• 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

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 cconstitution 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.

I believe we've been in a Constitutional crisis for much longer than pundits have claimed, it just deepens. From all I've read, there is no exact definition of a constitutional crisis. As long as Trump can get away with abusing his power, as long as Republicans who control Congress won’t stand up to him, as long as Americans who oppose this have no capacity to stop him, even though they may be in the majority, this rogue president will do more and more damage to our system of government. And the constitutional crisis will worsen.
 
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.

Certainly. If people want illicit drugs, there will always be a supplier. It just so happens that the biggest source of heroin is Mexican suppliers.

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

My god, you cant be that shallow.

sourcing Politifact is like sourcing Infowars.

:lamo

1) what, do you think they pull people from legal checkpoints to wander the desert? If so, why not just hire more people for the checkpoints?

2) Politifact gave the source for their information, it was right there in the quote I gave you.
 
What About What About Obama....Another lame excuse

Pro tip: Read back on the thread and you wont end up looking like an idiot.

I was answering a specific comment About Obama.

The "What About" thing is admitting that in honest comparison Leftist like Obama always come up short.
 
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.
We don’t normally see eye to eye, but on this one I agree. Trump likes to test the waters before making big moves. That’s what he’s doing now. Put the idea out to the public and watch the reaction from both sides and the media.

If he does decide to go forward there will be hell to pay with the Democrat led Congress and SCOTUS will be brought into it. Personally, I’d be willing to wager that Trump would lose because he cannot justify calling the wall essential and invoking a “national emergency” to pay for it.
 
Maybe this is all very similar to a "suicide by cop" but it's a "suicide by impeachment."

If he is impeached, he can talk for the rest of his life about how he was taken down by the "deep state," and how the Clintons, and Soros, and Obama, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Spongebob and the Teletubbies are all responsible for his downfall.

His base will buy it, he will have them subscribe to Trump! TV! 9.99 a month! and then they can all wallow in their misery of cheap booze and hand-rolled cigarettes, while Trump laughs all the way to the bank.
 
Pro tip: Read back on the thread and you wont end up looking like an idiot.

I was answering a specific comment About Obama.

The "What About" thing is admitting that in honest comparison Leftist like Obama always come up short.

The Same lame What About What About excuse, to cover for that idiot trump and his goons....You failed
 
Trump considering declaring national emergency to get wall funding

can you even IMAGINE the reaction on the right if Obama had floated something like this? the server for this forum would literally be on fire, and we'd have already lost at least two states to secession. lol. :lol:
 
can you even IMAGINE the reaction on the right if Obama had floated something like this? the server for this forum would literally be on fire, and we'd have already lost at least two states to secession. lol. :lol:

I keep wishing Texas would just go. Nobody would miss them.
 
SCOTUS has a conservative majority that Trump can rely on.

When it comes to being too extreme, the SCOTUS will be independent.. even Kavanaugh.
 
I keep wishing Texas would just go. Nobody would miss them.

there could be all sorts of unintended consequences to the US splitting up even voluntarily. the world is a much different place than it was last time.
 
there could be all sorts of unintended consequences to the US splitting up even voluntarily. the world is a much different place than it was last time.

Hey, I was only half serious. They're the ones with a whole secessionist movement.
 
Hey, I was only half serious. They're the ones with a whole secessionist movement.

i've thought about potential upsides to letting a few border states go, too. then i had to consider the downsides, like a significant reduction in our credit rating and loss of the dollar as global reserve currency, for starters. i'm sure that there a few countries that would like to see a split up US, though. my guess is that for both resulting countries, the consequences would be somewhere between really bad and catastrophic.
 
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?


Link, please.
 
Maybe this is all very similar to a "suicide by cop" but it's a "suicide by impeachment."

If he is impeached, he can talk for the rest of his life about how he was taken down by the "deep state," and how the Clintons, and Soros, and Obama, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Spongebob and the Teletubbies are all responsible for his downfall.

His base will buy it, he will have them subscribe to Trump! TV! 9.99 a month! and then they can all wallow in their misery of cheap booze and hand-rolled cigarettes, while Trump laughs all the way to the bank.

That actually sounds very credible, because remember, to Donald Trump, everything is a reality TV angle, even our very lives and the future of this country.
 
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.

I hate to be one of the LIKES on this, considering i have butt heads with all of the other members that did, but I have to agree with all of them on this.
If you don't get your way, then declaring a false emergency is not the way to do it either.

We need a big high concrete wall. Big high concrete walls work when most other means fail.
...and at the very same time eliminate all of the privileges and entitlements illegals get and we will have the issue fixed.

Rather than use scare tactics, how about cutting off some of those billions we send to other countries and use it here to build it.
People, corporations, and governments divert funds all the time.
or...or...just don't buy a few super-duper snooper scooter fighters. That might work too.

...but knock off with the fear tactics. There is no emergency.
 
Last edited:
I have never been on board the impeachment train but now I'm having second thoughts about it. This bastard is a danger to this country, he sold us out entirely and should be impeached.

Welcome... to the sane train... none of us onboard are surprised by this news. We are surprised it's taken this long. It's only going to get worse.
 
OK, so president Trump, head of the executive branch, is at an impasse with the legislative branch, which holds the purse strings. So, rather than accept that, he is now suggesting he can simply bypass the legislative branch altogether by declaring a national emergency and deploying whatever he wants to build his wall.

I recall once Trump said "I will faithfully execute the office of president ..."

Does this sound like he is fulfilling his oath?

And as somebody else pointed out, if you're cool with Trump doing this, will you also be cool with the next president doing it? Or how about the president 5 administrations from now?

What if Trump decides to declare a national emergency and cancel the 2020 elections?

What if Trump decides to declare a national emergency and dissolve Congress?

To tell you the truth, Trump is quite savvy. He often declares in advance what he 'might do.' He runs it up the flagpole to see who salutes. That is so he can judge the reaction. If the overall reaction is not to his liking he will back off. If it is sufficiently positive, he'll move forward.

Do you like Trump DICTATING to the country?
 
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.



Truman used the same tactic to seize the steel industry and was rejected by SCOTUS. Much ado about a blowhard.
 
Update: https://twitter.com/costareports/status/1081666053955112961

Robert Costa@costareports

Trump confidant tells me he’s still talking today about declaring a national emergency if talks collapse... and he’s getting encouraged by several of his friends on hard right to do just that, knowing it’d be challenged immediately

1:37 PM - 5 Jan 2019
 
Back
Top Bottom