The "National Emergency" Thread

[Q-baby!]

Stay safe my Merican friends during this devastating national emergency! #MericaStrong! 

[IDBillzFan]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Just remember: no matter how bad it gets, Hillary's still not president.

 

Seriously. 

 

Though in fairness, while Hillary wouldn't try to build a wall, she WOULD  figure out a way for the Clinton Foundation to launder funds from coyotes bringing in illegals, and get her cut of the sex trafficking.

[TakeYouToTasker]

27 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Seriously. 

 

Though in fairness, while Hillary wouldn't try to build a wall, she WOULD  figure out a way for the Clinton Foundation to launder funds from coyotes bringing in illegals, and get her cut of the sex trafficking.

 

What do you mean “would”?

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Cute. I wonder how many of those were funding Acts for items that Congress refused to pass the day before. 

 

None of them.

 

I mean...there's a discussion that can be had about whether or not the situation at the border constitutes a "national emergency," or whether it's a greater national emergency than this.  And there's at least one other instance where a national emergency was declared because the President disagreed with Congress (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13222-continuation-export-control-regulations.)

 

But this seems to be the first time it's been used to dodge Congress' refusal to fund the President's pet project.

40 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

What do you mean “would”?

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/health/haiti-orphanages/index.html

[TakeYouToTasker]

23 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/health/haiti-orphanages/index.html

 

No, I get that.  What I meant was that the Clinton Foundation is likely already getting money from trafficking along our border.

 

 

[Turk71]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

None of them.

 

I mean...there's a discussion that can be had about whether or not the situation at the border constitutes a "national emergency," or whether it's a greater national emergency than this.  And there's at least one other instance where a national emergency was declared because the President disagreed with Congress (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13222-continuation-export-control-regulations.)

 

But this seems to be the first time it's been used to dodge Congress' refusal to fund the President's pet project.

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/health/haiti-orphanages/index.html

The discussion about whether there really is a 'national emergency' at the border should be a short one. Trump admitted that "he didn't need to do this" "wanted the wall faster than the legislative process would allow". He said this because he has no control over what comes out of his mouth. You know whoever wrote the speech would not be dumb enough to say that.

 Just for the record I have no affiliation with political parties so the usual mature and intelligent responses like 'suck it dems' etc. don't apply. I like to think for myself and think that money and influence peddling have corrupted the current system. Lobbying of Congress and corporate influence through super pacs undermine democracy imo. 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Turk71

[Paulus]

I love this Flipping timeline. This lifetime might get a bit more exciting. May we all be so fortunate

 

. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Turk71 said:

The discussion about whether there really is a 'national emergency' at the border should be a short one. Trump admitted that "he didn't need to do this" "wanted the wall faster than the legislative process would allow". He said this because he has no control over what comes out of his mouth. You know whoever wrote the speech would not be dumb enough to say that.

Yup.  He's often his own worst enemy (the Lester Holt interview after firing Comey is the perfect example).  I don't recall a president proclaiming a national emergency because Congress (who has the power of the purse) refused to fund one of his policy goals.  If he declared a national emergency his first week on the job to build a border wall citing serious problems like human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc... it would make his case stronger.  However, signing multiple spending bills without wall funding when Republicans had the majority in both Houses makes his case for a national emergency at this time dubious.

 

It's worth pointing out that we'd never be at this juncture if both parties over the years kept kicking the can down the road when it came to the problem of illegal immigration.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

43 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

 

It's worth pointing out that we'd never be at this juncture if both parties over the years kept kicking the can down the road when it came to the problem of illegal immigration.

 

And that's the true national emergency. Mental patients have taken over the house.

 

[BeginnersMind]

A bunch of folks who have said Trump has the authority to do this and his case is legally strong may be in for their great awakening. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/presidents-and-guardrails-11550274328?mod=mhp

 

And of course the blatherer in chief only hurt his case even more yesterday. 

Edited February 16, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[HamSandwhich]

7 hours ago, Turk71 said:

The discussion about whether there really is a 'national emergency' at the border should be a short one. Trump admitted that "he didn't need to do this" "wanted the wall faster than the legislative process would allow". He said this because he has no control over what comes out of his mouth. You know whoever wrote the speech would not be dumb enough to say that.

 Just for the record I have no affiliation with political parties so the usual mature and intelligent responses like 'suck it dems' etc. don't apply. I like to think for myself and think that money and influence peddling have corrupted the current system. Lobbying of Congress and corporate influence through super pacs undermine democracy imo. 

Won't be as simple as that, calling national emergency gives very broad powers to the president.  All he has to do is point towards a provision under a law and he can declare it.  It actually does not indicate that there needs to be an actual national emergency (that can be subjective as we're seeing today).  I don't particularly like that this is what the state of the law on this matter is as it can lead to abuse down the line also.  It is what it is.  As far as saying "he didn't need to do this", that's easily explained as saying something along the lines of he "did not need to do this [had we been able to get the funding through congress but now he has to becuase it is an emergency].  You must know that this stuff can be spun any way that people want to make it seem.  Not as slam dunk as you think.  Your personal feelings on the issue do not matter.

 

http://www.astho.org/Programs/Preparedness/Public-Health-Emergency-Law/Emergency-Authority-and-Immunity-Toolkit/National-Emergencies-Act,-Sections-201-and-301-Fact-Sheet/

 

Declaration

NEA Section 201 authorizes the president to declare a national emergency. The proclamation of a national emergency must be immediately transmitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register.^1,2 Under NEA Section 301, statutory emergency authorities enabled by the national emergency declaration cannot be exercised until the president specifies the provisions of law under which the president or other officials will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration or in subsequent Executive Orders published in theFederal Register and transmitted to Congress.

 

 

[Nanker]

17 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Agreed, but worries that it is unconstitutional seem to be more than orange man bad.  Seems like a fair argument to make   

 

 

I fully get your position on this, and it’s just really complicated.  Even if a wall helps in some respects, it could hurt on a logicial level.  There are plenty of people here illegally that would almost assuredly been a victim of a crime, whether it’s violent or sexual, if they didn’t get the ***** out of Central America.  I have spoken to people seeking asylum where their family members back home have since been murdered, raped, or recruited (by force) to gangs.  So that’s an example of someone coming here illegally that avoided that.  And I get your point about some people here illegally are sex trafficking victims.  

 

So we have examples of people suffering because of illegal immigration (though perhaps they would still face that if there weren’t able to cross the border?), and examples of people avoiding suffering because illegal immigration.

 

 

Edit: my only point is good and bad comes through the border.  It’s tough to see the net effect tbh.  My opinions always been that it’s worth it to help the good that come over the border.  

 

And with respect to human trafficking, even with a perfect wall that stops the US from being a consumer of sex trafficking victims, it’s tough to say what that has on the impact of sex trafficking on the whole.  

Why do they want to come to America when they don’t speak the language? Wouldn’t they be safe in Mexico? 

[boyst]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Yup.  He's often his own worst enemy (the Lester Holt interview after firing Comey is the perfect example).  I don't recall a president proclaiming a national emergency because Congress (who has the power of the purse) refused to fund one of his policy goals.  If he declared a national emergency his first week on the job to build a border wall citing serious problems like human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc... it would make his case stronger.  However, signing multiple spending bills without wall funding when Republicans had the majority in both Houses makes his case for a national emergency at this time dubious.

 

It's worth pointing out that we'd never be at this juncture if both parties over the years kept kicking the can down the road when it came to the problem of illegal immigration.

In a counter point I can easily believe that his first few years we're surrounded by less than experienced politicians and many idiots who did not see the end game that was coming Re the wall.

 

When both sides said they'd continue to work with him finding the wall going forward if he consented to their needs and reneged he started to get doses of the reality.  

 

I can easily believe that it's 2 years in and he's just now catching stride but this gif sums up every other day of his stride when he does something stupid or the media makes him look sloppy and I just can't find the words.

[BeginnersMind]

24 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Won't be as simple as that, calling national emergency gives very broad powers to the president.  All he has to do is point towards a provision under a law and he can declare it.  It actually does not indicate that there needs to be an actual national emergency (that can be subjective as we're seeing today).  I don't particularly like that this is what the state of the law on this matter is as it can lead to abuse down the line also.  It is what it is.  As far as saying "he didn't need to do this", that's easily explained as saying something along the lines of he "did not need to do this [had we been able to get the funding through congress but now he has to becuase it is an emergency].  You must know that this stuff can be spun any way that people want to make it seem.  Not as slam dunk as you think.  Your personal feelings on the issue do not matter.

 

http://www.astho.org/Programs/Preparedness/Public-Health-Emergency-Law/Emergency-Authority-and-Immunity-Toolkit/National-Emergencies-Act,-Sections-201-and-301-Fact-Sheet/

 

Declaration

NEA Section 201 authorizes the president to declare a national emergency. The proclamation of a national emergency must be immediately transmitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register.^1,2 Under NEA Section 301, statutory emergency authorities enabled by the national emergency declaration cannot be exercised until the president specifies the provisions of law under which the president or other officials will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration or in subsequent Executive Orders published in theFederal Register and transmitted to Congress.

 

 

 

From that WSJ piece above. A Pres­i­dent’s au­thor­ity is at its peak when he acts with the sup­port of Con­gress. It is some­what weaker if he acts on his own but Con­gress hasn’t spo­ken. But a Pres­i­dent’s power is “at its low­est ebb,” [quoting Justice Jackson from SCOTUS],when “the Pres­i­dent takes mea­sures in­com­pat­i­ble with the ex­pressed or im­plied will of Con­gress.”

 

Such is the clear case here. 

[Nanker]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Yup.  He's often his own worst enemy (the Lester Holt interview after firing Comey is the perfect example).  I don't recall a president proclaiming a national emergency because Congress (who has the power of the purse) refused to fund one of his policy goals.  If he declared a national emergency his first week on the job to build a border wall citing serious problems like human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc... it would make his case stronger.  However, signing multiple spending bills without wall funding when Republicans had the majority in both Houses makes his case for a national emergency at this time dubious.

 

It's worth pointing out that we'd never be at this juncture if both parties over the years kept kicking the can down the road when it came to the problem of illegal immigration.

Congress has abdicated their responsibility for decades to craft and pass a budget to fund the running of the government. 

Instead we get these horseshit string of contuing resolutions that fund sectors of the government. 

 

No POTUS can sign a bill or budget that isn’t presented to them. None of the CR’s he previously signed had anything to do with the DHS which is where the wall funding item resides. 

 

Most of our representatives in Washington believe their Job One is to get re-elected. They don’t want to be held accountable by getting skin in the game on controversial, thorny, and tough issues like immigration reform, Social Security, and Medicare reform. 

The last politician with the intelligence and gravitas to tackle a thorn bush like this was Senator Moynihan’s reform of Social Security. There are no players on the stage now that come close to being his peer. 

[The_Dude]

I support the wall and Trumps immigration policies. But on the other hand I’m also wondering what’s gonna happen to my dry wall crews. 

[grinreaper]

14 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

I support the wall and Trumps immigration policies. But on the other hand I’m also wondering what’s gonna happen to my dry wall crews. 

How are they on steel walls?

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

A bunch of folks who have said Trump has the authority to do this and his case is legally strong may be in for their great awakening. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/presidents-and-guardrails-11550274328?mod=mhp

 

And of course the blatherer in chief only hurt his case even more yesterday. 

The Commander in Chief... which means the President has an obligation to secure our borders.

Again, serious questions for the open border crowd in this thread: do you have a door on your house? Do you have walls in your house? Does your house or HOA have a barrier? If someone walked into your home uninvited, would you call the police? If you have answered "yes" to any of these questions why are you against securing our national border against people who would come into the United State illegally? 

[Koko78]

I love how everyone on the left is suddenly a Constitutional scholar.