The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on February 17, 2019, 07:56:16 pm
-
Dershowitz: Trump's emergency declaration was a ‘mistake’
By Tal Axelrod - 02/17/19 07:01 AM EST
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said in a new interview that President Trump's decision to declare a national emergency to build a wall along the southern border was a mistake.
“My own view is that it was a mistake to do it. I think emergencies are things that happened suddenly. The problems with immigration are long term,†he said in an interview that aired Sunday on John Catsimatidis’s radio show in New York.
“The Constitution requires that all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. This is a way of circumventing that provision of the Constitution.â€
more
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/430363-dershowitz-emergency-declaration-was-a-mistake
-
Emergencies are things that "happen suddenly?"
A Nation of Kate Steinle's ALL happened "suddenly" one at a time.
They are not coming back to us, suddenly or otherwise.
-
I believe caravans formed and politically organized to challenge our borders and immigration laws are a recent phenomenon and might even fit the working definition of ‘an emergency’.
-
Have to disagree here. Some are sudden and catastrophic, some build over time till they reach critical mass and get out of control.
-
So what was it when Obama declared a national emergency over a flu outbreak and no one had a word of concern?
I think our national security and sovereignty far outweigh the flu in importance as a ‘national’ emergency.
-
So what was it when Obama declared a national emergency over a flu outbreak and no one had a word of concern?
I think our national security and sovereignty far outweigh the flu in importance as a ‘national’ emergency.
Money in selling flu vaccines.
-
Have to disagree here. Some are sudden and catastrophic, some build over time till they reach critical mass and get out of control.
I wonder when it is an emergency for the frog in the slowly boiling pot he was placed in?
-
I think Dersh has taken tons of heat, over siding too often with Trump.
This is a chance to earn his way back into his normal liberal supporters' good graces.
It is Constitutional because Congress passed the measure in 1976, and it has been used dozens of times.
.
-
Have to disagree here. Some are sudden and catastrophic, some build over time till they reach critical mass and get out of control.
@Free Vulcan
@mystery-ak
@roamer_1
@QueenCatofAragon
@Cyber Liberty
Chaos theory:
Chaos happens with the last flap of a butterfly's wings:
A slight, not noticed bit of something happens, just like a not noticed flap of a butterfly's wings, then another tiny bit happens again, another flap of the butterfly's wings, and if nothing changes to stop it, at some time in the future, there will be one more flap of the butterfly's wings too much, and chaos happens and cannot be stopped.
Dershowitz is right, and it is because of this (yes, I have posted this link before but the people here need to know the truth of the matter.) My guess is Dershowitz has read this - top attorneys know top attorneys and know what their specialty is.
I taught Texas Election Law to attorneys because none of them had bothered to know it. Now, they were running for judge positions and came to get that knowledge from my election law seminar - they now had a reason for learning it. That is why I think Dershowitz has now read McFarland's article because he is an expert in eminent domain.
Charles McFarland is the Texas member of the Owners’ Counsel of America, a network of leading eminent domain attorneys from across the country.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/declaring-national-emergency-fund-trump-s-border-wall-may-be-ncna966586 (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/declaring-national-emergency-fund-trump-s-border-wall-may-be-ncna966586)
-
'I didn't need to do this' - Trump
-
'I didn't need to do this' - Trump
@Once-Ler
Those six words will not be forgotten and will be used in court.
-
@Once-Ler
Those six words will not be forgotten and will be used in court.
You're barking up the wrong tree.
If Congress had moved on the wall funds, of course he did not need to do this.
You are watching too much MSNBC.
-
You're barking up the wrong tree.
If Congress had moved on the wall funds, of course he did not need to do this.
You are watching too much MSNBC.
“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.â€
He waited two years, lost the House, and saw the prospect of his re-election fading, with the failure to build a wall. It’s clear what he was saying - ‘I need to save my political ass.’
-
I think Dersh has taken tons of heat, over siding too often with Trump.
This is a chance to earn his way back into his normal liberal supporters' good graces.
It is Constitutional because Congress passed the measure in 1976, and it has been used dozens of times.
.
Correct. I don't care what others say about his decisions. They are not president, nor know inside information. President Trump implements the correct action for our country. All this second guessing by others is boring to me. We've had about 75 National Emergency's by various presidents. In fact we still have some National Emergency's in effect. GOOGLE.
Hell if president TRUMP does..hell if he doesn't. So, none of their opinions matter. If there was correct information "out there' of all of president TRUMP'S achievements, it might have merit. They DON'T, SO IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS. WWW.MAGAPILL.COM (http://WWW.MAGAPILL.COM)
-
What is the big deal? Because it is president TRUMP? TDS The BEST president ever!
--------------------------------
President Jimmy Carter
Nov. 14, 1979 (still in effect): A national emergency in response to the Iran hostage crisis, which froze Iran's assets in the United States;
April 17, 1980: Further Prohibitions on Transactions with Iran, never terminated or continued.
President Ronald Reagan
Oct. 14, 1983: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1983;
March 30, 1984: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1985;
May 1, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua, revoked in 1990;
Sept. 9, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (in response to apartheid), revoked 1991;
Jan. 17, 1986: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya, revoked 2004;
April 8, 1988: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Panama, revoked 1990.
President George H.W. Bush
August 2, 1990: Blocking Iraqi Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Iraq, revoked 2004;
Sept. 30, 1990: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1993;
Nov. 16, 1990: Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation, revoked 1994;
Oct. 4, 1991: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Haiti, revoked 1994;
May 30, 1992: Blocking "Yugoslav Government" Property and Property of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro, revoked 2003.
President Bill Clinton
Sept. 26, 1993: Prohibiting Certain Transactions Involving UNITA (a political party in Angola), revoked 2003;
Sept. 30, 1993: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994;
June 30, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1994;
Aug. 19, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 2001;
Sept. 29, 1994: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994;
Oct. 25, 1994: Blocking Property and Additional Measures With Respect to the Bosnian Serb- Controlled Areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, revoked 2003;
Nov. 14, 1994 (still in effect): Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, continued in November 2018;
Jan. 23, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process, continued in January 2018;
March 15, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources, continued in March 2018 and expanded in August 2018;
Oct. 21, 1995 (still in effect): Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers, continued in October 2018;
March 1, 1996 (still in effect): Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba, modified by President Obama in 2016 and again by President Trump in February 2018;
May 22, 1997: Prohibiting New Investment in Burma, terminated in October 2016;
Nov. 3, 1997 (still in effect): Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan, continued in October 2018;
June 9, 1998: Blocking Property of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia, and the Republic of Montenegro, and Prohibiting New Investment in the Republic of Serbia in Response to the Situation in Kosovo, revoked in 2003;
July 4, 1999: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with the Taliban, revoked in 2002;
June 21, 2000: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, expired 2012;
Jan. 18, 2001: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2004.
President George W. Bush
June 26, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans, continued in June 2018;
Aug. 17, 2001 (still in effect): Continuation of Export Control Regulations, continued August 2018;
Sept. 14, 2001 (still in effect): Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks, continued in September 2018;
Sept. 23, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism, continued in September 2017;
March 6, 2003 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe, continued in March 2018;
May 22, 2003 (still in effect): Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest, continued in May 2018;
May 11, 2004 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria, continued in May 2018;
July 22, 2004: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods from Liberia, revoked in November 2015;
Feb. 7, 2006: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Côte d'Ivoire, terminated in September 2016;
June 16, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus, continued in June 2018;
Oct. 27, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, continued in October 2018;
Aug. 1, 2007 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions, continued in July 2018;
June 26, 2008 (still in effect): Continuing Certain Restrictions With Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals, continued in October 2018.
President Barack Obama
Oct. 23, 2009: Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, was never terminated or continued;
April 12, 2010 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia, continued in 2018;
Feb. 25, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya, continued in February 2018;
July 24, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations, continued in July 2018;
May 16, 2012 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen, continued in May 2012;
June 25, 2012: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2015;
March 6, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, continued in March 2018;
April 3, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan, continued in March 2018;
May 12, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic, continued in May 2018;
March 8, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela, continued in March 2018;
April 1, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, continued in March 2018;
Nov. 22, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi, continued in November 2018.
President Donald Trump
Dec. 20, 2017: Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption;
Sept. 12, 2018: Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election;
Nov. 27, 2018: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua.
-
“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.â€
He waited two years, lost the House, and saw the prospect of his re-election fading, with the failure to build a wall. It’s clear what he was saying - ‘I need to save my political ass.’
The very slight glimmer of hope that I had is definitely gone. **nononono*
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/5-insane-provisions-amnesty-omnibus-bill/ (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/5-insane-provisions-amnesty-omnibus-bill/)
-
“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.â€
He waited two years, lost the House, and saw the prospect of his re-election fading, with the failure to build a wall. It’s clear what he was saying - ‘I need to save my political ass.’
(http://www.cathtatecards.com/graphics_cache/e/d/3009-jhf972-3-600.jpg)
-
NeverTrumpers are all upset that Trump turns out not to be a dictator, and like every other president must work through the corrupted political process to achieve his promised objective of building up border security.
Off topic, I heard Bernie Sanders attack Donald Trump with every ‘ism’ and called him every ‘phobic’ in the book, including xenophobic. Donald Trump – the guy who married two foreign women.
So I guess the circus is finally in town now that the 77-year-old Bernie the Clown is in center ring.
-
NeverTrumpers are all upset that Trump turns out not to be a dictator, and like every other president must work through the corrupted political process to achieve his promised objective of building up border security.
Actually, many people have serious concerns this declaration is rolling out the red carpet for future executive overreach and a quasi-dictatorship.
-
NeverTrumpers are all upset that Trump turns out not to be a dictator, and like every other president must work through the corrupted political process to achieve his promised objective of building up border security.
Off topic, I heard Bernie Sanders attack Donald Trump with every ‘ism’ and called him every ‘phobic’ in the book, including xenophobic. Donald Trump – the guy who married two foreign women.
So I guess the circus is finally in town now that the 77-year-old Bernie the Clown is in center ring.
Congress rolled Trump again, apparently. But honestly I don't know how he could've avoided it - its like a guaranteed outcome.
BTW why is it the NTers have no criticism for the gutless sh*ts in the GOP that allowed that POS bill to get to his desk? Seems they should get just a bit of the blame.
-
Congress rolled Trump again, apparently. But honestly I don't know how he could've avoided it - its like a guaranteed outcome.
BTW why is it the NTers have no criticism for the gutless sh*ts in the GOP that allowed that POS bill to get to his desk? Seems they should get just a bit of the blame.
I’ll let the original AT answer that for you.
Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
This is not Paul Ryan’s fault. It’s not Mitch McConnell’s fault. Trump ran AGAINST the GOP and won. Responsibility is 100% his.
11:53 AM · Feb 15, 2019 · Twitter Web Client
-
Actually, many people have serious concerns this declaration is rolling out the red carpet for future executive overreach and a quasi-dictatorship.
How so? How would that work?
-
I’ll let the original AT answer that for you.
Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
This is not Paul Ryan’s fault. It’s not Mitch McConnell’s fault. Trump ran AGAINST the GOP and won. Responsibility is 100% his.
11:53 AM · Feb 15, 2019 · Twitter Web Client
But that would make the GOP more petulant and childish than NT'ers say Trump is. This gets confusing.
-
The GOP have earned the title of Do Nothing Party. Their failure and misguided outcomes of Trump's first two years were squandered like I have never seen.
The focus was healthcare, and if that wasn't misguided, it was criminal. There was zero chance of a positive outcome.
Trump should have focused on his keystone issue of the wall and border security and not done anything else other than the tax legislation. Because he waited, and lost the House, he reduced any chance of getting what he wants. This will be the worst gridlocked Congress of all time. Nothing of consequence will pass through Congress. Nothing.
-
The GOP have earned the title of Do Nothing Party. Their failure and misguided outcomes of Trump's first two years were squandered like I have never seen.
The focus was healthcare, and if that wasn't misguided, it was criminal. There was zero chance of a positive outcome.
Trump should have focused on his keystone issue of the wall and border security and not done anything else other than the tax legislation. Because he waited, and lost the House, he reduced any chance of getting what he wants. This will be the worst gridlocked Congress of all time. Nothing of consequence will pass through Congress. Nothing.
At the start of the Trump administration – when he was in office like what, 30 minutes? the Democrats got ahead of him on the wall. There’s no denying that as a novice to politics, Trump made mistakes in prioritizing his agenda and his actions.
But in his defense, Trump was at the start of his learning curve in how establishment DC works, on both sides of the aisle, especially against an outsider whose stated intent was to be a disrupter in their cozy den of thieves.
His performance has only improved since then.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Maybe this is the sort of thing you are thinking about, @edpc: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,352149.0/topicseen.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,352149.0/topicseen.html)
-
Maybe this is the sort of thing you are thinking about, @edpc: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,352149.0/topicseen.html (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nothing of consequence will pass through Congress. Nothing.
Except trillions and trillions of dollars, signed over without a peep by the 'Great Negotiator'. *****rollingeyes*****
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
The declaration is not the problem. the Constitutional crisis because of the declaration is the problem.
-
"In love with"? No. It is merely a convenient, timely and damned good example of why what you say is incorrect.
No, it’s not, because they’re completely different. No emergency power law was in effect. Party politics was the only possible roadblock. Republicans were irrelevant, at that juncture. There were no realistic parameters to stop him, especially after he packed the SC with 8 justices. The incarcerations were deemed unconstitutional and the relocation was de facto deemed unconstitutional, just recently, with the Trump v Hawaii opinion.
Korematsu has been put on par with Dred Scott, as an example of horrible SCOTUS ruling. This case will be based on a SCOTUS ruling of existing law, unlike the 1944 decision. You can compare FDR’s emergencies with ones declared by Wilson or Truman, because they occurred under the same conditions. They aren’t equivalent to those declared since 1976. It’s like comparing football offenses of today against the era when the forward pass was illegal.
-
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.
YEP. I would be more comfortable with a declaration of war. Weird, huh... :shrug:
-
The declaration is not the problem. the Constitutional crisis because of the declaration is the problem.
We agree that the declaration is not the problem. And, there are many, many adjacent and tangential problems.
-
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.
Well, there is 'Throw the bastards out' with a long history of popular activism....
-
YEP. I would be more comfortable with a declaration of war. Weird, huh... :shrug:
I think that might be appropriate at this point.
-
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.
That's right.
-
We agree that the declaration is not the problem. And, there are many, many adjacent and tangential problems.
None so great as the one explicitly overriding the direct will of Congress, and the power of the purse, belonging to the House. Hence the Constitutional crisis.
This is a bad, bad thing.
-
@edpc
@roamer_1
@QueenCatofAragon
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.
The fact the declaration would be challenged, then inevitably delayed, was a known quantity. As I had mentioned previously, if this was a true emergency, in the purest sense, the president would declare martial law on the border. That would allow enforcement by military personnel and provide the temporary ‘human wall’ he had mentioned in the negotiation phase.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Tremendous numbers of people are coming up through Mexico in the hopes of flooding our Southern Border. We have sent additional military. We will build a Human Wall if necessary. If we had a real Wall, this would be a non-event!
8:10 AM · Feb 5, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone
In the current circumstance, the military can only act as support. With martial law, the can enforce border law, without violating Posse Comitatus. That’s what would happen in a real emergency and why I don’t believe this is one.
-
None so great as the one explicitly overriding the direct will of Congress, and the power of the purse, belonging to the House. Hence the Constitutional crisis.
This is a bad, bad thing.
But, directly overriding the will of the executive branch is OK?
-
YEP. I would be more comfortable with a declaration of war. Weird, huh... :shrug:
Except, he cannot get that without Congress. He can declare martial law, without them.
-
But, directly overriding the will of the executive branch is OK?
The 1976 law allows for that, if the congress disapproves with majority vote and later has the votes to override a veto.
-
But, directly overriding the will of the executive branch is OK?
With regard to the power of the purse? Hell yeah. It is the perrogative of the House.
It is their job.
And Congress assembled made their will known. Senate AND House.
He is on very, very shaky ground.
-
Except, he cannot get that without Congress. He can declare martial law, without them.
Don't care about the particulars - Just the flavor of the thing.
-
With regard to the power of the purse? Hell yeah. It is the perrogative of the House.
It is their job.
And Congress assembled made their will known. Senate AND House.
He is on very, very shaky ground.
It is legal for him to direct the spending of some funds.
I'm done. Doesn't matter what facts I present you with, you're going to take the anti-Trump side. That's fine and your prerogative, but I'm done with the futile back and forth.
-
It is legal for him to direct the spending of some funds.
I don't think it is, if Congress has allocated it otherwise.
I'm done. Doesn't matter what facts I present you with, you're going to take the anti-Trump side. That's fine and your prerogative, but I'm done with the futile back and forth.
I assure you, this is not simply anti-Tump. I would say the same dang thing if it was RWR himself. :shrug:
-
NeverTrumpers are all upset that Trump turns out not to be a dictator, and like every other president must work through the corrupted political process to achieve his promised objective of building up border security.
Off topic, I heard Bernie Sanders attack Donald Trump with every ‘ism’ and called him every ‘phobic’ in the book, including xenophobic. Donald Trump – the guy who married two foreign women.
So I guess the circus is finally in town now that the 77-year-old Bernie the Clown is in center ring.
I agree. First they were afraid he would be a dictator, NOW they want him to act like a dictator. President TRUMP wrote his policy's and said...WORKING WITH CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION, he will try to implement these policy's.
President TRUMP is not working on his political career! He is a billionaire and now PRESIDENT! He has achieved the top rung....what political career is president afraid of losing? HE IS ALREADY AT THE TOP! He TAKES NO PAY...works 100 hour weeks. He "needs" a political career like some toe fungus. People are really nuts, with all the same talking points. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO DO THIS JOB! HE WAS LIVING LIKE A KING BEFORE THIS, now all this slander & lies about himself and his family. Who needs the stress? NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP. People are NOT GRATEFUL for what he is doing. Foreign people post and say they wish they had a TRUMP for president. Our own people are blind to his achievements. 22222frying pan
-
****
Posts: 3,643
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Dershowitz: Trump's emergency declaration was a ‘mistake’
« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2019, 01:57:52 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Sanguine on February 19, 2019, 01:51:20 PM
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?
--------------------------------------------------
Your last line; ARE YOU KIDDING? Different than now? You do know OBAMA is not president anymore, right? That was the dictator. What is dictator-like to you under president TRUMP? Even following the law and constitution they, DEEP STATE, stop him.
List it. I really need to know.
-
WORKING WITH CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Exactly. And I would expect nothing less from his tenure as president.
You’re also correct in saying that they (NeverTrumpers) blame Trump for republicans in Congress dragging their feet and putting up road blocks towards achieving the agenda upon which Trump was elected.
Not to mention they won’t admit that all their bellyaching and public insults of Trump assisted the Democrats in recapturing the house.
-
Not to mention they won’t admit that all their bellyaching and public insults of Trump assisted the Democrats in recapturing the house.
That's crap and you know it. You ignore historical trends just to be able to toss out your meme about the mythical NT'ers/ **nononono*
-
Exactly. And I would expect nothing less from his tenure as president.
You’re also correct in saying that they (NeverTrumpers) blame Trump for republicans in Congress dragging their feet and putting up road blocks towards achieving the agenda upon which Trump was elected.
Not to mention they won’t admit that all their bellyaching and public insults of Trump assisted the Democrats in recapturing the house.
Correct and that is why, they have some sort of mental disorder. Clear thinking people don't have these problems.
They are 'fighting" for America to be a socialist country. We have enough info, to make that a correct statement. AOC..
Kamala Harris..Cory Booker...MAXINE WATERS......all marxists and more. Most DEMON-RATS, Black & brown race, wants
socialism/communism. VENEZUALA. CUBA.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSmOuX6DtVU#)
-
Oops wrong video. Be back.
-
Take your time.