• 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!

Future "National Emergencies" from the left

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?
 
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?

The national emergency statutes do not permit the president to change law, it permits the president to do certain things including the construction of military facilities and fortifications. I guess the president can order the military to construct bulletproof doors in schools or seawalls for climate change, but a declaration of national emergency does not give the executive unilateral lawmaking authority
 
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?
The problem is that, on those issue, they are entirely time-based. A democrat could only declare an emergency on those issues for, at most, 8 years. Once the wall is built however well...it's built. There is no need to have a national emergency for 8 years with it. The other issues are simply too time-transcedent to have any real effect. As soon as a democrat is replaced, people buy guns and run gas guzzling cars once again.
 
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?

I certainly hope not, yet the constitution does not require (but does allow) 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill either.
 
The problem is that, on those issue, they are entirely time-based. A democrat could only declare an emergency on those issues for, at most, 8 years. Once the wall is built however well...it's built. There is no need to have a national emergency for 8 years with it. The other issues are simply too time-transcedent to have any real effect. As soon as a democrat is replaced, people buy guns and run gas guzzling cars once again.

Do you mean this wall? Or the one they sawed a big hole in?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...-sawed-n956856

WashedOutWall.jpg
 
I certainly hope not, yet the constitution does not require (but does allow) 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill either.

Correct so the courts will also look at the fact the senate could have invoked the nuclear option. They didn’t.
 
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?

Morons like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Kevin McCarthy aside, I just don't see the Republicans in Congress allowing Trump to declare this national emergency.

And you do make a very good point. I agree with everyone who says we should somehow fix the immigration process. Not because I'm in a panic that some immigrant wants to kill me but because I'm a firm believer in processes and the law. But I don't see this as a national crisis, much as Trump wants to make it out to be one.

The biggest reason I think the GOP won't let him get away with it is that they are not stupid. Anyone who isn't so blinded by Trump knows that the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House until last week. This "national crisis" didn't become a "national emergency" until the Dems took control of the House. People who don't admit that are liars.
 
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?

The democrats wanted wanted this law in 1976 so sit back and let a grownup handle things


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?

I tend to agree with others that the National Emergencies Act of 1976 does not necessarily allow a President to change law, but it does grant fairly broad powers to the President on what to do with funding allocated to various departments within the Executive Branch.

Constitutionally speaking, there is very little to discuss here. The Constitution grants little to no power to the President for "national emergencies," Congress has been responsible for allowing this over the years to the point of the National Emergencies Act trying to reign back in how far prior Presidents abused the authority. If anything the act allows Congress to terminate the National Emergency, they just have to agree and that is not too common these days.

What Trump is doing is the same thing as just about every other President, pushing to new limits their authority to do something. We talk all the time about the Constitution and rule of law being a tool of restriction but very often politicians are looking for means to wiggle their way into greater authority. Congress playing into the Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court playing into the Legislative Branch, and of course the President playing into everything they can get their hands on.

All Trump is doing is using that authoritarian nationalist tone of his pushing a national security to obtain a border wall. Our issue is what doors that opens up for the next President to use the authority for some other questionable means. Very rarely does this effort to expand power find some plateau and stop, the effort is expanded at the expense of Constitutionality. We have zero evidence that the next President (or even Trump himself later in this Presidency) will all of a sudden stop looking to push their limits of authority for some political reason.

We should be concerned, very concerned, about what we are seeing.
 
The national emergency statutes do not permit the president to change law, it permits the president to do certain things including the construction of military facilities and fortifications. I guess the president can order the military to construct bulletproof doors in schools or seawalls for climate change, but a declaration of national emergency does not give the executive unilateral lawmaking authority

So you say. And others say that Trump cannot do what he says he is likely to do.

No disrespect to you, but your opinion is cold comfort given that Trump is likely to take billions and billions of dollars appropriated for other expenditures and apply them to something that they have not been approved for.
 
So you say. And others say that Trump cannot do what he says he is likely to do.

No disrespect to you, but your opinion is cold comfort given that Trump is likely to take billions and billions of dollars appropriated for other expenditures and apply them to something that they have not been approved for.

None of this word salad is a valid argument


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The democrats wanted wanted this law in 1976 so sit back and let a grownup handle things


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oaky - you got in your partisan shot. Well done. Hooray. You win.

Now what are you going to say about the current situation with Trump and the actual subject of the thread?
 
Morons like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Kevin McCarthy aside, I just don't see the Republicans in Congress allowing Trump to declare this national emergency.

And you do make a very good point. I agree with everyone who says we should somehow fix the immigration process. Not because I'm in a panic that some immigrant wants to kill me but because I'm a firm believer in processes and the law. But I don't see this as a national crisis, much as Trump wants to make it out to be one.

The biggest reason I think the GOP won't let him get away with it is that they are not stupid. Anyone who isn't so blinded by Trump knows that the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House until last week. This "national crisis" didn't become a "national emergency" until the Dems took control of the House. People who don't admit that are liars.

Trump has way more support on this than liberals give him, most American adults do still have common sense. Do you want people to knock on the front door to be welcomed in or do you want them to come in an open window around back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
None of this word salad is a valid argument


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only because you refuse to comprehend it.

Do you think anything Trump has presented is a valid argument? Save your condescending nonsense for somebody who respects it.
 
Correct so the courts will also look at the fact the senate could have invoked the nuclear option. They didn’t.

Lots of things could have happened but what is happening are thousands of illegal border crossings per month. That, of course, begs the question: if thousands of illegal immigrants attempting entry (most of which are stopped and deported) are a national emergency then what are many millions of illegal immigrants already inside the US (most of which are never deported)?
 
Trump has way more support on this than liberals give him, most American adults do still have common sense. Do you want people to knock on the front door to be welcomed in or do you want them to come in an open window around back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was talking about him declaring a national emergency and how his party would respond to it, not my front door. Will you kindly read and comprehend my posts so you don't quote me and make posts like this in the future?
 
Morons like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Kevin McCarthy aside, I just don't see the Republicans in Congress allowing Trump to declare this national emergency.

And you do make a very good point. I agree with everyone who says we should somehow fix the immigration process. Not because I'm in a panic that some immigrant wants to kill me but because I'm a firm believer in processes and the law. But I don't see this as a national crisis, much as Trump wants to make it out to be one.

The biggest reason I think the GOP won't let him get away with it is that they are not stupid. Anyone who isn't so blinded by Trump knows that the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House until last week. This "national crisis" didn't become a "national emergency" until the Dems took control of the House. People who don't admit that are liars.

It is ironic that so called LIBERTARIANS and members of things like the LIBERTY or FREEDOM CAUCUS would be the cheerleaders for this unconstitutional expansion of executive power which rapes the US Constitution.

They and their hollow claims about freedom and liberty and rights are as phony as a three dollar bill with a picture of Pee Wee Herman on one side and a whoopee cushion on the other.
 
The problem is that, on those issue, they are entirely time-based. A democrat could only declare an emergency on those issues for, at most, 8 years. Once the wall is built however well...it's built. There is no need to have a national emergency for 8 years with it. The other issues are simply too time-transcedent to have any real effect. As soon as a democrat is replaced, people buy guns and run gas guzzling cars once again.

And that is the government you favor?
 
Only because you refuse to comprehend it.

Do you think anything Trump has presented is a valid argument? Save your condescending nonsense for somebody who respects it.

None of this is an argument either


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?

As has already been said...declaring an emergency does not allow POTUS to change law. He/she can temporarily suspend it, but he/she cannot change it.

So, while the POTUS could use an emergency to build say... a 50 sq mile wind turbine field they could not change the law imposing a carbon tax on everyone.

This is all assuming that such a POTUS is able to prove to the courts that such a declaration of emergency would fall under one of the existing provisions in the law that allows for such an emergency to be called of course.

Plus Congress can at any time disagree with and suspend/end any POTUS's declaration of emergency with a simple vote and the Presidents signature or with a 2/3rds vote that would override the Presidents Veto power. This can happen even now if Trump declares an Emergency and the courts upheld it.
 
It is ironic that so called LIBERTARIANS and members of things like the LIBERTY or FREEDOM CAUCUS would be the cheerleaders for this unconstitutional expansion of executive power which rapes the US Constitution.

They and their hollow claims about freedom and liberty and rights are as phony as a three dollar bill with a picture of Pee Wee Herman on one side and a whoopee cushion on the other.

I still want to know why this wasn't called a national crisis or a national emergency before the Democrats took control of the House.

Why didn't Jim Jordan declare this a national emergency in September of 2017 and demand that the President pull this stunt then?

I'm also not saying that the Democrats aren't doing this for political reasons. They are. And that's their right. But for people (aka The Citizens of Trump Fan Nation) to be so dishonest that they refuse to ask themselves that question shows that this is about politics on both sides.
 
It is ironic that so called LIBERTARIANS and members of things like the LIBERTY or FREEDOM CAUCUS would be the cheerleaders for this unconstitutional expansion of executive power which rapes the US Constitution.

They and their hollow claims about freedom and liberty and rights are as phony as a three dollar bill with a picture of Pee Wee Herman on one side and a whoopee cushion on the other.

Blame Congress for enacting the Emergency Powers act in the 70's. :shrug:

I've said for years now that Congress has abdicated too many of its powers to the executive branch. Do you believe me now?
 
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?

A liberal Democrat already used this type of authority to lock up 100,000 or so Japanese Americans. I can definitely see another liberal Democrat doing something similar.

What should stick out as different between the wall and, for example, an EO regarding gun confiscation, is that in the first case the EO is being used to protect the rights of US citizens and in the second it's being used to take rights away. Should an EO be used to take away the rights of citizens I would hope that there would be a massive uprising against it. The fact that there was no such uprising in 1942, however, is troubling.
 
Blame Congress for enacting the Emergency Powers act in the 70's. :shrug:

I've said for years now that Congress has abdicated too many of its powers to the executive branch. Do you believe me now?

Of course he believes you now, but is soon as another Democrat is in the White House The Ministry of truth will update all the records and he will know EastAsia has always been the enemy, and the constitution is illegitimate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I was talking about him declaring a national emergency and how his party would respond to it, not my front door. Will you kindly read and comprehend my posts so you don't quote me and make posts like this in the future?

Oh, the front door thingy doesn’t fit into your narrative? Sure we got some RINOs but we cleared out some during the midterms, so if you’re holding your breath hoping for some miracle Republican boycott of Trump, that isn’t gonna happen, we finally got Republicans behind Trump, and looks like Trump s fixing to get another SC pick so he definitely has the SC support.
Was that what you wanted me to discuss?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom