• 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!

If president trump declares a national emergency so he can keep his campaign promise...

What makes you think it's "brand new"?

Anyway, don't YOU care about women who get raped or killed by the people she pays to get her across the border?

Why does it matter how long it'll take? The results will begin when the first section of wall in put in place and will increase steadily from then on. Not taking the first step will only prevent a solution.

The "crisis" at the border didn't really start until the midterm rallies and Trump did not even ask for money for his wall in his 2018 budget request. It must not have become a REAL"crisis" until he lost the House which is when he upped his demand from $1.6 billion for border security to 5.6 billion for a wall.
 
What makes you think it's "brand new"?

Anyway, don't YOU care about women who get raped or killed by the people she pays to get her across the border?

Why does it matter how long it'll take? The results will begin when the first section of wall in put in place and will increase steadily from then on. Not taking the first step will only prevent a solution.

If you were willing to wait two years to do something, it’s not an emergency.

A wall doesn’t stop women from getting raped. Stop pretending you give a ****.
 
What makes you think it's "brand new"?
Anyway, don't YOU care about women who get raped or killed by the people she pays to get her across the border?
Why does it matter how long it'll take? The results will begin when the first section of wall in put in place and will increase steadily from then on. Not taking the first step will only prevent a solution.
I think it's been ongoing for a very long time. Decades.



An emergency implies some immediate danger. If it's been like this for many years and will take many more years even if we started building the wall now, then it's not an emergency and that's not a reaction to an emergency. And seriously, the wall will prevent immigrant women from being raped, your top priority? :roll:

Look bud, go ahead, bypass congress. Either it's super unconstitutional and will be struck down, or you'll open up a new tactic we liberals can use to force our agenda on you without congress. Win-win right?

If you were willing to wait two years to do something, it’s not an emergency.

A wall doesn’t stop women from getting raped. Stop pretending you give a ****.

IT'S LIKE LIBERALS WANT IMMIGRANTS TO BE RAPED!!! DISGUSTING!!!
 
“Bypass Congress”? Trump would be invoking statutes passed by Congress vesting to him power to declare a national emergency.

Obviously, that little loophole, the one that allows a president to abuse that power, has to be addressed. And yes, using that power to do an end run around Congress for raw political reasons was never the intent of Congress. They simply never envisioned a president who would so blatantly use the authority to simply forward his political agenda.

Congress must rein in the presidency. Ever since the turn of the 20th century, little by little, Congress and the courts have been ceding their authority and their responsibilities to the president, and presidents have eagerly lapped up the benefits for themselves and their agendas.

First, Trump basically said "Gimmie $5 billion for my wall or I will destroy 800,000 Americans lives." That is the negotiating style of a terrorist, and people recognized it for what it was. The peoples' representatives, led by Nancy Pelosi, refused to negotiate with him while he held the federal employees hostage.

As soon as the government was temporarily reopened, Trump was right back at the mic declaring "I'll get my wall!"

No, he won't.

He can either start pretending to be an adult, treat his office with the respect it deserves, and quit throwing temper tantrums, or he can pretty much figure that Pelosi and co. are going to make the second half of his term completely impotent. The choice is up to him.

Right now the question is, will the courts declare that the president does have the authority to advance his political agenda by falsely declaring an national emergency. Perhaps we will find out.
 
“Bypass Congress”? Trump would be invoking statutes passed by Congress vesting to him power to declare a national emergency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, that is not entirely true. Trump cannot declare a national emergency if it can be proven there isn't one. Here is the definition of a National Emergency:

"A national emergency must be based on conditions beyond the ordinary. Otherwise, it has no meaning. For example, the power of the Soviet Union in world affairs does not justify placing the United States in a constant state of national emergency."

This definition also applies to illegal aliens coming to the U.S. It has been a constant threat but not "beyond the ordinary" given that it has been around for decades.

As such, if Trump declares a National Emergency because of the illegal aliens problem, he will have to go to court to prove that this is based on conditions beyond the ordinary.
 
And our courts always have the option of declaring abuse of power and nullifying the Presidents declaration. A Presidents discretion is always limited by the courts.

Sometimes...there is a doctrine known as the Political Question Doctrine in which the courts defer to the Executive and Congress. Given the lack of clear guidance in these statutes, unfortunately, the case is ripe for the courts to invoke the Political Question Doctrine.

Hopefully the courts just render the statutes themselves unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I say please, please, pleeeaaasseee Trump, arbitrarily declare a national emergency to just bypass congress and unilaterally enforce your agenda. Opening that box may be bad now, but just think of all the super fun liberal things we can do with this same tactic when the pendulum inevitably swings the other way in 2020 or 2024. Any time the GOP tries to stop us in congress we could just bypass congress!

Healthcare issues? NATIONAL EMERGENCY!! Redirect money from defense to reforming our system and creating affordable universal healthcare!
Climate change? NATIONAL EMERGENCY!! Redirect money from conservative programs to the EPA and showering green companies with subsidies!
Teen pregnancy? NATIONAL EMERGENCY!! Redirect money from ICE and border security to fund free abortions!

Then every year when the government tries to pass a budget we can hold the entire thing hostage unless we get our special liberal programs passed. There are just so many fun new tricks we're going to get to use, the possibilities are limitless, so think about that conservatives.

We already have no fewer than 19 current "national emergencies" declared.

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

"The Act empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis but imposes certain procedural formalities when invoking such powers. The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency. Congress can undo a state of emergency declaration with a veto-proof majority vote."
 
We already have no fewer than 19 current "national emergencies" declared.

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

"The Act empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis but imposes certain procedural formalities when invoking such powers. The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency. Congress can undo a state of emergency declaration with a veto-proof majority vote."


"...an activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation..."


So if Trump declares a national emergency, there doesn't seem to be any way to force him to end it.


Am I missing something. What checks are there on a president who would seek to abuse the power of calling an emergency ?
 
Trump won't declare a national emergency to keep a campaign promise. He will declare a national emergency because that will be the only way he is able to resolve the humanitarian/security crisis at our southern border.

But hey...if you think it'll help to put confederate statues on the wall he's going to build...if you think that'll help...you should send Trump a letter with that suggestion.

Interesting ... even Trumpanzees have stopped calling it an invasion.

If it's humanitarian/security measures we want, a medieval wall won't help. We need more patrols, better databases for vetting asylum seekers, more procesding judges, advocates, and facilities, plus camera drones and personnel to operate them. You know ... 21st century stuff.
 
The "crisis" at the border didn't really start until the midterm rallies and Trump did not even ask for money for his wall in his 2018 budget request. It must not have become a REAL"crisis" until he lost the House which is when he upped his demand from $1.6 billion for border security to 5.6 billion for a wall.

Just because nobody used that term, crisis, doesn't mean we haven't had a crisis for decades. It just means that finally, someone was willing to call it what it is.
 
What makes you think it's "brand new"?

Anyway, don't YOU care about women who get raped or killed by the people she pays to get her across the border?

Why does it matter how long it'll take? The results will begin when the first section of wall in put in place and will increase steadily from then on. Not taking the first step will only prevent a solution.

If your concern is really about women being abused, the solution is to make it easier and friendlier for them to come to a border station and seek legal entry.

:sigh:
 
If you were willing to wait two years to do something, it’s not an emergency.

A wall doesn’t stop women from getting raped. Stop pretending you give a ****.

Trump hasn't waited for two years. He's been talking about it and working on it for almost four years.

If the coyotes can't get people across the border, nobody is going to pay them to do it and they won't have anyone to rape.
 
"...an activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation..."


So if Trump declares a national emergency, there doesn't seem to be any way to force him to end it.


Am I missing something. What checks are there on a president who would seek to abuse the power of calling an emergency ?

"Congress can undo a state of emergency declaration with a veto-proof majority vote." I doubt they'd get enough votes for that in the Senate, though. Senate Republicans under McConnell have been notoriously supportive of Trump.
 
Just because nobody used that term, crisis, doesn't mean we haven't had a crisis for decades. It just means that finally, someone was willing to call it what it is.

Or someone is using illegal immigration as a scapegoat for a dwindling middle class and it really isn't a crisis but a phony excuse that serves to distract from our real problems. That is far more likely given that illegal immigration is at 40 year lows but income distribution is still heavily favoring the top 1%.

Share-of-total-us-income-1913-2015-1-768x424.png
 
Last edited:
An emergency implies some immediate danger. If it's been like this for many years and will take many more years even if we started building the wall now, then it's not an emergency and that's not a reaction to an emergency. And seriously, the wall will prevent immigrant women from being raped, your top priority? :roll:

Just because the crisis has been ongoing for decades, that doesn't mean there is no immediate danger. It just means that the immediate danger has been there for decades. We finally have someone who is honest about it and who is determined to do something about it.

So...you DON'T care that women are being raped. This is what we find when YOU decide to be honest.

Look bud, go ahead, bypass congress. Either it's super unconstitutional and will be struck down, or you'll open up a new tactic we liberals can use to force our agenda on you without congress. Win-win right?

Dude...the liberals have had the ability to do this for decades.

In fact, Obama forced his agenda, waged war in Libya, armed ISIS...and not only bypassed Congress, he totally ignored Congress...and did it all with a declaration of a national emergency. It wasn't unconstitutional and it wasn't struck down. Because of the mess he got us into, Trump had to keep Obama's national emergency in effect.

So don't think this is anything new...but feel free to ignore reality and dream about how Trump won't be able to build the wall...while he goes ahead and builds it.
 
Interesting ... even Trumpanzees have stopped calling it an invasion.

If it's humanitarian/security measures we want, a medieval wall won't help. We need more patrols, better databases for vetting asylum seekers, more procesding judges, advocates, and facilities, plus camera drones and personnel to operate them. You know ... 21st century stuff.

You haven't been listening to Trump, have you? You should start. He intends to use the money he wants from Congress to do exactly what you say we need.

How does it feel to agree with Trump?
 
Or someone is using illegal immigration as a scapegoat for a dwindling middle class

No.

Trump is, and already has, taking steps to deal with that.
 
Has anyone else noticed that the same folks who used to complain about government spending are now saying we need 5 billion to build a wall?
 
No.

Trump is, and already has, taking steps to deal with that.

LOL Yes slashing taxes on the wealthy and corporations is really going to help our income distribution problem. By making the rich richer and the poor poorer. and on top of that he is making consumers pay for his tariffs too.
 
You haven't been listening to Trump, have you? You should start. He intends to use the money he wants from Congress to do exactly what you say we need.

How does it feel to agree with Trump?

No he is not. He wants to waste billions on a Stone's ridiculous wall. What does Stone or Trump know about illegal immigration?

In 2014, Trump’s plan to run for president moved into high gear. His political confidant was consultant Roger Stone. “Inside Trump’s circle, the power of illegal immigration to manipulate popular sentiment was readily apparent, and his advisers brainstormed methods for keeping their attention-addled boss on message,” writes Joshua Green, author of Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Nationalist Uprising. “They needed a trick, a mnemonic device. In the summer of 2014, they found one that clicked.”

Joshua Green had good access to Trump insiders, including Sam Nunberg, who worked with Stone. “Roger Stone and I came up with the idea of ‘the Wall,’ and we talked to Steve [Bannon] about it,” according to Nunberg. “It was to make sure he [Trump] talked about immigration.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/04/where-the-idea-for-donald-trumps-wall-came-from/#4c2684744156
 
"Congress can undo a state of emergency declaration with a veto-proof majority vote." I doubt they'd get enough votes for that in the Senate, though. Senate Republicans under McConnell have been notoriously supportive of Trump.

But that's not what the link says.

It says the president MUST also sign it.
 
I say please, please, pleeeaaasseee Trump, arbitrarily declare a national emergency to just bypass congress and unilaterally enforce your agenda. Opening that box may be bad now, but just think of all the super fun liberal things we can do with this same tactic when the pendulum inevitably swings the other way in 2020 or 2024. Any time the GOP tries to stop us in congress we could just bypass congress!

Healthcare issues? NATIONAL EMERGENCY!! Redirect money from defense to reforming our system and creating affordable universal healthcare!
Climate change? NATIONAL EMERGENCY!! Redirect money from conservative programs to the EPA and showering green companies with subsidies!
Teen pregnancy? NATIONAL EMERGENCY!! Redirect money from ICE and border security to fund free abortions!


Then every year when the government tries to pass a budget we can hold the entire thing hostage unless we get our special liberal programs passed. There are just so many fun new tricks we're going to get to use, the possibilities are limitless, so think about that conservatives.

Oh yeah, I wish y'all would. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom