• 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!

Trump considering declaring national emergency to get wall funding

No he cant, because Congress controls the funding of the military, if they want to.

That plus the orders must be lawful.

He already had a couple thousand military troops sent to the border and DHS is requesting more troops to install concertina wire on top of existing border fencing.

In the case of a national emergency, I do not believe he needs any approval from Congress. The military has been funded for this year with $717 billion defense budget approved by Congress last August.
 
This is some surreal stuff. Republicans can't allow Trump to have a second term. He's a danger to the country, and I say that still believing that the President is largely just a figurehead.
 
He already had a couple thousand military troops sent to the border and DHS is requesting more troops to install concertina wire on top of existing border fencing.

In the case of a national emergency, I do not believe he needs any approval from Congress. The military has been funded for this year with $717 billion defense budget approved by Congress last August.

Congress directs funds with-in the military, while it is true in recent decades the Pentagon has been sloshing money around....taking from one account and putting into another....this has been done with the consent of Congress does not need to allow this. As for National Emergency I am not worried as I dont think Trump will do it and if he did SCOTUS would stop it....SCOTUS generally sucks but they dont suck that bad that they would allow this abuse of power.
 
Congress directs funds with-in the military, while it is true in recent decades the Pentagon has been sloshing money around....taking from one account and putting into another....this has been done with the consent of Congress does not need to allow this. As for National Emergency I am not worried as I dont think Trump will do it and if he did SCOTUS would stop it....SCOTUS generally sucks but they dont suck that bad that they would allow this abuse of power.

SCOTUS has a conservative majority that Trump can rely on.
 
Trump is the national emergency.

tumblr_pklbr9s0Xg1qc4hseo1_500.jpg


Putin couldn't be happier right now.

tumblr_p5bq1xBIbF1rvm4amo1_500.jpg
 
Playing politics with such things is clearly an abuse of power


Sort of like granting amnesty for millions of illegals without consent from Congress?


You liberals are so full of it with your hypocrisy and faux outrage.
 
Things are getting serious...

https://twitter.com/JuliaEAinsley/status/1081296255026896897
Julia E. Ainsley@JuliaEAinsley

A senior admin official tells me lawyers from Pentagon, DHS and White House are "working out the details" over how the president could declare a national emergency to use DOD to build his wall, bypassing Congress.

1:08 PM - 4 Jan 2019
 
Sort of like granting amnesty for millions of illegals without consent from Congress?


You liberals are so full of it with your hypocrisy and faux outrage.

the last big amnesty was by Ronald Reagan.
 
the last big amnesty was by Ronald Reagan.



You mean back when Democrats promised Reagan they'd close the border in exchange only to see them once again go back on their word? That time?
 
Here's the scarier part of the snip from that article;

Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018/12/what-trump-could-do-if-he-declares-state-emergency/153366/

If he does this now, he will open a can of worms for future administrations. Not good. When I heard him say it ( only bits and pieces), my husband was surprised at my choice of words. This is only a guess, but did he come up with that by himself? Perhaps not. People around him may have talked about the idea.

Observation, only one conservative thus far defending this potential mess.
 
Well, seems we might see government open back up soon, Trump might find wall funding elsewhere: by declaring a national emergency to get wall funding from the Department of Defense!

Trump considering declaring national emergency to secure wall funding

It seems, according to NYT's Maggie Haberman, that Trump confirmed the story: https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1081276957361356807

How does everyone feel about this? I believe it would be an abuse of power to declare a national emergency for wall funding, when there is no corresponding emergency. Sadly, he'll do whatever Mitch McConnell allows him to get away with.

An understatement considering drugs that come across kill more Americans every year than were killed in Vietnam.
 
An understatement considering drugs that come across kill more Americans every year than were killed in Vietnam.

Do you think it is a good idea? What are the implications?
 
Do you think it is a good idea? What are the implications?

The Implications are ending 98% of the drugs coming across the border and Democrats losing their voting cattle.

Trump using the same tactics to build the Wall as Eisenhower used to build interstate freeways changes nothing else.
 
The Implications are ending 98% of the drugs coming across the border and Democrats losing their voting cattle.

Trump using the same tactics to build the Wall as Eisenhower used to build interstate freeways changes nothing else.

So what if...future administrations use is to _________? Much was said about Obama at the time. Does anyone remember how upset people were about his assumed abuse of power?
 
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018/12/what-trump-could-do-if-he-declares-state-emergency/153366/

The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.

This edifice of extraordinary powers has historically rested on the assumption that the president will act in the country’s best interest when using them. With a handful of noteworthy exceptions, this assumption has held up. But what if a president, backed into a corner and facing electoral defeat or impeachment, were to declare an emergency for the sake of holding on to power? In that scenario, our laws and institutions might not save us from a presidential power grab. They might be what takes us down.

Is this what they define as "a constitutional crisis"? Are we there yet?

The phrase "constitutional crisis" isn't a legal term at all, but it does serve to describe several well known and acknowledged types of government, legal, national security and executive emergencies.
But in the end, wouldn't it be fair to say that "constitutional crisis" means to the Constitution what "psychotic lapse" means to mental illness? Even a seasoned medical professional might struggle a bit to lay out the specific set of morbidities that clearly define such a lapse but they can certainly tell one when they see one.

If congressional Republicans fail to hold Trump accountable for abusing presidential powers, I daresay that would accurately describe a crisis of fidelity, but it would naturally follow that if we are in a crisis of fidelity, then we must by necessity also be in a concomitant operational crisis, because the former paints us into the corner where we are confounded by the latter, thus the two are inseparable.

Political scientist Keith Whittington describes it as a set of “circumstances in which the constitutional order itself is failing.”
In government itself, an "operational crisis" might be when the Constitution can't tell us how to resolve a political dispute.
Or, there is a "fidelity crisis" where the Constitution lays out the rules to tell us what to do but those rules aren't being obeyed.

But what about when the Constitution fails to constrain political disputes within some accepted semblance of normalcy?
Representatives and leaders from both parties insist that they are acting constitutionally, but that it's their opponent which is not.
You might be reminded of The Civil War.

Clearly the one thing that all of these have in common is some kind of tipping point, where most if not all are forced to recognize that we are testing the legal and constitutional order of governance.
Maybe it is better to use a term like "constitutional rot" instead, where faith in the values and structural integrity of the Constitution itself have clearly eroded despite the legal structure remaining in place.

Constitutional rot therefore must eventually lead to a constitutional crisis, both of fidelity and in terms of operation itself.
A termite infested building might stand for decades after the bugs have set in but one day your Aunt Claire might go crashing through the kitchen floor and wind up head over heels in the basement among the rotted timbers.

A host body cannot restore life after a parasitic infection has hollowed out and destroyed the organs.
If we do not apply prophylactic measures, the host body succumbs needlessly for want of antibiotics and one reaches the tipping point where it is too late, and the victim dies.

Termite infested wood does not grow solid again.
Rancid meat doesn't return to freshness.

Fidelity can be restored.
Rot however, cannot.
 
So what if...future administrations use is to _________? Much was said about Obama at the time. Does anyone remember how upset people were about his assumed abuse of power?

Obama literally weaponized the IRS, FBI and several other Govt agencies against his political opponents.

There is no comparison here.

Knock this fraudulent Bull S**t off.

What President Trump is considering is easily within the US Constitution.
 
Don't they "hire" mules as well...tourists who want to make a few $?

Not sure, but the idea that (the bulk of) drugs are coming through gaps in our border is simply not true.
 
Obama literally weaponized the IRS, FBI and several other Govt agencies against his political opponents.

There is no comparison here.

Knock this fraudulent Bull S**t off.

What President Trump is considering is easily within the US Constitution.

So lets assume that Warren, Beto or Clinton win the next election. Should they do a Trump?
 
Obama literally weaponized the IRS, FBI and several other Govt agencies against his political opponents.

There is no comparison here.

Knock this fraudulent Bull S**t off.

What President Trump is considering is easily within the US Constitution.

What About What About Obama....Another lame excuse
 
Not sure, but the idea that (the bulk of) drugs are coming through gaps in our border is simply not true.

My point is, and forgive me for not making this clear, about supply and demand. We seem to demand, they deliver. But that is an aside, because I don't think the drug carrot holds much weight in this rather serious discussion.
 
https://www.politifact.com/north-ca...er/would-wall-have-prevented-opioid-epidemic/

International gangs based in Mexico "remain the greatest criminal drug threat to the United States," and their most common method of smuggling drugs is vehicles legally coming into the U.S., according to a 2017 Drug Enforcement Administration report.

With a wall more attention can be paid to check points.

My god, you cant be that shallow.

sourcing Politifact is like sourcing Infowars.
 
Back
Top Bottom