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

[NotreDame]

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.

A few points. First, I said Trump would be “invoking” statutes passed by Congress, in reply to the claim he’s “bypassing Congress.” Invoking statutes passed by Congress isn’t “bypassing” Congress. Trump would invoke statutes giving him very broad discretion, maybe dangerously broad, of when to declare a national emergency. The ambiguity of the law allows Trump to argue, with some legitimacy, the conditions satisfy the statute, more on that point below.

I didn’t yet assert Trump’s declaration satisfies the statute of a national emergency. So, your post is a hasty reply to a view I’ve yet to make. But I’ll make some remarks.

First, I’m not sure the the phrase “Beyond the ordinary” is the proper statutory test for declaring a national emergency, but for now, I’ll assume it is for purposes of this reply.

The phrase “beyond the ordinary” is undefined, lacking any factors, rules, or principles to know when some circumstance is “beyond the ordinary” other than the most obvious instances. I understand why Congress chose not to speak with more specificity, it makes perfect sense.

However, the phrase “beyond the ordinary” is perhaps ambiguous enough to induce courts to invoke the Political Question Doctrine, and refuse to determine whether the President was wrong in determining whether a set of circumstances is “beyond the ordinary.” Augmenting the courts deference could be the fact Congress reserved to themselves the power to end the national emergency declared by the President.

It has been a constant threat but not "beyond the ordinary" given that it has been around for decades

Well, this argument makes many presuppositions about the meaning of the phrase, and just highlights my prior commentary the statute lacks proper guidance. Your reasoning rests on the assumption that “ordinary” or the whole phrase itself is inapplicable to some occurrence that has “been around for decades.” There’s nothing in the statute supporting this interpretation.

Rationally, such an interpretation is problematic. First, your view ignores the possibility that “it” could have been “beyond the ordinary” for “decades” and the fact no prior President felt compelled to declare a nation emergency isn’t determinative of whether “it” is “beyond the ordinary.” Unfortunately, the statute provides no guidance as to how to determine when “it” is “ordinary” such that “it” is “beyond” the ordinary.

Second, changing circumstance could render “it” beyond the ordinary today, although past decades “it” wasn’t beyond the ordinary.

Third, there is an illegal immigration emergency statute. The invoke an “immigration emergency” isn’t based on “beyond the ordinary” language but instead is based on an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities,” and “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fishking]

I will be waiting for your check to cover my HC costs since you do not want mandatory coverage. It's only fair that you foot the bill.

You're trying to ignore the point being made, and obfuscate the issue, which is that you're OK with abusing the system to pass something the government doesn't have the technical authority to do.

 

[Fishking]

Oh my gawd, the thought of everyone having health care for a small contribution by everyone (even if healthy now) is so scary. Consider that just 4.3% of the population will remain healthy all of their lives, meaning that at some point everyone will need Health Insurance and given how expensive it is to get Health Insurance without a program like Obamacare, the reality is that paying for health insurance from the beginning of your adult life (even if healthy) is probably cheaper than having expensive insurance when you need it. In addition, the expensive of being sick and not being covered because you have a pre-existing condition, is frightening and likely leads to your early death.

Obamacare is a good program though it needs to be tweaked. Everyone should pay something for the future. It is like paying for your economic retirement when young. If you do, you retire well, if you don't you struggle in your retirement years. Same thing should be applied to Health Care.

That's nice and all but you're only demonstrating the point I made. You don't care that a power is exploited to pass something so long as you support it. In other words, you don't really have any standing to complain about Trump using a national emergency loophole to build the wall.

 

[Fishking]

The wall, the statues, or the national emergency act?

The statues were hyperbole, the wall is fine, using the excuse of a national emergency to circumvent normal processes is the bad precedent. We've already seen that happen too much over multiple administrations, but people only care about it if the other team is doing it.

 

[Luckyone]

A few points. First, I said Trump would be “invoking” statutes passed by Congress, in reply to the claim he’s “bypassing Congress.” Invoking statutes passed by Congress isn’t “bypassing” Congress. Trump would invoke statutes giving him very broad discretion, maybe dangerously broad, of when to declare a national emergency. The ambiguity of the law allows Trump to argue, with some legitimacy, the conditions satisfy the statute, more on that point below.

I didn’t yet assert Trump’s declaration satisfies the statute of a national emergency. So, your post is a hasty reply to a view I’ve yet to make. But I’ll make some remarks.

First, I’m not sure the the phrase “Beyond the ordinary” is the proper statutory test for declaring a national emergency, but for now, I’ll assume it is for purposes of this reply.

The phrase “beyond the ordinary” is undefined, lacking any factors, rules, or principles to know when some circumstance is “beyond the ordinary” other than the most obvious instances. I understand why Congress chose not to speak with more specificity, it makes perfect sense.

However, the phrase “beyond the ordinary” is perhaps ambiguous enough to induce courts to invoke the Political Question Doctrine, and refuse to determine whether the President was wrong in determining whether a set of circumstances is “beyond the ordinary.” Augmenting the courts deference could be the fact Congress reserved to themselves the power to end the national emergency declared by the President.



Well, this argument makes many presuppositions about the meaning of the phrase, and just highlights my prior commentary the statute lacks proper guidance. Your reasoning rests on the assumption that “ordinary” or the whole phrase itself is inapplicable to some occurrence that has “been around for decades.” There’s nothing in the statute supporting this interpretation.

Rationally, such an interpretation is problematic. First, your view ignores the possibility that “it” could have been “beyond the ordinary” for “decades” and the fact no prior President felt compelled to declare a nation emergency isn’t determinative of whether “it” is “beyond the ordinary.” Unfortunately, the statute provides no guidance as to how to determine when “it” is “ordinary” such that “it” is “beyond” the ordinary.

Second, changing circumstance could render “it” beyond the ordinary today, although past decades “it” wasn’t beyond the ordinary.

Third, there is an illegal immigration emergency statute. The invoke an “immigration emergency” isn’t based on “beyond the ordinary” language but instead is based on an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities,” and “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bottom line is that if the President declares a National Emergency on this it would be immediately contested in the courts, simply because if he were able to do this without any guidelines to defining National Emergency then it could be done for just about anything (smoking pot is a national emergency, Democrats wanting to raise taxes is a national emergency, cussing is a national emergency and so on and so forth).

The President would have a very tough time proving this to be a national emergency, simply because he has harped on this since he became President and if nothing else the courts would ask "why didn't you declare this a national emergency the minute you stepped into office, why 2 years later?"

 

[HenryChinaski]

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.

You’re funny.

 

[Luckyone]

That's nice and all but you're only demonstrating the point I made. You don't care that a power is exploited to pass something so long as you support it. In other words, you don't really have any standing to complain about Trump using a national emergency loophole to build the wall.

No, you cannot jump to that conclusion given that Obamacare was passed by Congress by the needed votes whereas Trump's wall was not passed by Congress.

Power is always exploited so that does not come into the equation. What does come into the equation is whether there are enough votes to pass it or not. The fact that Democrats had the majority then and is the reason it was passed is of no importance. The Republicans have had the majority the last 2 years and they were not able to pass the wall.

 

[Fishking]

No, you cannot jump to that conclusion given that Obamacare was passed by Congress by the needed votes whereas Trump's wall was not passed by Congress.

It doesn't matter if it was passed by Congress or not. The fact still remains that the Supreme Court ruled that the government didn't have the authority to force people to buy health insurance but it passed because there was a fine...I mean a "tax" for those who didn't buy it as the forcing mechanism, and the government has the authority to levy fines...I mean, "taxes".

 

[Rogue Valley]

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 suggest that you look up data for trafficked people in the US. At any random time, there are ~50,000 trafficked persons in the US. Most arrive by air or water. In New York and Miami alone, there are thousands of trafficked Haitian children working as domestics.

 

[NotreDame]

Bottom line is that if the President declares a National Emergency on this it would be immediately contested in the courts, simply because if he were able to do this without any guidelines to defining National Emergency then it could be done for just about anything (smoking pot is a national emergency, Democrats wanting to raise taxes is a national emergency, cussing is a national emergency and so on and so forth).

Bottom line is that if the President declares a National Emergency on this it would be immediately contested in the courts, simply because if he were able to do this without any guidelines to defining National Emergency then it could be done for just about anything (smoking pot is a national emergency, Democrats wanting to raise taxes is a national emergency, cussing is a national emergency and so on and so forth).

Perhaps the above is a flaw in the law itself. Indeed, lawyers, law professors, and others have lamented the law “places no restraints on what a president may declare as an emergency,” as one author put it at lawfareblog.com. Or as another commentator at the website said, “[T]he statute does not provide any explicit criteria or guidance for the president regarding what type of circumstances would qualify as a “national emergency” for purposes of this construction authority. Both the courts and Congress have typically been deferential to presidential declarations of national emergencies.”

It’s the very lack of textual guidance that likely could have the courts invoke the Political Question Doctrine and simply defer to Trump.

There have been 58 national emergencies declared by past presidents, 31 of them still in effect. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693

Arguably, many of those national emergencies declared by prior Presidents wouldn’t qualify as a “national emergency” based on the logic of your position.

The President would have a very tough time proving this to be a national emergency, simply because he has harped on this since he became President and if nothing else the courts would ask "why didn't you declare this a national emergency the minute you stepped into office, why 2 years later?"

Your speculation of what the courts would ask is entertaining, regardless, the fact Trump waited isn’t a demonstration no national emergency exists. There’s nothing in the statute that says the President must act promptly and if not, then no national emergency exists.

Second, your view ignores the fact a situation can persist as a national emergency without a prompt formal baptism of that label by the President under the statutes. Just because the President didn’t declare a national emergency at X point in time, when he could have doesn’t mean a national emergency doesn’t exist at the later point in time when declared.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bongsaway]

I think it's been ongoing for a very long time. Decades.



Well, when he was campaigning, he wasn't yet President. Since he became President, he's been constantly trying to get Congress to do their job and appropriate the money needed to deal with the crisis. He has now reached a point when it's clear to him...and to the public...that Congress isn't going to do their job. It's time for other actions to deal with the crisis.




Yes, I DO call that leadership.



Congress didn't wait 2.5 years to declare war. They did their job immediately and without question.



Or, perhaps YOU have a different definition of the word, "emergency".

Obviously your emergency is not the donald's or the congress he controlled the past two years. Kevin McCarthy said this morning when the republican congress takes control, they will have a plan for the border on day one. That was two and a half years ago. Emergency bah.

 

[DarkWizard12]

If president trump declares a national emergency so he can keep his campaign promise I would like to make a suggestion. The confederate statues that have come down, put them on top of the wall. That should scare any potential border jumpers to turn around and go back.

Putting people in camps would also scare people away from migrating here. But, that would be...problematic, to say the least.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Putting people in camps would also scare people away from migrating here. But, that would be...problematic, to say the least.

Trump already does that.

13,000 migrant children in detention: America's horrifying reality

 

[DarkWizard12]

Trump already does that.

13,000 migrant children in detention: America's horrifying reality

Not what I had in mind. These are detention centers. When people come across the border, we don't know if they're just parents, or traffickers, which is a big problem in latin America. The children have to be detained until the illegal status of their parents/guardians are figured out.

 

[Deuce]

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.

Declaring a national emergency takes him all of twenty minutes. He’s waited two years.

 

[Luckyone]

Second, your view ignores the fact a situation can persist as a national emergency without a prompt formal baptism of that label by the President under the statutes. Just because the President didn’t declare a national emergency at X point in time, when he could have doesn’t mean a national emergency doesn’t exist at the later point in time when declared.

I disagree with you on this last point. The word emergency means that something is happening right now that has to be addressed right now You don't call 911 and say you have an emergency but if you get here 2 years later it is okay.

All of this is fodder for the courts, which will be involved if Trump calls this a National Emergency. Neither you nor I can predict what the courts will decide but I can tell you with 100% certainty that if he calls this a national emergency, the courts will be involved.

 

[bongsaway]

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?

Fiscal conservatives, deficit hawks like the departing Ryan. This is the same old tired play from the GOP. Run everything up while in control, crash markets and when the dem take over to fix the mess claim there is no money for anything, sorry.

 

[rocket88]

Declaring a national emergency takes him all of twenty minutes. He’s waited two years.

Well, the emergency is that Democrats control the Housr.

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

At some point doesn't he have to define the crisis? Is it masses of duct-taped women being smuggled across the border? Mexican rapists? Un-vetted Syrian refugees? Drug smugglers with cantaloupe-calves? Polite Canadians?

 

[Idiometer]

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?

Not one thin dime for his wall. That's the whole freaking point, and I think you know that. This is classic rightie back pedaling after a loss.

 

[Idiometer]

But that's not what the link says.

It says the president MUST also sign it.

Yes, and if congress has enough votes, they can override his veto.

 

[bongsaway]

A few points. First, I said Trump would be “invoking” statutes passed by Congress, in reply to the claim he’s “bypassing Congress.” Invoking statutes passed by Congress isn’t “bypassing” Congress. Trump would invoke statutes giving him very broad discretion, maybe dangerously broad, of when to declare a national emergency. The ambiguity of the law allows Trump to argue, with some legitimacy, the conditions satisfy the statute, more on that point below.

I didn’t yet assert Trump’s declaration satisfies the statute of a national emergency. So, your post is a hasty reply to a view I’ve yet to make. But I’ll make some remarks.

First, I’m not sure the the phrase “Beyond the ordinary” is the proper statutory test for declaring a national emergency, but for now, I’ll assume it is for purposes of this reply.

The phrase “beyond the ordinary” is undefined, lacking any factors, rules, or principles to know when some circumstance is “beyond the ordinary” other than the most obvious instances. I understand why Congress chose not to speak with more specificity, it makes perfect sense.

However, the phrase “beyond the ordinary” is perhaps ambiguous enough to induce courts to invoke the Political Question Doctrine, and refuse to determine whether the President was wrong in determining whether a set of circumstances is “beyond the ordinary.” Augmenting the courts deference could be the fact Congress reserved to themselves the power to end the national emergency declared by the President.



Well, this argument makes many presuppositions about the meaning of the phrase, and just highlights my prior commentary the statute lacks proper guidance. Your reasoning rests on the assumption that “ordinary” or the whole phrase itself is inapplicable to some occurrence that has “been around for decades.” There’s nothing in the statute supporting this interpretation.

Rationally, such an interpretation is problematic. First, your view ignores the possibility that “it” could have been “beyond the ordinary” for “decades” and the fact no prior President felt compelled to declare a nation emergency isn’t determinative of whether “it” is “beyond the ordinary.” Unfortunately, the statute provides no guidance as to how to determine when “it” is “ordinary” such that “it” is “beyond” the ordinary.

Second, changing circumstance could render “it” beyond the ordinary today, although past decades “it” wasn’t beyond the ordinary.

Third, there is an illegal immigration emergency statute. The invoke an “immigration emergency” isn’t based on “beyond the ordinary” language but instead is based on an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities,” and “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which leads me to ask this. Is beyond ordinary, like high crimes and misdemeanors?

 

[bongsaway]

At some point doesn't he have to define the crisis? Is it masses of duct-taped women being smuggled across the border? Mexican rapists? Un-vetted Syrian refugees? Drug smugglers with cantaloupe-calves? Polite Canadians?

You forgot MS 13 hiding in amongst the terrorists. I saw a clip of him yesterday with the duct tape thing. Wow! Duct tape, electrical tape, blue tape covering their mouths. Then the tape was wrapped around their heads, next their hands were taped behind their backs and then the legs. By the time he got done his description of all the taping I could only picture they were smuggling mummies across the border. What an imagination, some serious loose screws rattling around up there.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

Does not change the fact that once he lets that kitty out of the bag, it's not going back in ever again.
Do you ever learn anything?

 

[Mycroft]

At some point doesn't he have to define the crisis? Is it masses of duct-taped women being smuggled across the border? Mexican rapists? Un-vetted Syrian refugees? Drug smugglers with cantaloupe-calves? Polite Canadians?

He has defined the crisis multiple times in just the last couple months. Haven't you been listening?