Dershowitz: Trump's emergency declaration was a ‘mistake’

[truth_seeker]

If Paul Ryan was an honest man and true conservative, he would explain his failure to rally a Republican majority in the House to pass healthcare repeal/reform, illegal immigration reforms,, during Trumps first two years.

But instead Ryan was an agent of the DC establishment the cheap labor-open borders interests.

He left the House, to grab $seven figures from establishment lobbying interests.

 

[edpc]

How so?  How would that work?

You probably know what I’m referring to, because you’ve been involved with discussion on the topic, in other threads. I’m talking about the capability of it future president to make declaration on healthcare, climate change, or some other pet issue.

[Sanguine]

You probably know what I’m referring to, because you’ve been involved with discussion on the topic, in other threads. I’m talking about the capability of it future president to make declaration on healthcare, climate change, or some other pet issue.

And, if Trump weren't to make a declaration on what is clearly an emergency, that will prevent the dems from ever declaring an overreaching emergency declaration?

Come on, that's beyond weak.

[edpc]

And, if Trump weren't to make a declaration on what is clearly an emergency, that will prevent the dems from ever declaring an overreaching emergency declaration?

Come on, that's beyond weak.

It’s extremely tough to buy into the idea of an emergency when you have a 2 year slow roll, constant deference to Congress, not getting what you want from them, signing their crap bill anyway, feeling political heat, then going Chicken Little. That is especially true, when you know legal challenges will grind the process to a halt, for at least a year. It’s nothing more than pure political kabuki.

[Sanguine]

It’s extremely tough to buy into the idea of an emergency when you have a 2 year slow roll, constant deference to Congress, not getting what you want from them, signing their crap bill anyway, feeling political heat, then going Chicken Little. That is especially true, when you know legal challenges will grind the process to a halt, for at least a year. It’s nothing more than pure political kabuki.

Nice deflection.  Here's what I said:  "...if Trump weren't to make a declaration on what is clearly an emergency, that will prevent the dems from ever declaring an overreaching emergency declaration?"

You used the "I'm going to answer the question I wanted to get" tactic.  Poorly.

[edpc]

Nice deflection.  Here's what I said:  "...if Trump weren't to make a declaration on what is clearly an emergency, that will prevent the dems from ever declaring an overreaching emergency declaration?"

You used the "I'm going to answer the question I wanted to get" tactic.  Poorly.

No, I stated that, IMO, with the preponderance of evidence at hand and the president’s actions (and inaction), it is clearly not an emergency. You just didn’t like the way I said it. A real emergency would stop activities at the border, now, while the wall was bogged in legal challenges.

That would include a declaration of martial law at the border. Doing so would allow for the immediate deployment of military personnel and give them the power of enforcement, without violating Posse Comitatus. However, since the situation is not that dire, he won’t do it. Hence, there is no true emergency.

[Sanguine]

No, I stated that, IMO, with the preponderance of evidence at hand and the president’s actions (and inaction), it is clearly not an emergency. You just didn’t like the way I said it. A real emergency would stop activities at the border, now, while the wall was bogged in legal challenges.

That would include a declaration of martial law at the border. Doing so would allow for the immediate deployment of military personnel and give them the power of enforcement, without violating Posse Comitatus. However, since the situation is not that dire, he won’t do it. Hence, there is no true emergency.

This is tiresome.

Here's your original statement that I was asking you to explain:

Actually, many people have serious concerns this declaration is rolling out the red carpet for future executive overreach and a quasi-dictatorship.

You still haven't addressed how that would work.

[edpc]

You still haven't addressed how that would work.

I believe I have, by saying what other future presidents may do. The precedent set by the emergency declaration end run, after not getting legislative satisfaction, is the problem. Having this ‘emergency’ upheld by the court sets the groundwork for a future declaration on a multitude of fronts, based upon it.  In that event, it will become the ultimate petard, upon which we will be hoisted. There are conservative commentators that agree.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/02/14/dana-loesch-ben-shapiro-warn-trump-against-setting-a-precedent-for-future-democratic-presidents/

[Sanguine]

I believe I have, by saying what other future presidents may do. The precedent set by the emergency declaration end run, after not getting legislative satisfaction, is the problem. Having this ‘emergency’ upheld by the court sets the groundwork for a future declaration on a multitude of fronts, based upon it.  In that event, it will become the ultimate petard, upon which we will be hoisted. There are conservative commentators that agree.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/02/14/dana-loesch-ben-shapiro-warn-trump-against-setting-a-precedent-for-future-democratic-presidents/

And, you know as well as anyone else, that the dems do not need a Republican precedent to do what they are going to do. 

And, as for "quasi-dictatorship" what does that look like, and how is it different than now?

[Bill Cipher]

And, you know as well as anyone else, that the dems do not need a Republican precedent to do what they are going to do. 

And, as for "quasi-dictatorship" what does that look like, and how is it different than now?

Not true.  For many things there has to be someone who opens the door, someone who crosses the line - alea iacta est - after which the floodgates open. 

Getting rid of the filibuster for judges is a case in point.  The GOP could have done away with the filibuster on judicial nominations years ago, but they never did because it was an accepted part of how the Senate was supposed to conduct itself - what should be done as opposed to what could be done - until the democrats crossed that line by getting rid of the filibuster for all judges except the Supreme Court.  Once that step was taken, however, it wasn’t long before the GOP followed suit for Supreme Court nominations. 

The same will happen here.  Now that Trump has crossed the line, the floodgates are open and it is only a matter of time before the democrats get creative with the precedent Trump has created. 

[Sanguine]

Not true.  For many things there has to be someone who opens the door, someone who crosses the line - alea iacta est - after which the floodgates open. 

Getting rid of the filibuster for judges is a case in point.  The GOP could have done away with the filibuster on judicial nominations years ago, but they never did because it was an accepted part of how the Senate was supposed to conduct itself - what should be done as opposed to what could be done - until the democrats crossed that line by getting rid of the filibuster for all judges except the Supreme Court.  Once that step was taken, however, it wasn’t long before the GOP followed suit for Supreme Court nominations. 

The same will happen here.  Now that Trump has crossed the line, the floodgates are open and it is only a matter of time before the democrats get creative with the precedent Trump has created.

There are many recent examples of the dems opening doors that hadn't been opened before. 

[edpc]

And, you know as well as anyone else, that the dems do not need a Republican precedent to do what they are going to do. 

And, as for "quasi-dictatorship" what does that look like, and how is it different than now?

Just because they will, doesn’t mean that we should give them license to do so. Personally, I still believe in constitutional checks on each government branch. We are in the situation, because Congress has ceded some of their power the executive. That’s a mistake, IMO, and each branch should jealously guard their authority, as originally intended.

I think Shapiro summed it up in his cast best, last week. He said if we really believe Democrats are going to do whatever they want, anyway, we should just declare Trump dictator now, to stave off a future Democrat dictator.

Believe it or not, I would actually support a declaration of martial law on the border. It’s plainly stated as an executive power in Article 1, Section 9. That would actually allow him to use the military, in the defense capacity, on the southern border.

The people who insist we are being invaded and this is a emergency, should want that, as well. The fact he has not done it and likely won’t makes me wonder about his true motives. Under the circumstances, I think it’s a fair suspicion.

[verga]

If Paul Ryan was an honest man and true conservative, he would explain his failure to rally a Republican majority in the House to pass healthcare repeal/reform, illegal immigration reforms,, during Trumps first two years.

But instead Ryan was an agent of the DC establishment the cheap labor-open borders interests.

He left the House, to grab $seven figures from establishment lobbying interests.

IF. If the dog wouldn't of stopped he might have caught the rabbit. If the Queen had balls she'd be the King. It is a small word with huge implications. We need term limits and we need them 10 years ago, not yesterday. Our capital was built on a swamp and not much has changed.

[Sanguine]

Maybe this is the sort of thing you are thinking about, @edpc:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,352149.0/topicseen.html

[edpc]

Maybe this is the sort of thing you are thinking about, @edpc:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,352149.0/topicseen.html

That’s a good example. FDR declared more than a few open ended emergencies, without any congressional oversight or citations of statutes. Korematsu upheld the constitutionality of the relocation but Endo ruled the incarceration was not. The original order was recinded, offer those two SCOTUS decisions in 1944.  Due to that and the Truman declaration in 1952, the need for oversight and parameters were noted. That eventually became the act passed in 1976. Now, emergencies are part of US law.

The problem with this declaration is it’s addressing a situation that’s occurred over time as a present emergency, from cumulative effect. If that is upheld by SCOTUS, there’s nothing to stop a future president from invoking the same powers, in the wake of a mass shooting. They’ll cite previous shootings, the lack of congressional action, and this emergency as justification. It won’t be the drastic measure of completely suspending 2A. However, through bans on types and/or measures like registration, it will have sufficient effect to seriously jeopardize it.

[Sanguine]

That’s a good example. FDR declared more than a few open ended emergencies, without any congressional oversight or citations of statutes. Korematsu upheld the constitutionality of the relocation but Endo ruled the incarceration was not. The original order was recinded, offer those two SCOTUS decisions in 1944.  Due to that and the Truman declaration in 1952, the need for oversight and parameters were noted. That eventually became the act passed in 1976. Now, emergencies are part of US law.

The problem with this declaration is it’s addressing a situation that’s occurred over time as a present emergency, from cumulative effect. If that is upheld by SCOTUS, there’s nothing to stop a future president from invoking the same powers, in the wake of a mass shooting. They’ll cite previous shootings, the lack of congressional action, and this emergency as justification. It won’t be the drastic measure of completely suspending 2A. However, through bans on types and/or measures like registration, it will have sufficient effect to seriously jeopardize it.

OK, I see what you are saying, but the issue was whether or not Trump declaring this an emergency would open the door for democrats to do the same for lesser issues.  Obviously not, since FDR did it before it was even clearly legal to do so.

[edpc]

OK, I see what you are saying, but the issue was whether or not Trump declaring this an emergency would open the door for democrats to do the same for lesser issues.  Obviously not, since FDR did it before it was even clearly legal to do so.

The ‘lesser issues’ argument is one of the problems. They don’t see illegal immigration as an emergency. We don’t see climate change, healthcare, or gun violence as one. If the Supreme Court upholds this declaration, it will sanction executive whim as emergency. It’s really that simple.

[Sanguine]

The ‘lesser issues’ argument is one of the problems. They don’t see illegal immigration as an emergency. We don’t see climate change, healthcare, or gun violence as one. If the Supreme Court upholds this declaration, it will sanction executive whim as emergency. It’s really that simple.

They don't need a sanction.  The FDR example showed that.

[libertybele]

The ‘lesser issues’ argument is one of the problems. They don’t see illegal immigration as an emergency. We don’t see climate change, healthcare, or gun violence as one. If the Supreme Court upholds this declaration, it will sanction executive whim as emergency. It’s really that simple.

It would seem that if the SCOTUS determines what is a national emergency then they are rewriting law.  Shouldn't they only determine if the President has the constitutional authority to declare a national emergency and secondly does he have the authority to reapportion funds that Congress has already approved for other means?

[edpc]

They don't need a sanction.  The FDR example showed that.

I know you are in love with this example, but it’s pretty much negated, because of the 1976 act, plus the fact he had no constraints. In 1942, Dems held a 60% share of the House and 70% share of the Senate. He had also appointed 8 SCOTUS judges by 1941. Now, the 1976 Act has provided parameters. The current SCOTUS will decide if this declaration, after agreeing with Congress on how much wall funding can be obtained and where it can be built, is valid.

So, again, this decision will legitimize an end run around Congress, if a president does not achieve the desired result through legislative means. That’s a green light and precedent for future presidents to declare emergencies, if the get less than they want from the legislative branch. I happen to think that is a bad thing, whether it results in something we like, or not.

[edpc]

It would seem that if the SCOTUS determines what is a national emergency then they are rewriting law.  Shouldn't they only determine if the President has the constitutional authority to declare a national emergency and secondly does he have the authority to reapportion funds that Congress has already approved for other means?

There’s more to it than that. See the last paragraph in my previous reply.

[Sanguine]

I know you are in love with this example, but it’s pretty much negated, because of the 1976 act, plus the fact he had no constraints. In 1942, Dems held a 60% share of the House and 70% share of the Senate. He had also appointed 8 SCOTUS judges by 1941. Now, the 1976 Act has provided parameters. The current SCOTUS will decide if this declaration, after agreeing with Congress on how much wall funding can be obtained and where it can be built, is valid.

So, again, this decision will legitimize an end run around Congress, if a president does not achieve the desired result through legislative means. That’s a green light and precedent for future presidents to declare emergencies, if the get less than they want from the legislative branch. I happen to think that is a bad thing, whether it results in something we like, or not.

"In love with"?  No.  It is merely a convenient, timely and damned good example of why what you say is incorrect. 

[roamer_1]

Nothing of consequence will pass through Congress.  Nothing.

Except trillions and trillions of dollars, signed over without a peep by the 'Great Negotiator'.   

[Victoria33]

@edpc
@roamer_1
@QueenCatofAragon

On page one, I put a link to a document written by eminent domain attorney Charles McFarland.  Charles McFarland is the Texas member of the Owners’ Counsel of America, a network of leading eminent domain attorneys from across the country.

The summary is this:  If Trump had not declared a national emergency, he could have used executive power to take money from government budgets, and private persons and organizations would not be able to stop that.  In his words, "They would have little recourse to try to prevent it."

He said declaring a national emergency allows law suits to be filed by entities whose money would be taken by Trump, going around congress to do it.  Also, private property owners and organizations, including environmental entities, can file lawsuits against using national emergency to take land. In other words, the declared emergency allows law suits against it to be filed and they will not be thrown out of court. 

McFarland is explaining the law.  He thinks the wall will be stopped for a very long time as the national emergency law suits will take months to years to be settled. 

Now, I know you will attack McFarlalnd because you want the wall built tomorrow, but the eminent domain law is what it is, and he knows it as no other lawyer unless the other lawyer is also an expert in eminent domain.

[roamer_1]

If Paul Ryan was an honest man and true conservative, he would explain his failure to rally a Republican majority in the House to pass healthcare repeal/reform, illegal immigration reforms,, during Trumps first two years.

But instead Ryan was an agent of the DC establishment the cheap labor-open borders interests.

He left the House, to grab $seven figures from establishment lobbying interests.

You can't bring the DOPe together to do anything - That is a direct reflection of the Big Tent Rhinestone 'R'.
If you want them to stand for something, then vote for the ones that actually DO stand for something, and quit worrying about butts in the seats.

Again: The problem here is PRAGMATISM. Moderation. Compromise. Appeasing.
All y'all put them in there and keep putting them in there.