Bret Stephens: Would love to see Hannity react when Dem declares climate change emergency

[mystery-ak]

Bret Stephens: Would love to see Hannity react when Dem declares climate change emergency
By Joe Concha - 02/15/19 11:01 AM EST

Stephens made the comment on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," hours before Trump declared a national emergency in an announcement from the Rose Garden.

"The powers that Trump appropriates for himself now and that Republicans like Mitch McConnell willingly grant him are powers that future Democratic presidents are certainly going to seize using this as a precedent," Stephens said.

"And real conservatives already rue the day, but these faux conservatives are going to rue that day when they handed over so much power to an executive to act when he or she pleases," he continued.

"When Elizabeth Warren starts seizing banks or Kamala Harris declares a national emergency over climate change, I’d love to see what Sean Hannity has to say." 

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/430189-bret-stephens-would-love-to-see-hannity-react-when-dem-declares-climate-change

[Emjay]

I don't know who Bret Stephens is but he is whining the same song that members here have been singing.

Look, everyone.  The democrats have become a dysfunctional group of diverse weirdos with leftist leaders and leanings.

They will do horrible things if they get power; no matter what Trump does.

Trump should do what is right and maybe we won't have to deal with them for a while.

[edpc]

Look, everyone.  The democrats have become a dysfunctional group of diverse weirdos with leftist leaders and leanings.

They will do horrible things if they get power; no matter what Trump does.

What you continually fail to grasp is that the horrible actions will have been legitimized by the decision upholding this declaration. Your objection will be irrelevant.

[jmyrlefuller]

What you continually fail to grasp is that the horrible actions will have been legitimized by the decision upholding this declaration. Your objection will be irrelevant.

This is a budgeting maneuver, reallocating funds already budgeted... not a power grab.

[libertybele]

This is a budgeting maneuver, reallocating funds already budgeted... not a power grab.

Perhaps, but I don't believe that the Constitution allows him to move money around that has already be allocated by law by Congress.

[libertybele]

What you continually fail to grasp is that the horrible actions will have been legitimized by the decision upholding this declaration. Your objection will be irrelevant.

Bottom line; our politicians ALL need to be held responsible and accountable to the rule of law; our Constitution.  We the American people, our politicians and our DOJ have strayed drastically in the wrong direction, away from the Constitution.

[Machiavelli]

I don't know who Bret Stephens is

He's an NYT token conservative and Trump critic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens

[skeeter]

I don't know who Bret Stephens is but he is whining the same song that members here have been singing.

Look, everyone.  The democrats have become a dysfunctional group of diverse weirdos with leftist leaders and leanings.

They will do horrible things if they get power; no matter what Trump does.

Trump should do what is right and maybe we won't have to deal with them for a while.

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama, referencing to his DREAM Act EO June 15, 2012.

You're right, the rats'll do whatever the hell they want to do regardless of what Trump does.

[edpc]

This is a budgeting maneuver, reallocating funds already budgeted...not a power grab.

The original 2006 Secure Fence Act contained funds for hundreds of miles of barrier, in specified areas. Each supplement to that has been for X amount of dollars for X amount of barrier, in an identified zone. Whatever you think of the bills, that’s how they were written and passed. The legislative branch holds a constitutional check over the executive. They haven’t said an outright no, but have said you can only have this much, and over here. If you don’t get the legislative results you like, you can’t allocate resources under the guise of an emergency, without it being a power grab.

[edpc]

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama, referencing to his DREAM Act EO June 15, 2012.

You're right, the rats'll do whatever the hell they want to do regardless of what Trump does.

Except, in the case of DACA, there was a time when Trump seemingly recognized the future dangers in allowing executive overreach.

“If the Supreme Court rules that President Obama was wrong, which they should — because, by the way, if he was right, then I’ve been given tremendous power,” Trump said to reporters at the White House.  “Can you imagine me having that power? Wouldn’t that be scary? Right?”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/02/donald-trump-warns-of-scary-use-of-executive-power-if-supreme-court-upholds-daca/

[Mesaclone]

The original 2006 Secure Fence Act contained funds for hundreds of miles of barrier, in specified areas. Each supplement to that has been for X amount of dollars for X amount of barrier, in an identified zone. Whatever you think of the bills, that’s how they were written and passed. The legislative branch holds a constitutional check over the executive. They haven’t said an outright no, but have said you can only have this much, and over here. If you don’t get the legislative results you like, you can’t allocate resources under the guise of an emergency, without it being a power grab.

Actually, Constitutionally and by Statute, you can. Executives shift funds all over the place all the time...without congressional direction. IF this is an overreach of Executive power, the Supreme Court will be free to assert its power and deem it so...but my guess is that they will deem it a Constitutional action. As long as the President is willing to abide by the Supreme's decision, his actions are BY DEFINITION Constitutional.

[Emjay]

Actually, Constitutionally and by Statute, you can. Executives shift funds all over the place all the time...without congressional direction. IF this is an overreach of Executive power, the Supreme Court will be free to assert its power and deem it so...but my guess is that they will deem it a Constitutional action. As long as the President is willing to abide by the Supreme's decision, his actions are BY DEFINITION Constitutional.

Well, @Mesaclone Ed knows that.  He just enjoys annoying people with his anti-Trump rhetoric while ignoring the elephant NOT in the room and that is the emergence of the New Democrat party.

Thank God we may have a balanced Supreme Court now because this will probably end up there.

[libertybele]

Actually, Constitutionally and by Statute, you can. Executives shift funds all over the place all the time...without congressional direction. IF this is an overreach of Executive power, the Supreme Court will be free to assert its power and deem it so...but my guess is that they will deem it a Constitutional action. As long as the President is willing to abide by the Supreme's decision, his actions are BY DEFINITION Constitutional.

Not quite so sure that he has the Constitutional authority to re-allocate funds.  Consider:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

So, if monies have been appropriated by law to be used for other means, does he have the authority to utilize those funds for other purposes??

[skeeter]

Except, in the case of DACA, there was a time when Trump seemingly recognized the future dangers in allowing executive overreach.

“If the Supreme Court rules that President Obama was wrong, which they should — because, by the way, if he was right, then I’ve been given tremendous power,” Trump said to reporters at the White House.  “Can you imagine me having that power? Wouldn’t that be scary? Right?”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/02/donald-trump-warns-of-scary-use-of-executive-power-if-supreme-court-upholds-daca/

Considering Obama was using executive authority to usurp what is congress's specific constitutional prerogative, he was right.

[Mesaclone]

Not quite so sure that he has the Constitutional authority to re-allocate funds.  Consider:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

So, if monies have been appropriated by law to be used for other means, does he have the authority to utilize those funds for other purposes??

The 1976 Law allows the president to move funds from one part of the government to another to meet an emergency situation. That law IS congress authorizing the appropriating of said funds to meet the declared Emergency as the president deems prudent. As such, these funds ARE "drawn from the Treasury in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law". Congress allocated the funds to one part of the government...and by the 1976 statute...authorized the president to shift those lawfully allocated funds to other departments and for other tasks he deems necessary related to the Emergency.  In short, all funds WERE drawn in consequence of Appropriations of the congress...and then utilized according to congress own statute.

[libertybele]

Considering Obama was using executive authority to usurp what is congress's specific constitutional prerogative, he was right.

I feel it is important to not use 'but Bammy did it or the leftists are doing it'.  What we should be concerned about is those that we elect, adhering to the Constitution.  If we don't we will have nothing left. 

WHY did 535 members of Congress allow Bammy's overreach??  For one we had a corrupt DOJ, but also keep in mind, that the GOP held the majority the last 2 years of his reign.  Our elected officials and our leaders in the Senate and House should have NEVER allowed them to get away with what they did and certainly those leaders should have never been re-elected.  Here we sit.

[libertybele]

The 1976 Law allows the president to move funds from one part of the government to another to meet an emergency situation. That law IS congress authorizing the appropriating of said funds to meet the declared Emergency as the president deems prudent. As such, these funds ARE "drawn from the Treasury in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law". Congress allocated the funds to one part of the government...and by the 1976 statute...authorized the president to shift those lawfully allocated funds to other departments and for other tasks he deems necessary related to the Emergency.  In short, all funds WERE drawn in consequence of Appropriations of the congress...and then utilized according to congress own statute.

I didn't note any language in that law that states that the President is allowed to re-appropriate funding.  If you have found it; I would appreciate a link please. 

[Mesaclone]

I didn't note any language in that law that states that the President is allowed to re-appropriate funding.  If you have found it; I would appreciate a link please.

Here's the one I believe most applicable...but there are many others within the statute:

33 U.S.C. 2293, allowing the secretary of the Army to terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources (including funds, personnel, and equipment) of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects considered essential to national defense.

Keep in mind contextually, this paragraph falls within the powers granted to presidents under the National Emergency Declaration Act of 1976...it is literally congress authorizing the president to shift military funds to civil "works" to address a declared emergency. This is the aspect of the law that allows him to draw military funding...there are other sections that authorize monies from other parts of government to meet the Emergency. I'm not going to cite the entire Statute...but here's a link.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter34&edition=prelim
 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This is the next shoe to drop.

[edpc]

[truth_seeker]

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama, referencing to his DREAM Act EO June 15, 2012.

You're right, the rats'll do whatever the hell they want to do regardless of what Trump does.

I get the impression, nothing is ever enough for #nevertrump usual suspects. But I should check my 8th grade civics again. Drugs, people, crime and mayhem--not important enough?

[edpc]

I get the impression, nothing is ever enough for #nevertrump usual suspects. But I should check my 8th grade civics again. Drugs, people, crime and mayhem--not important enough?

I don’t know, let’s check.....

“I was successful, in that sense, but I want to do it fast,” he continued. “I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/15/donald-trump-on-national-emergency-i-didnt-need-to-do-this/

Interesting. Sounds like the guy who declared an emergency doesn’t think it’s really that important. He just felt like doing it faster, after it became a political imperative.

[240B]

OK. Who cares?
Let the Dumbocrats declare that Santa Claus is a 'National Emergency'. The dirty little secret is that more than half of Democrats know that the concocted 'Climate Change' meme is a hoax. They know it, but they can never say it.

Let it happen. Only then maybe we will have a real actual debate on the subject with facts and data instead of Holy Preachers like Al Gore who are on a religious mission to make themselves Billionaires.

[Fishrrman]

"Bret Stephens: Would love to see Hannity react when Dem declares climate change emergency"

When this happens (not "if", but "when"), it's gonna become another "Dredd Scott moment" for America. With similar results...

[Free Vulcan]

Stephens sounds like he's bristling to do some confiscating, nationalizing, and sending deplorables to the gulags, at least the ones that don't end up in the mass graves.