McConnell sets a dangerous precedent

Rogue Valley · Feb 15, 2019

Mitch McConnell just set a hugely dangerous precedent on national emergencies

2/14/19
With a simple statement on the Senate floor, Mitch McConnell set a hugely important precedent on the relationship between the legislative and executive branches. In announcing that President Donald Trump would sign the compromise legislation to keep the government open past Friday, McConnell also expressed support for Trump to declare a national emergency on the border -- a move that will allow the chief executive to tap into funds already allocated by Congress for other purposes to bridge the gap between the funding for his border wall in this compromise deal ($1.375 billion) and the amount Trump says he needs ($5.7 billion). Why does that matter so much? Because what McConnell is doing is effectively ceding Congress' power to allocate money. He is saying that on this one issue -- in order to get what he wants (the government staying open) he is willing to allow Trump to declare a national emergency and, thereby, take money Congress has dedicated to some other purpose to use for something the President considers more of a priority. "Oh, who cares?" you say. "There are billions of dollars swimming around all over the federal government. What difference does it make if McConnell lets Trump use a few billion that was supposed to be spent elsewhere?"

The Constitution cares. It's right there in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." What changed McConnell's mind? He saw the damage done to the party's brand from the first shutdown. The prospect of another government shutdown was so noxious to McConnell that he gave in to Trump on something that he knows could come back to bite him and his party down the line. "I know the Republicans have some unease about it no matter what they say, because if the President can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency -- an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday afternoon. "A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well. So the precedent the President is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans." She's right.

Basically, McConnell is allowing Congress to be extorted by Trump in order to obtain Trumps signature on the bipartisan government funding bills.

A one-year funding reprieve ... purchased at the expense of a dangerous Executive precedent. As always with Mitch, it's party before country.

Related: Legal specialists warn Trump national emergency declaration sets dangerous precedent

ttwtt78640 · Feb 15, 2019

If the national emergency law was intended to prevent the executive from re-allocating funds then it should have simply stated that intent clearly. Congress constantly passes "fill in the blank" laws which allow the executive to "fine tune" the law.

RabidAlpaca · Feb 16, 2019

ttwtt78640 said:
If the national emergency law was intended to prevent the executive from re-allocating funds then it should have simply stated that intent clearly. Congress constantly passes "fill in the blank" laws which allow the executive to "fine tune" the law.

If our government was designed so that the president can arbitrarily relocate funds as he sees fit, why did the constitution give congress the power of the purse.? If you're right, wouldn't it just be easier to hand the president a trillion dollars every year for him to use however he wants?

Will you complain when the next Democrat decides to call gun violence and climate change national emergencies then redirect any funding he wishes to those causes?

Luckyone · Feb 16, 2019

Rogue Valley said:
Mitch McConnell just set a hugely dangerous precedent on national emergencies

Basically, McConnell is allowing Congress to be extorted by Trump in order to obtain Trumps signature on the bipartisan government funding bills.

A one-year funding reprieve ... purchased at the expense of a dangerous Executive precedent. As always with Mitch, it's party before country.

Related: Legal specialists warn Trump national emergency declaration sets dangerous precedent

McConnell is and has been a Party stooge all along and does not represent the Constitution. What he represents is what the right wants to do whether it is Constitutional or not. He is not for the country but for special interests.

With him in charge of the Senate, justice and fairness have disappeared.

cabse5 · Feb 16, 2019

RabidAlpaca said:
If our government was designed so that the president can arbitrarily relocate funds as he sees fit, why did the constitution give congress the power of the purse.? If you're right, wouldn't it just be easier to hand the president a trillion dollars every year for him to use however he wants?

Will you complain when the next Democrat decides to call gun violence and climate change national emergencies then redirect any funding he wishes to those causes?

The Constitution doesn't exclusively give 'the purse' to congress anymore. Judges have ruled that the executive can declare states of emergency (conflicts like Viet Nam being another example) and spend as much as possible to satisfy that emergency.

Congress can't act on states of emergency because they are so SLOOOOOW. That is why the executive branch is better equipped to act upon them.

Luckyone · Feb 16, 2019

cabse5 said:
The Constitution doesn't exclusively give 'the purse' to congress anymore. Judges have ruled that the executive can declare states of emergency (conflicts like Viet Nam being another example) and spend as much as possible to satisfy that emergency.

Congress can't act on states of emergency because they are so SLOOOOOW. That is why the executive branch is better equipped to act upon them.

How does that work with a stated emergency that is not an emergency or is a very SLOOOOOW emergency? After all, didn't Trump say himself that "he was going to wait but he wanted to do it faster". Evidently even he does not believe it is an emergency as it was something that could be waited on. His own words.

Fletch · Feb 16, 2019

Luckyone said:
How does that work with a stated emergency that is not an emergency or is a very SLOOOOOW emergency? After all, didn't Trump say himself that "he was going to wait but he wanted to do it faster". Evidently even he does not believe it is an emergency as it was something that could be waited on. His own words.

That all depends on the wording of the law passed by congress that allows for the president to declare emergencies. And I suspect that this will ultimately be decided by the courts based upon that wording. It was congress that gave the president this power, so its hard for them to whine about its use. And if they want to change the law now, that is certainly within their power.

cabse5 · Feb 16, 2019

Luckyone said:
How does that work with a stated emergency that is not an emergency or is a very SLOOOOOW emergency? After all, didn't Trump say himself that "he was going to wait but he wanted to do it faster". Evidently even he does not believe it is an emergency as it was something that could be waited on. His own words.

Second first. I didn't say emergencies were slow. I said congress acts slowly to not be adequately equipped to handle emergencies. My bad, you misunderstood.

He waited for congress to act to secure the border...They didn't...But he gave them their chance. Now he'll have to wait as his emergency declaration is sent to the courts. Just like he had to wait for his declaration to prevent those peoples from countries in the Middle East with no records from coming to the US wind its way through the courts.

Luckyone · Feb 16, 2019

Fletch said:
That all depends on the wording of the law passed by congress that allows for the president to declare emergencies. And I suspect that this will ultimately be decided by the courts based upon that wording. It was congress that gave the president this power, so its hard for them to whine about its use. And if they want to change the law now, that is certainly within their power.

but doesn't an emergency have to be an emergency? How does a problem that has been around for 50+ years and is at the lowest point during those 50+ years get to be named an emergency? If the President can name anything an emergency and appropriate funds from other programs, why could he not do it for something like fighting free speech, which he thinks is a personal attack on him?

Luckyone · Feb 16, 2019

cabse5 said:
Second first. I didn't say emergencies were slow. I said congress acts slowly to not be adequately equipped to handle emergencies. My bad, you misunderstood.

He waited for congress to act to secure the border...They didn't...But he gave them their chance. Now he'll have to wait as his emergency declaration is sent to the courts. Just like he had to wait for his declaration to prevent those peoples from countries in the Middle East with no records from coming to the US wind its way through the courts.

Evidently this is not a true emergency as it has to go through the courts. When was the last time that an emergency had to be contested being called an emergency. Can you give me any? This emergency has to wait

I can visualize Trump calling 911 and saying that he has an emergency but that there is no rush as it can wait 3-6 months, or in the case of the wall, 3-6 years as building a wall across the entire Southern border cannot be done in less time.

cabse5 · Feb 16, 2019

Luckyone said:
Evidently this is not a true emergency as it has to go through the courts. When was the last time that an emergency had to be contested being called an emergency. Can you give me any? This emergency has to wait

I can visualize Trump calling 911 and saying that he has an emergency but that there is no rush as it can wait 3-6 months, or in the case of the wall, 3-6 years as building a wall across the entire Southern border cannot be done in less time.

Would you then not consider climate change an emergency since it will be, at least, 2050 before renewable fuels will dominate the market? Would you also consider climate change not an emergency since green laws restrict less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases?:lamo

Luckyone · Feb 16, 2019

cabse5 said:
Would you then not consider climate change an emergency since it will be, at least, 2050 before renewable fuels will dominate the market? Would you also consider climate change not an emergency since green laws restrict less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases?:lamo

Yes, Climate change is an emergency as so many other things are. Nonetheless, it is not the kind of an emergency where funds have to be appropriated from other areas where the money has already been set for. Like most everything that is a problem that needs to be resolved, it needs to be addressed, discussed, voted on and then done.

Neither the Illegal Alien problem, Climate Change, Gun Control, Opioid Crisis or the Middle East threat can be called an emergency to the point that funds need to be appropriated by the President. Emergencies are for something that happened today that was not previously addressed and needs to be immediately addressed and there are no funds with which to address it with.

cabse5 · Feb 16, 2019

Luckyone said:
Yes, Climate change is an emergency as so many other things are. Nonetheless, it is not the kind of an emergency where funds have to be appropriated from other areas where the money has already been set for. Like most everything that is a problem that needs to be resolved, it needs to be addressed, discussed, voted on and then done.

Neither the Illegal Alien problem, Climate Change, Gun Control, Opioid Crisis or the Middle East threat can be called an emergency to the point that funds need to be appropriated by the President. Emergencies are for something that happened today that was not previously addressed and needs to be immediately addressed and there are no funds with which to address it with.

Your analogy of a 'slow' incident not being an emergency isn't appropriate, is it?

ttwtt78640 · Feb 16, 2019

RabidAlpaca said:
If our government was designed so that the president can arbitrarily relocate funds as he sees fit, why did the constitution give congress the power of the purse.? If you're right, wouldn't it just be easier to hand the president a trillion dollars every year for him to use however he wants?

Will you complain when the next Democrat decides to call gun violence and climate change national emergencies then redirect any funding he wishes to those causes?

Hmm... are you agreeing that congress passing a rather broad national emergency law was a bad idea?

Rogue Valley · Feb 16, 2019

cabse5 said:
Your analogy of a 'slow' incident not being an emergency isn't appropriate, is it?

There is no emergency. Trump said so himself. "I didn't have to do this."

Luckyone · Feb 16, 2019

cabse5 said:
Your analogy of a 'slow' incident not being an emergency isn't appropriate, is it?

No, of course not. In this case, it is very slow as it has been going on for 50+ years so it has to be called an emergency, right?

Emergencies are for events that are happening unexpectedly and have not been addressed before. This incident does not qualify as an emergency since it has been going on for over 50 years and it has been addressed before.

Simple as that.

Fletch · Feb 16, 2019

Luckyone said:
but doesn't an emergency have to be an emergency? How does a problem that has been around for 50+ years and is at the lowest point during those 50+ years get to be named an emergency? If the President can name anything an emergency and appropriate funds from other programs, why could he not do it for something like fighting free speech, which he thinks is a personal attack on him?

Again, I think it depends upon the wording of the law passed by congress. If it gives the president the sole power to determine what is an emergency and allows him to move funds around at his discretion or doesnt prohibit it, then he can likely do what he is doing. But no law can ever allow a president to violate the Constitution or the rights of the people

Irwin Corey · Feb 16, 2019

McConnell sets a dangerous precedent

Again.

Or should that be:

Again?

Or

Again!

2020, time for the turtle head to go home and enjoy his wife's money.

rocket88 · Feb 16, 2019

Fletch said:
Again, I think it depends upon the wording of the law passed by congress. If it gives the president the sole power to determine what is an emergency and allows him to move funds around at his discretion or doesnt prohibit it, then he can likely do what he is doing. But no law can ever allow a president to violate the Constitution or the rights of the people

Under the emergency powers law passed in 1976, the President's power is almost unlimited.

What Can a President Do During a State of Emergency? - The Atlantic

Luckyone · Feb 16, 2019

Fletch said:
Again, I think it depends upon the wording of the law passed by congress. If it gives the president the sole power to determine what is an emergency and allows him to move funds around at his discretion or doesnt prohibit it, then he can likely do what he is doing. But no law can ever allow a president to violate the Constitution or the rights of the people

No, there is a definition of an emergency and the president has to follow the definition and not make one of his own. An emergency is that of a unexpected problem that has not been addressed before. There is nothing unexpected about this illegal immigration problem that has not been addressed before. If a president can decide the definition of an emergency, can he declare gum chewing an emergency? can he declare racism an emergency? Why not the the wage earnings being so low an emergency? and appropriate funds some somewhere they have been allocated to and allocate them to stop racism NOW. Racism is more of an emergency than illegal aliens, isn't it?

Grokmaster · Feb 16, 2019

Rogue Valley said:
Mitch McConnell just set a hugely dangerous precedent on national emergencies

Basically, McConnell is allowing Congress to be extorted by Trump in order to obtain Trumps signature on the bipartisan government funding bills.

A one-year funding reprieve ... purchased at the expense of a dangerous Executive precedent. As always with Mitch, it's party before country.

Related: Legal specialists warn Trump national emergency declaration sets dangerous precedent

More silliass left whining, while IGNORING THE LAW.

Under the National Emergency Act, the President DOES NOT NEED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL to declare a National Emergency, for WHATEVER REASON. And the President has NEVER NEEDED Congressional approval to re-allocate Executive Branch funds...

McConnell realizes this, and supports the POTUS checkmating the purely political bull**** from the democrats on the Hill, to STOP the effort to secure our border...and they could not care less about the consequences, other than to "BEAT TRUMP!!!

Sickening.

All of which has reduced the STUNNED "We-can't-believe-he-beat-us-again!!" Illegal-o-crats to this:

MrPeanut · Feb 16, 2019

Irwin Corey said:
Again.

Or should that be:

Again?

Or

Again!

2020, time for the turtle head to go home and enjoy his wife's money.

That was my first reaction to the thread title as well. Could we just make this thread a sticky and start it a decade ago?

Fletch · Feb 16, 2019

Luckyone said:
No, there is a definition of an emergency and the president has to follow the definition and not make one of his own. An emergency is that of a unexpected problem that has not been addressed before. There is nothing unexpected about this illegal immigration problem that has not been addressed before. If a president can decide the definition of an emergency, can he declare gum chewing an emergency? can he declare racism an emergency? Why not the the wage earnings being so low an emergency? and appropriate funds some somewhere they have been allocated to and allocate them to stop racism NOW. Racism is more of an emergency than illegal aliens, isn't it?

Again, what does the legislation say?

Luckyone · Feb 16, 2019

Fletch said:
Again, what does the legislation say?

I don't care what legislation says. Vocabulary and common sense have to be the determinants. If there is legislation to the contrary (which there isn't), it would not be based on anything intelligent.

Fletch · Feb 16, 2019

Luckyone said:
I don't care what legislation says. Vocabulary and common sense have to be the determinants. If there is legislation to the contrary (which there isn't), it would not be based on anything intelligent.

Well you should care since it is likely that the courts will rule based upon what authority the legislation gives the president, not what you think.

McConnell sets a dangerous precedent

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

Luckyone

cabse5

Luckyone

Fletch

cabse5

Luckyone

Luckyone

cabse5

Luckyone

cabse5

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Luckyone

Fletch

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Luckyone

Grokmaster

MrPeanut

Fletch

Luckyone

Fletch