? for those Supporting the Emergency Declaration

[haymarket]

Let me preface this by saying I do not support Trump invoking a National Emergency.

But I can only come up with two sort of answers.

One, how FDR handled the fallout from the Agricultural Adjustment Act he signed when there ended up being domestic push back from farmers and ranchers. Not quite a sidestep of Congress but at the time they did not react the way FDR wanted and ultimately he used a National Emergency for almost a year to deal with it.

Two, similar to one, in 1941 FDR proclaimed an "unlimited national emergency" to deal with Nazi Germany that was more or less a sidestep of Congress authorizing him such ability to deal with WWII. Even though FDR still got other bills through Congress, like funding to nations on our side against Germany, the idea of going with that unlimited national emergency was not about not getting everything he wanted from Congress but rather not waiting on them. By the time Congress could really do anything about our entrance to WWII, we already did anyway when Japan went after Pearl Harbor. By then the national emergency did not matter even though it was still in effect well into the early 1950's.

None of these really align to what Trump is wanting to do in using a National Emergency to get his wall built with funding intended to go elsewhere. But in both of those instances and in this case FDR, was making an executive power grab given conditions at the time even if historically speaking the idea was to get in front of Congress instead of battling them over some want.

I was referring to National emergencies which came as a result of the 1976 law which Trump is using to declare his national emergency.

 

[Kal'Stang]

In the US governmental system, congress determines how much money is necessary. You might want to learn about how our government works, it will save you from saying silly things like this.

No? Really!?!?! I had NO IDEA!!

Of course what you didn't say is that in determining how much money is necessary they are not supposed to use that power to make sure that laws that they do not like are not able to be fully enforced. The key word there is "necessary". With that word it means that Congress is supposed to determine what is "necessary" to fully enforce the law. Not half ass enforce the law. But FULLY enforce the law. That is part of their responsibility.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, that is exactly what you are pushing for. I realize you do not understand governments, but the name for a government where one person has unlimited authority as you propose is a monarchy,

Show me where I have proposed or advocated for one person to have unlimited authority.

 

[haymarket]

So, like I said, "sufficient funds enough to enforce already existing law in the best ways possible". Thank you.

Sadly for Trump and his Trumpkins, they were not appropriated by the Congress for the expenditures he wants.

 

[haymarket]

I don't know, ......

Nuff said.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And it is the Executive Branch's job to make sure that they are able to fully enforce the laws which Congress passes to the best of their ability. If Congress does not want a law enforced then they should do their job and repeal the law in question. Not make it to where the Executive branch cannot do its job effectively just because they don't have enough votes to actually repeal the law that they do not like.

Now, you say that this is circumventing the Constitution, tell me how when it was Congress that gave the President the ability to declare an emergency...which has always included using funds not appropriated directly from Congress mind you....and did it in such a way as to have left it so broad in scope? Again, Congress gave the President this ability. No President has taken this ability upon themselves. Several Presidents have used this ability, but they did not take it. It was given to them by Congress. Congress gave up this power to the Executive Branch. Just like they have given up powers to various Agencies in the Executive Branch. Something that I have railed against many times.

A whole lot personal opinion and hyperbole that I have no interest in debating with you.

I will however, try to correct your mistaken (uninformed?) claims regarding the National Emergencies Act.

First, the Constitution gives the President power to declare a national emergency, not the National Emergencies Act, and none of the conditions laid out in the Constitution is present in this instance.

Second, the National Emergencies Act (NEA) was enacted as a check on presidential power to allow a declared emergency to go on indefinitely. Certainly no giveaway of power as you suggest.

Declaring a national emergency is factually a circumvention of the Constitution and end run around Congress. It should and will fail.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Trumps policies and actions since his inauguration exclude any bona-fide emergency. This is a transparent Congressional end-around.

Just as disturbing is the action of Mitch McConnell in this regard. For the past three months McConnell has been counseling Trump that declaring a national emergency would set a dangerous precedent.

Yesterday however, McConnell said he would do his best to defeat any Congressional challenge (Motion to Dismiss) regarding Trumps emergency declaration.

As always with McConnell, it's party above country, even when he counseled that such a precedent is wrong and potentially disastrous once Trump is gone.

Yep, and there’s likely zero chance of a veto proof resolution being passed either. To court they will go.

 

[Kal'Stang]

A whole lot personal opinion and hyperbole that I have no interest in debating with you.

I will however, try to correct your mistaken (uninformed?) claims regarding the National Emergencies Act.

First, the Constitution gives the President power to declare a national emergency, not the National Emergencies Act, and none of the conditions laid out in the Constitution is present in this instance.

Second, the National Emergencies Act (NEA) was enacted as a check on presidential power to allow a declared emergency to go on indefinitely. Certainly no giveaway of power as you suggest.

Declaring a national emergency is factually a circumvention of the Constitution and end run around Congress. It should and will fail.

So...you say that the Constitution gives the President the power to declare a national emergency...and then turn around and say that declaring a national emergency is (stressing the word) "factually" a circumvention of the Constitution....Wow...just...wow. How in the world did you come up with THAT twisted logic?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So...you say that the Constitution gives the President the power to declare a national emergency...and then turn around and say that declaring a national emergency is (stressing the word) "factually" a circumvention of the Constitution....Wow...just...wow. How in the world did you come up with THAT twisted logic?

I’m saying that Trump declaring a national emergency when there isn’t one in order to get what Congress won’t give him is circumventing the Constitution. Get it now?

 

[Kal'Stang]

I’m saying that Trump declaring a national emergency when there isn’t one in order to get what Congress won’t give him is circumventing the Constitution. Get it now?

Let me ask you a question.

If law is not able to be fully enforced due to shear numbers of people committing a crime, would you consider that an emergency?

 

[Napoleon]

I’m saying that Trump declaring a national emergency when there isn’t one in order to get what Congress won’t give him is circumventing the Constitution. Get it now?

Congress gave the President the authority to unilaterally decide what a national defense interest is and to enter into contracts and spend money to satisfy that interest.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Congress gave the President the authority to unilaterally decide what a national defense interest is and to enter into contracts and spend money to satisfy that interest.

I must have missed the part where Congress ceded their Constitutional authority, huh? Not that it’ll matter one damn bit in this case, but there is a provision for overriding the president.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Let me ask you a question.

If law is not able to be fully enforced due to shear numbers of people committing a crime, would you consider that an emergency?

Like murders, rapes, armed robberies, etc.? Is Trump going to claim national emergencies for all of those too?

 

[Napoleon]

I must have missed the part where Congress ceded their Constitutional authority, huh? Not that it’ll matter one damn bit in this case, but there is a provision for overriding the president.

You must have.

“The President may authorize any department or agency of the Government which exercises functions in connection with the national defense, acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President for the protection of the Government, to enter into contracts or into amendments or modifications of contracts heretofore or hereafter made and to make advance payments thereon, without regard to other provisions of law relating to the making, performance, amendment, or modification of contracts, whenever he deems that such action would facilitate the national defense.”

[USC07] 50 USC Ch. 29: NATIONAL DEFENSE CONTRACTS

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You must have.

“The President may authorize any department or agency of the Government which exercises functions in connection with the national defense, acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President for the protection of the Government, to enter into contracts or into amendments or modifications of contracts heretofore or hereafter made and to make advance payments thereon, without regard to other provisions of law relating to the making, performance, amendment, or modification of contracts, whenever he deems that such action would facilitate the national defense.”

[USC07] 50 USC Ch. 29: NATIONAL DEFENSE CONTRACTS

You are very much barking up the wrong tree with this ^^.

What you’ve posted relates to national defense (i.e., DOD) spending, NOT BORDER SECURITY.

 

[Napoleon]

You are very much barking up the wrong tree with this ^^.

What you’ve posted relates to national defense (i.e., DOD) spending, NOT BORDER SECURITY.

As made clear by the statute, the President has unilateral authority to decide what a national defense interest is.

 

[American]

Careful! You'll be accused of hyperventilating! :lamo

 

[American]

Show me where I have proposed or advocated for one person to have unlimited authority.

Didn't Obama have his phone and his pen?

 

[Casper]

My questions are:
What exactly would the 5.6B Pay for, certainly not a border length wall,
Where does trump take it from, and are there limits?
Anyone here know????

 

[RaleBulgarian]

As made clear by the statute, the President has unilateral authority to decide what a national defense interest is.

Really, please show me where it says that. And while you’re at it, please show, in any governing document, where it says the president can reinterpret U.S. Code to suit his/her wishes.

 

[Sabre]

My questions are:
What exactly would the 5.6B Pay for, certainly not a border length wall,
Where does trump take it from, and are there limits?
Anyone here know????

The wall was never slated to run the length of the entire border.

 

[Casper]

The wall was never slated to run the length of the entire border.

Not what I heard.

 

[Napoleon]

Really, please show me where it says that. And while you’re at it, please show, in any governing document, where it says the president can reinterpret U.S. Code to suit his/her wishes.

Read the text of the statute I posted and pay close attention to this part:

“...whenever he deems that such action would facilitate the national defense.”

It’s not a reinterpretation. It’s what the plain text of the statute says.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Read the text of the statute I posted and pay close attention to this part:

“...whenever he deems that such action would facilitate the national defense.”

It’s not a reinterpretation. It’s what the plain text of the statute says.

You are desperately trying to reinterpret (read; bull****) your way out of this U.S. Code. Reading it fully, and most importantly, in context, the Code does not relate to border security in any way shape or form. National Defense and border security are not interchangeable terms.

From the beginning, through to the partial sentence you cherry picked out: “The President may authorize any department or agency of the Government which exercises functions in connection with the national defense, acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President for the protection of the Government, to enter into contracts or into amendments or modifications of contracts heretofore or hereafter made and to make advance payments thereon, without regard to other provisions of law relating to the making, performance, amendment, or modification of contracts, whenever he deems that such action would facilitate the national defense.”

No office within Homeland Security is national defense. National defense is DOD, period.

And not that it is needed to further dispel your ridiculous claim, this exclusionary note is part of the Code you cite:
Nonapplicability of National Emergencies Act
The provisions of the National Emergencies Act [see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title] shall not apply to the powers and authorities conferred by this section and actions taken hereunder, see section 1651(a)(4) of this title.

I’m not trying to hang you out, we all make mistakes. This one is yours. No biggy.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Like murders, rapes, armed robberies, etc.? Is Trump going to claim national emergencies for all of those too?

Like masses of people all committing a crime. Millions of people. Not just a few thousand... millions.