Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall (1 Viewer)

[Chomsky]

(CNN)President Donald Trump is inclined to declare a national emergency to secure military funding for his long-promised southern border wall if talks between administration officials and top lawmakers from both parties continue to stall, a White House official told CNN on Saturday.

While not the administration's preferred plan, the use of emergency powers to fund the wall "provides a way out" amid a series of contentious meetings and disagreements among Department of Homeland Security officials and Democratic lawmakers over basic facts related to border security, the official said.

"We can only stay like this for so long," said the official, who attended both meetings with congressional officials at the White House led by Trump this week, explaining that factual disputes have hung up discussions.

Source: (CNN) Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall

My hope is that this is posturing, because otherwise I think we're heading into dangerous territory and possibly a Constitutional crisis.

Essentially, we have a President stymied in his attempts to get his pet project off the ground, who shuts-down the government when Congress refuses to fund said project. When that doesn't work for him, he decides to declare a national emergency and circumvent the Constitutional separation of military and civilian forces.

I submit Trump is treading on very dangerous ground here. Very dangerous.

 

[Helix]

this is not good at all. i hope that it doesn't happen.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Source: (CNN) Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall

My hope is that this is posturing, because otherwise I think we're heading into dangerous territory and possibly a Constitutional crisis.

Essentially, we have a President stymied in his attempts to get his pet project off the ground, who shuts-down the government when Congress refuses to fund said project. When that doesn't work for him, he decides to declare a national emergency and circumvent the Constitutional separation of military and civilian forces.

I submit Trump is treading on very dangerous ground here. Very dangerous.

I submit that Trump will say anything and the TRump haters will likewise say anything......thus the thinking man goes by what is done.

 

[Chomsky]

I submit that Trump will say anything and the TRump haters will likewise say anything......thus the thinking man goes by what is done.

He's done far more than most of us like. Trust me.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Source: (CNN) Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall

My hope is that this is posturing, because otherwise I think we're heading into dangerous territory and possibly a Constitutional crisis.

Essentially, we have a President stymied in his attempts to get his pet project off the ground, who shuts-down the government when Congress refuses to fund said project. When that doesn't work for him, he decides to declare a national emergency and circumvent the Constitutional separation of military and civilian forces.

I submit Trump is treading on very dangerous ground here. Very dangerous.

Well, going along with the possibility he might try this, if he did then I can't agree with it.

I think someone on his staff trying to score points brought this possibility up, and I think wiser heads will explain how it would not be a good thing to do. However, if he tried it that would be my "one step too far."

I have no problem with the current shutdown battle. It is not a new tactic as it is well within normal political disagreement patterns.

But declaring a national emergency to use military funds and personnel to build a wall is NOT the way to go.

 

[Bucky]

Democrats can end this any day.....any day. They refuse to re-open the government.

 

[Chomsky]

this is not good at all. i hope that it doesn't happen.

Agreed. Can you imagine how emboldened he will become, if he gets away with it?

You know what this reminds me of? An abusive relationship. Where an abuser starts-off small and early in a relationship, and continues to escalate the abuse as his victim tolerates it and lets him get away with it. Sadly, we know how many of these relationships end.

 

[Winchester]

Democrats can end this any day.....any day. They refuse to re-open the government.

So can the Republicans, so can the President. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to point this out, kind of useless. Might as well just start a discussion on what we all thought Pelosi did on her Christmas Hawaiian vacation.

 

[PLizzy]

Source: (CNN) Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall

My hope is that this is posturing, because otherwise I think we're heading into dangerous territory and possibly a Constitutional crisis.

Essentially, we have a President stymied in his attempts to get his pet project off the ground, who shuts-down the government when Congress refuses to fund said project. When that doesn't work for him, he decides to declare a national emergency and circumvent the Constitutional separation of military and civilian forces.

I submit Trump is treading on very dangerous ground here. Very dangerous.

This is just Trump trying to put on a very poor poker face.

It's not believable that such a thing could even be legally ordered and frankly, even the Republicans wouldn't be able to save him.

 

[Chomsky]

Well, going along with the possibility he might try this, I can't agree with it.

I think someone on his staff trying to score points brought this possibility up, and I think wiser heads will explain how it would not be a good thing to do. However, if he tried it that would be my "one step too far."

I have no problem with the current shutdown battle. It is not a new tactic as it is well within normal political disagreement patterns.

But declaring a national emergency to use military funds and personnel to build a wall is NOT the way to go.

Agreed.

But I wonder if you have an opinion on this:

Is declaring an emergency and sending in the military considered "martial law"?

I believe it may be in the limited geographical are it is implemented. I base this upon Miariam Webster's (I know, it's not a legal source):

martial law noun

Definition of martial law
1 : the law applied in occupied territory by the military authority of the occupying power
2 : the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety

Source: (Mariam Webster Online) Martial Law

I'm referring to definition #2.

 

[trouble13]

Source: (CNN) Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall

My hope is that this is posturing, because otherwise I think we're heading into dangerous territory and possibly a Constitutional crisis.

Essentially, we have a President stymied in his attempts to get his pet project off the ground, who shuts-down the government when Congress refuses to fund said project. When that doesn't work for him, he decides to declare a national emergency and circumvent the Constitutional separation of military and civilian forces.

I submit Trump is treading on very dangerous ground here. Very dangerous.

If the potus feels that something is important enough to be included in the budget and it isnt, does he not have an obligation to not sign the bill?

Furthermore if he believes that the lack of funding is harming people, does he also have an obligation to declare it an emergency and take whatever actions he deems necessary?

If not, why do we grant any potus the power to do those things?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

This is just Trump trying to put on a very poor poker face.

It's not believable that such a thing could even be legally ordered and frankly, even the Republicans wouldn't be able to save him.

One can only hope.

But many of us will sleep better when he is out of office. We don't need this daily drama.

 

[trouble13]

Well, going along with the possibility he might try this, if he did then I can't agree with it.

I think someone on his staff trying to score points brought this possibility up, and I think wiser heads will explain how it would not be a good thing to do. However, if he tried it that would be my "one step too far."

I have no problem with the current shutdown battle. It is not a new tactic as it is well within normal political disagreement patterns.

But declaring a national emergency to use military funds and personnel to build a wall is NOT the way to go.

Why not?



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

This is just Trump trying to put on a very poor poker face.

It's not believable that such a thing could even be legally ordered and frankly, even the Republicans wouldn't be able to save him.

Why wouldnt it be legal?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Bucky]

So can the Republicans, so can the President. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to point this out, kind of useless. Might as well just start a discussion on what we all thought Pelosi did on her Christmas Hawaiian vacation.

Put a good bill for President Trump to sign. A good one. The national debt is 21.9 trillion. 5 billion is a drop in the bucket.

 

[Chomsky]

If the potus feels that something is important enough to be included in the budget and it isnt, does he not have an obligation to not sign the bill?

Furthermore if he believes that the lack of funding is harming people, does he also have an obligation to declare it an emergency and take whatever actions he deems necessary?

If not, why do we grant any potus the power to do those things?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yes, those points are legit. There are many things a sitting President can do within his purview. Up to pressing the red button, if he so chooses. But what is appropriate? The problem here, is many of us see this as overreach. Heading down a very slippery slope ...

 

[PLizzy]

One can only hope.

But many of us will sleep better when he is out of office. We don't need this daily drama.

Rest easy, Chomsky.

Trump is putting on a show for his base, because he knows this wall ain't happening.

He wants the optics of appearing to get what he wants.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Is declaring an emergency and sending in the military considered "martial law"?

Yes, however simply declaring an emergency and only sending in the military to erect a wall? Not sure that's martial law.
Martial law is when the military takes over government and it involves the suspension of ordinary law.

If all they're doing is digging and pouring concrete down at the border, but the stores, gas stations, banks and your place of work are all still open and you still get to come and go as you please and the internet is still on, I don't think it's martial law yet.
When you see the concrete K-barriers go down across Interstate 10 and the I-5, and tanks show up at the intersection of Figueroa and 8th Street, and soldiers with rifles start appearing at every bank, then you might want to consider it martial law.

 

[washunut]

Source: (CNN) Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall

My hope is that this is posturing, because otherwise I think we're heading into dangerous territory and possibly a Constitutional crisis.

Essentially, we have a President stymied in his attempts to get his pet project off the ground, who shuts-down the government when Congress refuses to fund said project. When that doesn't work for him, he decides to declare a national emergency and circumvent the Constitutional separation of military and civilian forces.

I submit Trump is treading on very dangerous ground here. Very dangerous.

I don't like Trump demeanor any more than you do. That being said I wonder if you found Obama's declaration that he doesn't need congress. He has his pencil and a phone.He also had an AG who called himself Obama's wingman.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Agreed.

But I wonder if you have an opinion on this:

Is declaring an emergency and sending in the military considered "martial law"?

I believe it may be in the limited geographical are it is implemented. I base this upon Miariam Webster's (I know, it's not a legal source):



Source: (Mariam Webster Online) Martial Law

I'm referring to definition #2.

No. They are not the same.

A state of emergency can be declared in a natural disaster, and military personnel can then be used to assist in the recovery efforts and reconstruction efforts like Louisiana after Katrina.

Hurricane Katrina state of emergency declaration

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_state_of_emergency_declaration

I believe that would be what Trump is considering with the Border, declaring a State of Emergency to

1. Allow troops be used to assist Border Patrol with controlling entry, and

2. Use Army Corps of Engineers and military supplies/assets to build the wall.

It would not be to take military control under martial law.

 

[trouble13]

Yes, those points are legit. There are many things a sitting President can do within his purview. He can press the red button, if he so chooses. The problem here, is many of us see this as overreach. Heading down a very slippery slope ...

I get that many disagree with him doing that. Ypu can count me in as one of the ones it gives pause to. I'm raising what I believe are legitimate questions. We are a republic. We nominate people to positions of power and they are elected to execute their duties to the best of their abilities.

I dont agree with what the Democrats are doing but i respect that they are perfectly within their rights and they have an obligation to do what they think is best. Same argument holds true for Trump.

Trump has talked about there being a crisis on our border since before he was elected. Hr pledged to do everything he could to fix it. He is living up to his pledge. It's an extreme solution but is it any more extreme than the behavior of Congress. Neither party has shown any eagerness to get the border under control. He is using what little tools he has.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Adverse]

Why not?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

IMO it is misuse of authority to declare a "state of emergency" simply to circumvent a political obstruction, especially when there is no real "emergency."

The Army Corps of Engineers can be used for building projects, but there is a process to be followed with authorization for civilian infrastructure construction along with funding approved by Congress.

Also, military units are prohibited for use in internal civil police actions under Posse Comitatus, with specific exceptions.

Declaring a state of emergency to do both would IMO be an abuse of power.

 

[HumblePi]

Source: (CNN) Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall

My hope is that this is posturing, because otherwise I think we're heading into dangerous territory and possibly a Constitutional crisis.

Essentially, we have a President stymied in his attempts to get his pet project off the ground, who shuts-down the government when Congress refuses to fund said project. When that doesn't work for him, he decides to declare a national emergency and circumvent the Constitutional separation of military and civilian forces.

I submit Trump is treading on very dangerous ground here. Very dangerous.

You never know, one day we may all be able to see Russia from our backyards just like Sarah Palin.

 

[NeverTrump]

Source: (CNN) Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall

My hope is that this is posturing, because otherwise I think we're heading into dangerous territory and possibly a Constitutional crisis.

Essentially, we have a President stymied in his attempts to get his pet project off the ground, who shuts-down the government when Congress refuses to fund said project. When that doesn't work for him, he decides to declare a national emergency and circumvent the Constitutional separation of military and civilian forces.

I submit Trump is treading on very dangerous ground here. Very dangerous.

If Trump hates illegal immigrants so much. Why does he hire so many and why are there investigations going on at his clubs that they forged their immigration documents??? There is no national emergency and there never will be a great border wall. Especially when the con man says so himself...

 

[trouble13]

IMO it is misuse of authority to circumvent a political obstruction, especially when there is no real "emergency."

The Army Corps of Engineers can be used for building projects, but there is a process to be followed with authorization for civilian infrastructure construction along with funding approved by Congress.

Also, military units are prohibited for use in internal civil police actions under Posse Comitatus, with specific exceptions.

Declaring a state of emergency to do both would IMO be an abuse of power.

You dont believe there is an emergency and I respect that but it is your opinion.

Trumps opinion is that it is an emergency and he was elected to lead us. He has the authority to declare what is and is not an emergency and what demands resources. That's his job.

While it may be unpopular it's not an abuse of power.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk