Who will be hired to construct this wall? “The Wall” has become a rallying slogan. The latest 5.something billion is going to be spent how?

Actually the numbers are consistent. They've just been presented differently. When Trump gave his address he only spoke towards those that were apprehended. Which that 1000 is. I've just added the extra 1000 based on DHS stating that they base their figures on how many illegals are entering the US undetected by how many are apprehended.

As for why this is just now being called a crisis? :shrug: beats me. But for me it doesn't change whether or not it can be or should be considered as such. I've felt for years that it should be considered as such. In the end I'd imagine it comes down to politics really...at least when it comes to politicians.

As for the rest of your questions, I don't know exact details. Sorry.

But could you answer my question a bit more directly? I get what you said here but it doesn't really tell me why you personally think that it isn't a crisis? Perhaps I should rephrase and put your OP question to you...."What constitutes a “national emergency?“"....to you when it comes to illegal immigration?
 
Actually the numbers are consistent. They've just been presented differently. When Trump gave his address he only spoke towards those that were apprehended. Which that 1000 is. I've just added the extra 1000 based on DHS stating that they base their figures on how many illegals are entering the US undetected by how many are apprehended.

As for why this is just now being called a crisis? :shrug: beats me. But for me it doesn't change whether or not it can be or should be considered as such. I've felt for years that it should be considered as such. In the end I'd imagine it comes down to politics really...at least when it comes to politicians.

As for the rest of your questions, I don't know exact details. Sorry.

But could you answer my question a bit more directly? I get what you said here but it doesn't really tell me why you personally think that it isn't a crisis? Perhaps I should rephrase and put your OP question to you...."What constitutes a “national emergency?“"....to you when it comes to illegal immigration?

This may well qualify as a “national emergency.” I view this the same way as the Syria pullout was announced. I am all for the troops coming home. Not the way it was approached.

This seems to be an underhanded way of running the country, and if Trump is successful, a dangerous precedent will be set.

All I can rely on is my news sources as I am far removed from the southern border, and I try not to buy into much of the editorializing. You are a ways away as well?
 
This may well qualify as a “national emergency.” I view this the same way as the Syria pullout was announced. I am all for the troops coming home. Not the way it was approached.

This seems to be an underhanded way of running the country, and if Trump is successful, a dangerous precedent will be set.

All I can rely on is my news sources as I am far removed from the southern border, and I try not to buy into much of the editorializing. You are a ways away as well?

Trump definitely does things his way. And I often don't agree with how he approaches and gets things done, even if I do agree with him on the fact that the thing he wants done needs done.

And yep, I'm FAR away from the southern border. Right next to the Canadian border in fact.
 
Now that I've answered your questions in two different ways and to the best of my ability I'd like to ask you a question if you don't mind....

60k people trying to enter this country every month is a LOT of people. In fact that is more people than Coeur D'alene (50k population, the largest city closest to us). Yearly that's 720k people yearly which is larger than most regular sized cities in the US (Spokane WA for example has 208k population). Why wouldn't that be considered a crisis iyo?

Because there is a system in place already. If Trump really wants, he can work to beef it up further. The dems had already signed off on further funding for both wall and for other measures. He could’ve taken that for now, and worked on the rest later. Trump was good to go -before Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter expressed their disapproval and forced him to paint himself into such a corner.
 
Kal, the numbers bandied about are all over the map. 1000 a day, your number is 2000 a day. This Administration is all over numbers as well. This Administration had a majority in Congress for two years and now it is deemed a crisis?I am not for open borders, but I have yet to see a “concrete” plan. Which prototype does he like where? What about private land? Who will be hired to construct this wall? “The Wall” has become a rallying slogan. The latest 5.something billion is going to be spent how?

Okay, let's keep it simple. Are these people crossing the border legal or illegal? Just answer that.
 
Okay, let's keep it simple. Are these people crossing the border legal or illegal? Just answer that.

Musta slept in today, these drive-by posts usually show up earlier................:2wave:
 
What constitutes a “national emergency?” Trump pretty much states that a “national emergency” is contingent on whether he gets his way or not. If he cannot “get it done” any other way? Can an emergency be based on how the opposition party votes?

To those who know the Constitution better than I, is he on solid ground stating he has the “right” to declare an “emergency?”

Don't forget, this is the guy who estimated the worth of his name by the mood he was in.

Thanks asshole Republicans.
 
Trump definitely does things his way. And I often don't agree with how he approaches and gets things done, even if I do agree with him on the fact that the thing he wants done needs done.

And yep, I'm FAR away from the southern border. Right next to the Canadian border in fact.

If you really want to see this wall, tell Republicans to come up with a decent proposal for this wall. Right now Trump is asking for $5.7B for what? A fence? A wall? Slats? Where will this "barrier" be? Will it cover the entire border, or only on federal lands where there will be no eminent domain? We have almost zero details for this thing, and they want $5.7B of tax-payer money -- or money we need to borrow from China -- to fund it?

Come back when you have some plans. Republicans suck at proposals on everything that is not about cutting taxes (then they still suck in the delivery).
 
I think this topic is going to be one that's debated many times here. I plan to rely solely on information provided by Neal Katyal who is the former Acting Solicitor General of the U.S. He has argued the biggest cases on emergency powers in the 21st century at the Supreme Court. Neal Katyal is also one of the foremost legal experts in the country regarding the use of presidential emergency powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal

As Katyal states, there are two points here. The first point is whether this is a genuine emergency. The only legitimate emergency Trump can point to is that he didn't get his way. Conservatives and liberals alike should be concerned about Trump's extravagant claim about 'emergency' because imagine if you can, a future Democratic president saying 'gun violence kills a lot of people and I can prove that fact', unlike these fake statistics that Trump is patch-working together about illegal immigration. So that president just declares a state of emergency banning guns. The system our founders lefts us with is one in which Congress makes these calls, not the president.

The second point, and this is the most important, is what does this say about the president? It is really remarkable that he would be asserting this emergency power because if he asserts it there is no other choice but for the democrats to begin impeachment proceedings and would be joined by a lot of republicans at the end of the day.

Neal Katyal's final opinion is that he believes that Trump may actually want to be impeached. He believes this because essential Trump has no agenda left, his agenda is basically twitter and 'the wall'. He acts like a snowflake and claims to be the victim all the time and an impeachment proceeding would allow him to make that cry even more. "As a matter of law, as a matter of policy, I think this is a very damaging thing for Donald Trump and for the country."
 
An emergency is vague according to the law but it also must make constitutional sense. Trump said that 'if the Congress doesn't pass funding for the wall, I will declare an emergency and do it myself.' That is an admission that building the wall isn't an emergency -- or it should have been the first act done. It also doesn't make logical sense that a wall, that will take years to build, is an emergency simply because Congress refuses to provide the executive with funding -- which is their Article I authority.

Which leads us into constitutional territory. The president simply cannot declare anything that the Congress won't fund an "emergency," giving him/her the authority to move on it like a bitch.

Then, according to the governing Act, Congress can vote to remove the emergency and the president doesn't get a chance to veto it. Thus, if Trump decides to declare an emergency, the Congress can vote to rescind the emergency.
 
Now to answer your question as it regards the Wall and him using his Emergency Powers to build it.

I don't honestly know.

While I personally might view 60k per month of illegals attempting to enter our country illegally as a crisis this does not mean that Congress or the law will see it as such.

Trump is going to have to prove that there is an emergency based off of what is in existing law. I do not know the law well enough to know if there is a provision in existing law that allows for the type of emergency that Trump is referring to. If he can't then he has no standing to declare this an emergency and will be shot down by the courts.

If however he can tie it to existing law then he can declare an emergency and the courts (assuming no bias getting involved which frankly now a days I doubt) will not shoot him down.

However if Congress disagree's with Trump and regardless if he can tie it to existing law, Congress can over ride it with a simple majority vote and a Presidential signature OR with a 2/3rds vote that will over ride Trumps ability to Veto.

Not on this, they can’t overturn!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yes, as POTUS he has the power to declare an emergency. (The government does not have "rights").

As for what constitutes an "emergency"....well....that can be subjective.

IMO......

According to DHS roughly 30k people per month are apprehended trying to cross into the US. The government also bases how many illegal aliens are in the country on how many people are apprehended at the border. So essentially we have 60k people trying to enter the US illegally every month with half of them being caught and the other half making it into the US undetected. Is this less than in previous years? Yes it is. Does that mean its not a crisis? Nope. If a town gets fully flooded one year and then the next 2 years only 3/4ths of the town gets flooded and then the next 3 years it only gets half flooded that does not mean that it still cannot to be considered a crisis. 60k people attempting to enter the US monthly which adds up to 720k per year with half of that succeeding is most definitely a crisis.

why is that a crisis? they are people, working... are we afraid of them working? and then buying our stuff? where is the crisis? Where's the danger?
 
The national emergency POTUS power is not in the constitution at all - it is in a law passed by congress in 1976.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

Which brings up a good question, Does Congress have the power to grant the POTUS powers not defined in Article 2 of the Constitution. In my opinion, NO, for the powers of all 3 branches of the government are defined within the Constitution, for Congress to add to or take way from those powers would require a change in the Constitution and Congress does not that the power to amend the Constitution via legislation.
 
There will be a true Constitutional crisis if Trump puts a 'national emergency' into effect. it will be immediately challenged legally and reversed by Congress until some time the courts decide on the legality of it. Very little about presidential power is supposed to be absolute.

Trump's own words might not help his case. He said that declaring an emergency would come “if I can’t make a deal” rather than because of the 'crisis' situation on the border. This is proof of what his motivation for declaring a national emergency is, it's because he didn't get his way. For Trump to so transparently abuse the emergency discretion granted by statute, and for Congress to agree to that abuse, is an exceptionally serious signal of serious structural and Constitutional breakdown.
 
Which brings up a good question, Does Congress have the power to grant the POTUS powers not defined in Article 2 of the Constitution. In my opinion, NO, for the powers of all 3 branches of the government are defined within the Constitution, for Congress to add to or take way from those powers would require a change in the Constitution and Congress does not that the power to amend the Constitution via legislation.

Obviously congress has that power - see Social Security and the Education Department. You seem to hold the POTUS as some separate entity completely apart from the rest of the executive branch and the multitude of "rule" making that it does on a regular basis with the full blessing of congress. Congress passes loads of "fill in the blank" legislation virtually requiring the executive branch to "help" make law. How do you think that DACA became "the law of the land"? Hint: it was never passed by congress.
 
Yes, as POTUS he has the power to declare an emergency. (The government does not have "rights").

As for what constitutes an "emergency"....well....that can be subjective.

IMO......

According to DHS roughly 30k people per month are apprehended trying to cross into the US. The government also bases how many illegal aliens are in the country on how many people are apprehended at the border. So essentially we have 60k people trying to enter the US illegally every month with half of them being caught and the other half making it into the US undetected. Is this less than in previous years? Yes it is. Does that mean its not a crisis? Nope. If a town gets fully flooded one year and then the next 2 years only 3/4ths of the town gets flooded and then the next 3 years it only gets half flooded that does not mean that it still cannot to be considered a crisis. 60k people attempting to enter the US monthly which adds up to 720k per year with half of that succeeding is most definitely a crisis.
I think what constitutes a "crisis" or an "emergency" is pretty broad. An enemy attack, a severe storm or other natural disaster, the opioid epidemic, pipeline ruptures, among other things, all could be termed emergencies or crises. I also think people clinging to the "apprehensions are at record lows" ignore the fact that, as you said we're still taking a quarter of a million people each year.

We don't wait until diseases have grown to life threatening status before we try to cure it. Having cancer, for instance, is an emergency from the time the cells go off the rails, not when a tumor grows to the size of a golf ball.

I'm wondering that with a growing economy and the creation of more jobs than people to fill them the temptation for MORE illegals to sneak in will become stronger. Maybe this low in apprehensions is a bottom that will soon be exceeded.

BTW, I just read a story about CNN calling a local TV station hoping to get a local perspective on how poorly the wall is working (I'm in San Diego, directly across the border from Tijuana where the caravan ended up. Funny thing is that the local reporters CNN talked to said every evidence here shows walls are working, at which point CNN hung up.

Oh, the story just popped up on Townhall :cool:
 
Obviously congress has that power - see Social Security and the Education Department. You seem to hold the POTUS as some separate entity completely apart from the rest of the executive branch and the multitude of "rule" making that it does on a regular basis with the full blessing of congress. Congress passes loads of "fill in the blank" legislation virtually requiring the executive branch to "help" make law. How do you think that DACA became "the law of the land"? Hint: it was never passed by congress.

The POTUS is separate from the other 2 branches of the government, the executive branch does not include Congress or the Judicial branch. The SS Act and the Education department were created under the bastardized interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. Congress was not granted the power to rewrite the Constitution nor does it have the authority to grants itself or any other branch of the government extra powers. Congress powers are spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Any power not granted to the federal government are reserved to the People and the States. This is how we modify our Constitution, through the consent of the people and the States, and not through any legislation that Congress can come up with.
 
The POTUS is separate from the other 2 branches of the government, the executive branch does not include Congress or the Judicial branch. The SS Act and the Education department were created under the bastardized interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. Congress was not granted the power to rewrite the Constitution nor does it have the authority to grants itself or any other branch of the government extra powers. Congress powers are spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Any power not granted to the federal government are reserved to the People and the States. This is how we modify our Constitution, through the consent of the people and the States, and not through any legislation that Congress can come up with.

Nothing forbids the use of powers that can be implied from the constitution.
 
The POTUS is separate from the other 2 branches of the government, the executive branch does not include Congress or the Judicial branch. The SS Act and the Education department were created under the bastardized interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. Congress was not granted the power to rewrite the Constitution nor does it have the authority to grants itself or any other branch of the government extra powers. Congress powers are spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Any power not granted to the federal government are reserved to the People and the States. This is how we modify our Constitution, through the consent of the people and the States, and not through any legislation that Congress can come up with.

Nope, wrong on both counts of that (bolded above) assertion. Social Security was 'justified' under the federal taxation power and Education under the 14A federal 'power' to ensure equal protection of the laws (why that federal "duty" does not fall under the justice department was never explained). Basically, whatever congress deems to be "important" can (and often has) become a new federal power.

Once congress passes a bill it is then up to the excutive branch to sign that bill into law and to take action to enforce that law (the alternative, of course, is to veto the bill). It was clearly the intent of congress to allow the POTUS to decide (with fairly broad lattitude) what was a "national emergency" and to take action (also with broad latitude) to deal with it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom