? for those Supporting the Emergency Declaration

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

haymarket said:

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

Click to expand...

Many are still in effect and address matters that congress could have dealt with. It makes little sense for congress to pass immigration laws and then not to adequately fund their enforcement.

ttwtt78640 said:

Many are still in effect and address matters that congress could have dealt with. It makes little sense for congress to pass immigration laws and then not to adequately fund their enforcement.

Click to expand...

While you posted, you did not answer my question. Can you?

haymarket said:

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

Click to expand...

Careful! You'll be accused of hyperventilating! :lamo

haymarket said:

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

Click to expand...

And still hasn't happened even if Trump invokes a national emergency. Because this is about enforcing current law. Congress already approved current immigration law. Long time ago. The issue currently on the table isn't about new law. It's about making sure there are sufficient funds enough to enforce already existing law in the best ways possible. Pretty sad that Congress is refusing to pay for enforcement of the law they already approved of.

haymarket said:

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

Click to expand...

Does Brexit count?? :lamo

Kal'Stang said:

And still hasn't happened even if Trump invokes a national emergency. Because this is about enforcing current law. Congress already approved current immigration law. Long time ago. The issue currently on the table isn't about new law. It's about making sure there are sufficient funds enough to enforce already existing law in the best ways possible. Pretty sad that Congress is refusing to pay for enforcement of the law they already approved of.

Click to expand...

That is a blatant falsehood. Trump wanted something from Congress in the form of a specific law which contained a certain financial amount. Congress would not give it to him. So he has decided to go around them and do it himself.

Has any of the previous Emergencies done that same thing?

I can find NONE?

And apparently - neither can you so you resort to presenting falsehoods about the reality of the situation.

haymarket said:

That is a blatant falsehood. Trump wanted something from Congress in the form of a specific law which contained a certain financial amount. Congress would not give it to him. So he has decided to go around them and do it himself.

Has any of the previous Emergencies done that same thing?

I can find NONE?

And apparently - neither can you so you resort to presenting falsehoods about the reality of the situation.

Click to expand...

What specific law did Trump want?

Kal'Stang said:

What specific law did Trump want?

Click to expand...

He wanted Congress to pass a law giving him the 5.7 billion for his wall. They refused.

haymarket said:

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but I know of at least one instance where a President declared a national emergency to the US based on events in another country and then proceeded to engage in warfare in that other country without ever once taking up the matter with Congress. We ended up losing an Ambassador in that country.

I think it's a good thing that...

1. Trump is directing his legitimate concerns to OUR country.

2. Tried to convince Congress to negotiate the funds he needs to deal with those concerns.

3. After months of partisan political posturing and opposition, that Trump has finally said enough is enough and is moving on...and dealing with those concerns without Congress.

haymarket said:

He wanted Congress to pass a law giving him the 5.7 billion for his wall. They refused.

Click to expand...

So, like I said, "sufficient funds enough to enforce already existing law in the best ways possible". Thank you.

Kal'Stang said:

And still hasn't happened even if Trump invokes a national emergency. Because this is about enforcing current law. Congress already approved current immigration law. Long time ago. The issue currently on the table isn't about new law. It's about making sure there are sufficient funds enough to enforce already existing law in the best ways possible. Pretty sad that Congress is refusing to pay for enforcement of the law they already approved of.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

So, like I said, "sufficient funds enough to enforce already existing law in the best ways possible". Thank you.

Click to expand...

A specious argument. The Legislative branch’s duties include creating laws and determining the need for and appropriation of funds to support the law. What Trump wants to do by declaring a national emergency is to circumvent the Constitution. It will fail.

ttwtt78640 said:

Many are still in effect and address matters that congress could have dealt with. It makes little sense for congress to pass immigration laws and then not to adequately fund their enforcement.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

And still hasn't happened even if Trump invokes a national emergency. Because this is about enforcing current law. Congress already approved current immigration law. Long time ago. The issue currently on the table isn't about new law. It's about making sure there are sufficient funds enough to enforce already existing law in the best ways possible. Pretty sad that Congress is refusing to pay for enforcement of the law they already approved of.

Click to expand...

It does not work like that. The law is enforced. Nothing in the spending bills passed by congress in any way limit the law being enforced.

haymarket said:

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

Click to expand...

Let me preface this by saying I do not support Trump invoking a National Emergency.

But I can only come up with two sort of answers.

One, how FDR handled the fallout from the Agricultural Adjustment Act he signed when there ended up being domestic push back from farmers and ranchers. Not quite a sidestep of Congress but at the time they did not react the way FDR wanted and ultimately he used a National Emergency for almost a year to deal with it.

Two, similar to one, in 1941 FDR proclaimed an "unlimited national emergency" to deal with Nazi Germany that was more or less a sidestep of Congress authorizing him such ability to deal with WWII. Even though FDR still got other bills through Congress, like funding to nations on our side against Germany, the idea of going with that unlimited national emergency was not about not getting everything he wanted from Congress but rather not waiting on them. By the time Congress could really do anything about our entrance to WWII, we already did anyway when Japan went after Pearl Harbor. By then the national emergency did not matter even though it was still in effect well into the early 1950's.

None of these really align to what Trump is wanting to do in using a National Emergency to get his wall built with funding intended to go elsewhere. But in both of those instances and in this case FDR, was making an executive power grab given conditions at the time even if historically speaking the idea was to get in front of Congress instead of battling them over some want.

RaleBulgarian said:

A specious argument. The Legislative branch’s duties include creating laws and determining the need for and appropriation of funds to support the law. What Trump wants to do by declaring a national emergency is to circumvent the Constitution. It will fail.

Click to expand...

And it is the Executive Branch's job to make sure that they are able to fully enforce the laws which Congress passes to the best of their ability. If Congress does not want a law enforced then they should do their job and repeal the law in question. Not make it to where the Executive branch cannot do its job effectively just because they don't have enough votes to actually repeal the law that they do not like.

Now, you say that this is circumventing the Constitution, tell me how when it was Congress that gave the President the ability to declare an emergency...which has always included using funds not appropriated directly from Congress mind you....and did it in such a way as to have left it so broad in scope? Again, Congress gave the President this ability. No President has taken this ability upon themselves. Several Presidents have used this ability, but they did not take it. It was given to them by Congress. Congress gave up this power to the Executive Branch. Just like they have given up powers to various Agencies in the Executive Branch. Something that I have railed against many times.

Kal'Stang said:

So, like I said, "sufficient funds enough to enforce already existing law in the best ways possible". Thank you.

Click to expand...

SO you want a monarchy instead of our current government. In the United States, congress passes laws and determines spending.

Redress said:

It does not work like that. The law is enforced. Nothing in the spending bills passed by congress in any way limit the law being enforced.

Click to expand...

In order to enforce the laws there must be sufficient money to pay for what needs to be done to enforce the law. If Congress limits that money, then the laws enforcement is limited also. Do you deny this?

Redress said:

SO you want a monarchy instead of our current government. In the United States, congress passes laws and determines spending.

Click to expand...

Strawman argument. Rejected.

Kal'Stang said:

In order to enforce the laws there must be sufficient money to pay for what needs to be done to enforce the law. If Congress limits that money, then the laws enforcement is limited also. Do you deny this?

Click to expand...

In the US governmental system, congress determines how much money is necessary. You might want to learn about how our government works, it will save you from saying silly things like this.

Kal'Stang said:

Strawman argument. Rejected.

Click to expand...

No, that is exactly what you are pushing for. I realize you do not understand governments, but the name for a government where one person has unlimited authority as you propose is a monarchy,

Redress said:

It does not work like that. The law is enforced. Nothing in the spending bills passed by congress in any way limit the law being enforced.

Click to expand...

As evidence you offer 12M to 20M illegal immigrants currently inside the US and more arriving daily.

RaleBulgarian said:

A specious argument. The Legislative branch’s duties include creating laws and determining the need for and appropriation of funds to support the law. What Trump wants to do by declaring a national emergency is to circumvent the Constitution. It will fail.

Click to expand...

Trumps policies and actions since his inauguration exclude any bona-fide emergency. This is a transparent Congressional end-around.

Just as disturbing is the action of Mitch McConnell in this regard. For the past three months McConnell has been counseling Trump that declaring a national emergency would set a dangerous precedent.

Yesterday however, McConnell said he would do his best to defeat any Congressional challenge (Motion to Dismiss) regarding Trumps emergency declaration.

As always with McConnell, it's party above country, even when he counseled that such a precedent is wrong and potentially disastrous once Trump is gone.

ttwtt78640 said:

As evidence you offer 12M to 20M illegal immigrants currently inside the US and more arriving daily.

Click to expand...

And people drive drunk every day, which does not mean that drunk driving laws are not enforced.

Redress said:

And people drive drunk every day, which does not mean that drunk driving laws are not enforced.

Click to expand...

It does mean that folks are not dependent on federal enforcement and are free to act at the state and local levels.

Redress said:

It does not work like that. The law is enforced. Nothing in the spending bills passed by congress in any way limit the law being enforced.

Click to expand...

Do you know what your arguments smells like? It smells like that time that Haymarket once tried to claim that as long as a person has just ONE gun then their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.

So, with that in mind, are you saying that as long as at least one person is paid enough to enforce the law 50% of the time then the law is enforced completely?