• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there a border crisis? Depends on how you measure it.

lwf said:
I would like it if Congress had veto power over national emergency declarations.
Click to expand...

A change to the legislation that would cause the declaration to lapse after __[fill in the blank]__ days UNLESS AFFIRMED by both Houses, and to lapse after __[fill in the blank]__ days after each succeeding affirmation vote UNLESS REAFFIRMED by both Houses would do the trick.

I would suspect that the vast majority of "national emergencies" that you hear about (there are 31 other "active national emergencies" besides the latest one - how many of them can you name) are not in the least bit controversial.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You are correct that the US government has the right to exercise "eminent domain".

You are wrong if you think that the right to exercise "eminent domain" means that the government has the power to simply take property without proper compensation, or without actually establishing the need to take the property.

You are wrong if you think that the right to exercise "eminent domain" means that the government has the power to take AND USE property until all questions regarding proper compensation or actual need to take the property have been settled.
Click to expand...

Well, since I haven't said a word about these issues you list under "if you think", that means that regarding what I DID say a word about, you agree that I am correct. Thank you for your agreement.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, since I haven't said a word about these issues you list under "if you think", that means that regarding what I DID say a word about, you agree that I am correct. Thank you for your agreement.
Click to expand...

Take your tiny wins where you can get them.

That the US government DOES have the right to exercise "eminent domain" has never been questioned by anyone.

The REALITY, however, is that that right is hedged about with a plethora of safeguards designed to prevent misuse and the court actions involving those safeguards are likely to drag on well past 2024.

Your "win" is about as significant as

  • The President asks "Can I __[fill in the blank]__?"
  • The response from the legal experts is "You can __[fill in the blank]__, PROVIDED that you __[fill in the blank]__."
  • The President then announces that "I have received a legal opinion that I can __[fill in the blank]__, so I[m going to."

But, congratulations on "winning" a point that was never disputed.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Take your tiny wins where you can get them.

That the US government DOES have the right to exercise "eminent domain" has never been questioned by anyone.

The REALITY, however, is that that right is hedged about with a plethora of safeguards designed to prevent misuse and the court actions involving those safeguards are likely to drag on well past 2024.

Your "win" is about as significant as

  • The President asks "Can I __[fill in the blank]__?"
  • The response from the legal experts is "You can __[fill in the blank]__, PROVIDED that you __[fill in the blank]__."
  • The President then announces that "I have received a legal opinion that I can __[fill in the blank]__, so I[m going to."

But, congratulations on "winning" a point that was never disputed.
Click to expand...

Again...anything brought to the courts will come up against provisions built into various laws that take effect in the case of a national emergency. Those provisions will pretty much slap away those court cases...and it won't take long for the court to do the slapping.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm not a lawyer either, but the way I see it the government already has the ability to engage in eminent domain proceedings. Trump doesn't have to cite any special emergency provisions in any law to do that. In the case of a court challenge, however, he WILL, then, cite applicable special emergency provisions and ask that the challenge be dismissed.

In other words, the special provisions don't become necessary until there is a court case.
Click to expand...
No idea. But right now I see nothing in the statue he cited that allows the confiscation of the citizenry's private property; though I believe there may be other statutes that allow that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom