Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?

[Doc91478]

Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...a_state_of_emergency_set_a_bad_precedent.html
By Carol Brown ~~ Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here). Really?
A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future. To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.
The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.
Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.



~~~~~~
Hmm..., " Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land". Who said that? Well, it wasn't a Republican that said those words.
It appears that the more they fight it, the more Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats and friends the RINOs prove themselves to be lawless supporters of criminals who want America to be overrun and destroyed. How many Americans really support that view? Some, but not most.
The Constitution does not give Congress or Courts rights to interfere into President's actions to secure US border. The president does not need 'State of Emergency' to build the 'Wall' on the border.
According to the article, there are approximately States of Emergency declared by George W. Bush '43' declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN. Trump's States of Emergency So far, the president has declared three national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, according to the Brennan Center.
IMO, there are at least 2 sources outside of the US budget. Money the US government has confiscated from criminals are not in a budget and can be used to secure US.
Then the US Government can impose fees and fines for certain business activity, which are not in a budget and can be used to secure US. Additionally, Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to various national security related departments and I am sure that Pentagon can survive if some of the troops training would be done not deep inside US territory, but on a construction of the Wall.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Yes... End Thread.

 

[Praxas]

Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...a_state_of_emergency_set_a_bad_precedent.html
By Carol Brown ~~ Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here). Really?
A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future. To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.
The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.
Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.



~~~~~~
Hmm..., " Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land". Who said that? Well, it wasn't a Republican that said those words.
It appears that the more they fight it, the more Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats and friends the RINOs prove themselves to be lawless supporters of criminals who want America to be overrun and destroyed. How many Americans really support that view? Some, but not most.
The Constitution does not give Congress or Courts rights to interfere into President's actions to secure US border. The president does not need 'State of Emergency' to build the 'Wall' on the border.
According to the article, there are approximately States of Emergency declared by George W. Bush '43' declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN. Trump's States of Emergency So far, the president has declared three national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, according to the Brennan Center.
IMO, there are at least 2 sources outside of the US budget. Money the US government has confiscated from criminals are not in a budget and can be used to secure US.
Then the US Government can impose fees and fines for certain business activity, which are not in a budget and can be used to secure US. Additionally, Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to various national security related departments and I am sure that Pentagon can survive if some of the troops training would be done not deep inside US territory, but on a construction of the Wall.

Using emergency powers the next Dem president can then declare a national emergency due to health care and single payer will be the answer. Hope you enjoy giving the next Dem president the power.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Setting a bad precedent in American politics? Is that even possible?

 

[Napoleon]

Using emergency powers the next Dem president can then declare a national emergency due to health care and single payer will be the answer. Hope you enjoy giving the next Dem president the power.

Good luck arguing that single payer is a national defense interest.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Using emergency powers the next Dem president can then declare a national emergency due to health care and single payer will be the answer. Hope you enjoy giving the next Dem president the power.

Where is the president going to get the money to pay for this? Never going to happen. Never!!
Emergency powers may be declared but congress won't fund it?

Trump has funds already appropriated, they just need to be moved and spent. (DOD)

 

[Praxas]

Good luck arguing that single payer is a national defense interest.

Don't have to, it's within the power of the president to declare a national emergency.

 

[Praxas]

Where is the president going to get the money to pay for this? Never going to happen. Never!!
Emergency powers may be declared but congress won't fund it?

Trump has funds already appropriated, they just need to be moved and spent. (DOD)

No, he does not have funds already appropriated to the wall. Again, you don't just get to spend it on what you want. That's not how it works, but then you should know that already.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Yes... End Thread.

Therefore, Trump will do it.

...the clown show marches on.

Edit : He'll try. And probably fail.

 

[Common Sense 1]

No, he does not have funds already appropriated to the wall. Again, you don't just get to spend it on what you want. That's not how it works, but then you should know that already.

With the emergency declaration President Trump can move the money he needs to construct the physical barriers.

It's a one time expenditure.




Trump’s authority would come not only from the National Emergencies Act, but also his power to control who may enter the U.S. and to protect the nation, as spelled out in the Supreme Court’s decision in the travel order case.

Trump reportedly is preparing a National Emergency Order and has found $7 billion that legally could be spent under such an Order. Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal writes that Trump may have as much as $13 billion available for a wall under a National Emergencies Act order
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/01/trumps-only-option-declare-a-national-emergency-build-the-wall-and-declare-victory/

 

[Praxas]

With the emergency declaration President Trump can move the money he needs to construct the physical barriers.

It's a one time expenditure.




Trump’s authority would come not only from the National Emergencies Act, but also his power to control who may enter the U.S. and to protect the nation, as spelled out in the Supreme Court’s decision in the travel order case.

Trump reportedly is preparing a National Emergency Order and has found $7 billion that legally could be spent under such an Order. Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal writes that Trump may have as much as $13 billion available for a wall under a National Emergencies Act order
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/01/trumps-only-option-declare-a-national-emergency-build-the-wall-and-declare-victory/

Again, that's not the way it works which is why it will end up in court. Either way, the end run around congress (even one time) can be done by a Dem president, I hope you will enjoy the show.

 

[Napoleon]

Don't have to, it's within the power of the president to declare a national emergency.

And there’s more to it than simply declaring an emergency. The statute says the executive can spend money or otherwise commit to expenditures without Congressional consent IF the President determines the action serves a national defense interest. That case is easily made when the issue is border security. I don’t see how it would apply to single payer.

 

[Praxas]

Incorrect. The statute says the executive can spend money or otherwise commit to expenditures without Congressional consent IF the President determines the action serves a national defense interest. That case is easily made when the issue is border security. I don’t see how it would apply to single payer.

I would say a nation full of sick and injured people would drastically hurt the defense of this nation. We should do everything we can to stop this disaster of health care.

 

[Napoleon]

I would say a nation full of sick and injured people would drastically hurt the defense of this nation. We should do everything we can to stop this disaster of health care.

The military screens them out so why is it a national defense issue? Are you planning a war that requires a draft nobody knows about?

 

[Praxas]

The military screens them out so why is it a national defense issue? Are you planning a war that requires a draft nobody knows about?

There are Air traffic controllers, TSA, police officers, fire fighters and many civil fields that all contribute to National Defense in their own way. Word Smithing is fun and a Dem president will have no problem having the legalites draft up something.

 

[Napoleon]

There are Air traffic controllers, TSA, police officers, fire fighters and many civil fields that all contribute to National Defense in their own way. Word Smithing is fun and a Dem president will have no problem having the legalites draft up something.

And the Supreme Court would have no problem killing it. That’s the difference.

 

[Praxas]

And the Supreme Court would have no problem killing it. That’s the difference.

We'll see. Lots of stuff a Dem president can do thanks to the precedence being set by Trump.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

With the emergency declaration President Trump can move the money he needs to construct the physical barriers.

It's a one time expenditure.




Trump’s authority would come not only from the National Emergencies Act, but also his power to control who may enter the U.S. and to protect the nation, as spelled out in the Supreme Court’s decision in the travel order case.

Trump reportedly is preparing a National Emergency Order and has found $7 billion that legally could be spent under such an Order. Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal writes that Trump may have as much as $13 billion available for a wall under a National Emergencies Act order
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/01/trumps-only-option-declare-a-national-emergency-build-the-wall-and-declare-victory/

It will be funny to have a president declare a national emergency in order to divert funds for the sole purpose of erecting a monument to his vain EGO.:lamo

What percentage of the border will it cover?

When it's done, is the "emergency" over?