McConnell says Trump will sign funding bill, declare a national emergency

[pamak]

It's relevant for a couple of reasons

1. Obama set some major precedents for expansion of Executive Authority.
2. It was claimed that he hadn't, and I simply pointed out that, in fact, he has done worse.

2.5 it lets us know whose complaints should be taken seriously. If an Imperial executive is only a problem for you when it's The Other Guy, then your problem isn't actually with the abuse of power.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Expansion of Executive authority through the use of an EO is not the same as expanding the justification for declaring a National Emergency...
If there is a zenith of Executive authority, then this is when the President declares a National Emergency.

 

[JustHanging]

However, if someone suggests (as someone did) that it's somehow a greater abuse of Executive authority than anything Obama did, then I'm going to point out that that is incorrect.

I sincerely can't remember Obama declaring a fake National Emergency because he couldn't get his way. Could you please refresh my memory. Thank you in advance.

 

[Objective Voice]

No, that was DACA

But DACA didn't by-pass Congress nor divert funds from other federal agencies just so then Pres. Obama could make good on a campaign promise. He stayed within the law and didn't abuse his executive power just to side-step Congress. Now, here's the really interesting part...ready for it?

Congress did what Trump demanded of them. Both parties came together and hammered out a legislative deal that both sides agreed to. Or in other words, they compromised. But to appease his vanity, Pres. Trump over-stepped Congress just to get more funds for his border wall, thereby, circumventing "the power of the purse". Nowhere in DACA will you find that Pres. Obama: a) diverted funds from other federal agencies to implement the program; and b) he never "legislated" from the executive thereby implementing immigration law. He used provisions of existing law to give immigrants the opportunity to remain in the U.S. lawfully.

 

[vesper]

I was pleased to learn that McConnell will be supporting Trump's declaration of a national emergency.

I am really getting fed up with the talking points of the left and TDS sufferers refusing to look at the facts.

While they point at the numbers being lower of apprehensions in years past, they turn a blind eye to the overwhelming increases in drugs and human trafficking. And they refuse to look at the stats from Doctors without borders where almost 1/3 of all women often very young end up raped during their journey to the U.S..These people give the coyotes and drug lords all their money making them even more rich while the morons in this country continue to reconcile and disarm allowing it.


Common sense will prevail in this battle. Trump will again have another victory.


You have to be a real moron to think it isn't a crisis when your immigration court system is backlogged 900,000 cases.

You have to be a real moron to think it is alright to spend over 100 billion a year on illegal immigration.

You have to be a real moron to think it isn't a crisis with the amount of fentanyl and heroin pouring across our southern border that doesn't get stopped and has permeated every state in the union where the pushers prey on our young. And right now the death toll over overdoses continues to climbs.


You have to be a real moron to think it isn't a crisis when states in our union are reeling financially from the last 2 decades of feckless immigration policies.

 

[Objective Voice]

Yes. Which he did not have authority to do, as even he admitted, before he did it.

However, the question wasn't over the Wall Emergency, but rather over whether Trump decided to radically expand the power of the Presidency. That is comparable to Obama's doing so, and why I drew the comparison.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

On the contrary. Obama didn't declare a national emergency when he issued his EO on DACA. He simply warned Congress that if they failed to implement comprehensive immigration reform legislation, he was very willing to issue an EO in an effort to give those immigrates who were already here (typically those minors brought to the U.S. by their parents) an opportunity to stay provided they hadn't committed any major offensives as outlined in his EO. That's completely different from what Pres. Trump has done here.

Also, I've yet to see any evidence of abuse of executive power by Obama via EO as you've claimed he's done that was more abusive than what Trump is doing. You've mention minor military campaigns in Yeman and Libya, but such actions were done under the War Powers Act - a LAWFUL executive authority. We may both agree (or disagree) that a sitting POTUS is right or wrong to use military force at whim for any reason he wants, but I wouldn't say that was an over-reach by Obama considering every POTUS since Nixon has done the same thing from time to time. Hence, that precedent was set a long time ago.

 

[cpwill]

I sincerely can't remember Obama declaring a fake National Emergency because he couldn't get his way. Could you please refresh my memory. Thank you in advance.

Worse, actually; he didn't even try to restrict his power grab to that which is (however loosely) restrained by the Emergency Powers Act. He simply decided that he could eventually unilaterally rewrite legislation.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

Expansion of Executive authority through the use of an EO is not the same as expanding the justification for declaring a National Emergency...
If there is a zenith of Executive authority, then this is when the President declares a National Emergency.

No. Wartime marks the general zenith.

Abuse of Emergency Powers is an abuse of an authority granted to the Executive by the Legislature. They may not like what the President has done with it, but they are the ones who gave him the authority to do so.

Simply deciding that one could effectively rewrite legislation through unilateral action, however, is another beast entirely. Comparable examples here might be "Trump decides the budget should have had funding for a Wall, so he writes an EO declaring that Federal Government will act as though it did, and spend funds accordingly" or "Trump decides he doesn't like the corporate income tax, so he issues an EO ordering the IRS to stop collecting it".

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

On the contrary. Obama didn't declare a national emergency when he issued his EO on DACA. He simply warned Congress that if they failed to implement comprehensive immigration reform legislation, he was very willing to issue an EO in an effort to give those immigrates who were already here (typically those minors brought to the U.S. by their parents) an opportunity to stay provided they hadn't committed any major offensives as outlined in his EO. That's completely different from what Pres. Trump has done here.

Correct. Trump is acting within his authority (even if he is abusing it), whereas Obama was not. Trump is stretching Legislative language, possible past the snapping point, Obama tossed it out alltogether.

So, maybe not completely different. Both are abuses of power and expansions of Executive authority.

Also, I've yet to see any evidence of abuse of executive power by Obama via EO as you've claimed he's done that was more abusive than what Trump is doing.

Well then read above. Trump is at least working within (if stretching and abusing) authority granted him by Congress. Obama recognized no such restriction, and took actions that even he admitted beforehand were unconstitutional.

You've mention minor military campaigns in Yeman and Libya, but such actions were done under the War Powers Act - a LAWFUL executive authority.

And how long does the President have to gain approval from Congress under that act? V, say, how long were we active in Libya?


President Pen And A Phone actually had more actions overturned by SCOTUS than any other President - including some fairly notable unaminous decisions.


For example, Obama decided that it was within his power to determine when the Senate would and would not be in session, instead of - as the Constitution states - the Senate having the power to make its own rules.

 

[pamak]

No. Wartime marks the general zenith.

Abuse of Emergency Powers is an abuse of an authority granted to the Executive by the Legislature. They may not like what the President has done with it, but they are the ones who gave him the authority to do so.

Simply deciding that one could effectively rewrite legislation through unilateral action, however, is another beast entirely. Comparable examples here might be "Trump decides the budget should have had funding for a Wall, so he writes an EO declaring that Federal Government will act as though it did, and spend funds accordingly" or "Trump decides he doesn't like the corporate income tax, so he issues an EO ordering the IRS to stop collecting it".

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I am not examine if the Legislature was wise or not in surrendering too much power to the President. I am disputing your attempt to equate the expansion of the justification of declaring a national emergency to the excessive use of EOs and similar tactics which have been often used by presidents to advance an agenda but without declaring any form of National Emergency. Sure wartime marks the zenith of Executive Power because it is during war times when presidents rely the most on emergency powers. It is the link that exists between a national emergency and emergency powers which makes an expansion of the justification to declare national emergency much more abusive compared to the case of signing Eos which do not rely on emergency powers.

 

[pamak]

Correct. Trump is acting within his authority (even if he is abusing it), whereas Obama was not. Trump is stretching Legislative language, possible past the snapping point, Obama tossed it out alltogether.

So, maybe not completely different. Both are abuses of power and expansions of Executive authority.

First, you act like you know the SCOTUS decision regarding Trump's authority to declare a National Emergency in this case.
Second, since you agree that the DACA did not declare a National Emergency, it does make sense to equate the abuse of power that comes from the former to the abuse of power that comes from the latter since a declaration of national emergency concentrates much more power in the hands of a president.

 

[cpwill]

The President has the power, granted by Congress to determine whether or not an Emergency exists, and direct funds to it. Here, Trump is using the letter of the law to avoid it's intent. ... In contrast, Congress has never granted the President the authority to simply de facto change immigration law,...

So Trump's abuse is an abuse of a granted power, within his authority, for something other than it's intent, whereas DACA was a radical expansion of Executive Authority beyond anything afforded to it.

You don't understand what an Executive Order is, do you?

Oh, I’m generally aware. Significant sections of my professional life are shaped by a couple of them.

Trump is using the letter of the law to avoid it's intent. That's an abuse, but it's one within his legal authority."

Man, don't even TRY to explain how you rectify those contradiction, just don't even try, because you're not supposed to use the letter of the law to avoid its intent.

That is correct – you are not supposed to use to the letter of the law to avoid its intent. To do so, however, is not a contradiction, it is a reality. That, for example, is how Democrats passed key parts of the ACA using Reconciliation (and it’s how Republicans passed their changes to the ACA as well, arguing that What Goes Around, Comes Around). It’s how well-meaning laws turn into regulatory abuse of others. (see, for particularly egregious examples, Civil Asset Forfeiture). And it’s how Trump is trying to achieve a wall (apparently) here.

If something is an abuse, then it's not within one's legal authority, unless you've invented a brand new definition of the word abuse.

On the contrary, it is fully possible to abuse one’s power within the constraints of the law. You are confusing “doing something bad” with “doing something illegal”.

But you just don't understand, or you don't accept, the concept of Executive Orders,
...Congress has nothing to do with Executive Orders, which is why they are EXECUTIVE orders, from the Executive BRANCH.

Quite the contrary – my life has been governed by Executive Orders. I have worked with and within them. I have no problem with Executive Orders, and am aware of what they are… and what they are NOT. Obama attempted to use Executive Orders to replace the legislative process, which was a radical expansion of Executive authority.

For example, if Trump were to get upset with the House for refusing to pass a corporate tax reduction, and declare via Executive Order that the IRS will no longer collect taxes from Corporations at all, that would be him attempting to effectively re-write Legislation (the tax code) via Executive Order, similar to how Obama attempted to effectively re-write legislation (immigration law) via the EO on DACA.

However, I am glad to see you state that: Congress has nothing to do with Executive Orders, which is why they are EXECUTIVE orders, from the Executive BRANCH. Though now I am confused about why you suggested earlier that Congress would have something to do with Obama’s Executive Order on DACA, if now you claim that Congress has nothing to do with them.

And Congress doesn't grant ANY president "the authority to change immigration law". When Congress acts, they pass bills for the President to sign.

Since they couldn't, or wouldn't, he wrote an EO.

Yup. Which was an incredible power-grab. The President doesn’t get to just change the law when he dislikes Congress’s refusal to do so. Trump has no more authority to lower the effective corporate tax rate to zero than Obama does to unilaterally change immigration policy.

EO's can be countermanded or reversed or nullified any number of ways by the next administration. In that respect, they're not as durable as a congressional bill passed and signed into law.

… in January of 2019, SCOTUS AGAIN decided to take NO ACTION against DACA, thus no SCOTUS injunction exists to nullify it.

So? An abuse of Executive Power doesn’t fail to exist until SCOTUS declares an action to have been illegal. It exists in and of itself. If Trump declares a national emergency and uses that to build a wall, that will be an abuse of his power the minute he does it, regardless of what the courts decide.

However, these two points line up neatly as a point against our Judiciary – EO’s can be later protected from being reversed or nullified, it seems, if you can get the right Judges to decide that they like them.

 

[cpwill]

I am not examine if the Legislature was wise or not in surrendering too much power to the President. I am disputing your attempt to equate the expansion of the justification of declaring a national emergency to the excessive use of EOs and similar tactics which have been often used by presidents to advance an agenda but without declaring any form of National Emergency.

I am not equating them. I am saying that the attempt to simply seize legislative power via executive fiat is worse than the attempt to use authority granted to the executive by congress in ways in which it disapproves.

An example:

You are driving down the road in your Toyota pickup, when Officer Ford pulls you over.

Ford: "I'm giving you a ticket for reckless driving, sir"
You: "But what was I doing that was reckless?"
Ford: "You were driving a Toyota. I think that they are naturally dangerous, and so I consider your driving to be reckless."
You: "But, but, merely driving a Toyota isn't reckless!"
Ford: "Actually the law as written in this state leaves it entirely up to the officer to determine whether or not the behavior is reckless, and so I am fully within my authority to declare that driving Toyotas is a reckless act.
You: "That seems like a terrible law!"
Ford: "Maybe. My fellow officers, Officer BMW, Officer Honda, and that scurrilous Officer Toyota go around abusing it all day long, by giving out tickets to good, decent, Ford drivers."
You: "So you really are literally giving me a ticket just for driving a Toyota?"
Ford: "Yup. I wish I could arrest you for being a dirty, no-good Toyota-ite, but unfortunately, the law only lets me issue tickets for reckless driving, not make arrests. Here you go."​

You would be right to conclude that the officers in this town had decided to abuse their lawfully granted power by favoring their preferred driver policies. Each officer seems to be doing so, even if none is actually operating outside the technical bounds of the law.


versus:

Officer Honda: "Sir, you are under arrest, you have the right to remain sile-"
You: "What am I under arrest for?"
Honda: "For driving this Toyota."
You: "But it's not against the law to drive a Toyota!"
Honda: "Well, it always should have been. Unfortunately, the State and the County refused to do something about it, and so I have decided to simply enforce the law that I wish I could enforce instead, and have declared driving Toyotas to be illegal in this Town, regardless of whether or not the Constitution or the Legislature of this state have granted me the authority to do so."​

Both Officers Honda and Ford are abusing their power and attempting to expand it well beyond the vision of that which was granted to them. Officer Honda, however is claiming a very different (and far more expansive) power than Officer Ford - Honda is claiming the right to simply re-write legislation to fit his preferences. That is something far more dangerous and abusive than Ford's acting within the laws that both afford and limit his powers in order to to achieve his own ends regardless of whether or not they were intended to be used in that manner.



Trump is abusing Emergency Powers using the authorities granted to him by Congress. Obama simply decided to replace Congress and grant himself the authority to effectively rewrite legislation. The latter is far more of a power grab than the former, though both be abusive.

 

[pamak]

I am not equating them. I am saying that the attempt to simply seize legislative power via executive fiat is worse than the attempt to use authority granted to the executive by congress in ways in which it disapproves.

I disagree because the executive fiat concentrates less power to the president, and a congress which disagrees with such actions still has the power to block such activities by simply passing legislation with simple majorities in both chambers. By contrast, a disagreement about the existence of national emergency empowers the president much more and depletes Congress from its power. From what I have read, The Congress does have the power to terminate declared national emergency but from what I read this requires a 2/3 majority in both chambers!

 

[cpwill]

I disagree because the executive fiat concentrates less power to the president, and a congress which disagrees with such actions still has the power to block such activities by simply passing legislation with simple majorities in both chambers.

On the contrary - in such a case, the President would have to sign legislation nullifying his own power, or Congress would have to block him with a 2/3rds' majority, and until then, the President is an unrestrained actor.

If the President has the ability to write and re-write legislation through Executive Fiat, then, short of changing the Constitution himself, there is literally no limit on his power. That is a far more unconstrained version of Executive Authority than the view that, when the Congress grants the President the authority to do X, the President can then do X even in ways in which Congress did not initially imagine that he would. If anything, much of what government does today is built upon the assumption of the latter. See, for example, Massachussetts v Environmental Protection Agency.

By contrast, a disagreement about the existence of national emergency empowers the president much more and depletes Congress from its power.

Quite the contrary - the National Emergency Powers flow from Congress in the first place.

From what I have read, The Congress does have the power to terminate declared national emergency but from what I read this requires a 2/3 majority in both chambers!

Oh. And what majority of Congress is necessary to overturn an Executive Order? And, if Congress passes a 2/3rds majority law stating that the President doesn't have the authority to enact X policy via Executive Order, what, in this world where An Executive Order is considered the equivalent of Legislation is to stop the President from simply releasing an Executive Order that says "I can', too"?

 

[Top Cat]

Trump actually just said this.

"If we had a wall, we wouldn't need a military..I'm going to be signing a nat'l emergency & it's been signed many times before. It's been signed by other presidents. From 1977 or so, it gave the presidents the power. There's rarely been a problem. They signed it. Nobody cares."

CBS Evening News on Twitter: ""If we had a wall, we wouldn't need a military..I'm going to be signing a nat'l emergency & it's been signed many times before. It's been signed by other presidents. From 1977 or so, it gave the presidents the power. There's rarely been a problem. They signed it. Nobody cares."… https://t.co/gWeAmHngUU"


The dude is losing his little mind.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Trump actually just said this.



CBS Evening News on Twitter: ""If we had a wall, we wouldn't need a military..I'm going to be signing a nat'l emergency & it's been signed many times before. It's been signed by other presidents. From 1977 or so, it gave the presidents the power. There's rarely been a problem. They signed it. Nobody cares."… https://t.co/gWeAmHngUU"


The dude is losing his little mind.

That horse left the barn some time ago.

 

[jghiretire]

"45 year low on illegal border crossings this year. Ice and Border Patrol Agents are doing a great job for our Country. MS-13 thugs being hit hard."

Some emergency!

So much of an emergency he ran off to Mar-A-Lago to play golf. Yeah Yeah I know the poor guy needs some "me time".:roll:

 

[jghiretire]

You mean like the nuclear option and Harry Reid?

If liberals would grow up and quit fighting a national security plan, we wouldn't be here.

Every precedent has been set the past decade. There are no limits anymore. It's a free for all.

And you started this idiocy.

Gee if conservatives would grow up and pull their heads out of their...............and actually negotiated -we probably wouldn't be here. GOP isn't willing to negotiate on much.

 

[Parrish]

Sorry, but I don't respond to irrational rants.

So you'll understand , then,why no one responds to yours.

 

[jghiretire]

I agree with you. I would see a completely unanimous vote by SCOTUS, and not in Trump's favor.

I still can't believe Trump would be this stupid. Can he?

You really have to ask?? If it does get quashed, he's got something to stir up the base with until the next election. "See I tried to work with them, but they wouldn't let me........" The base will buy it.

 

[jghiretire]

Did I miss Obama declaring a national emergency so he could make good on one of his campaign promises?

Here's the list of the national emergencies declared by the last few Presidents.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/DeclaredNationalEmergenciesUndertheNationalEmergenciesAct_2.13.19.pdf

I don't see anything like a wall. Seems like these were legitimate emergencies.

 

[jghiretire]

Remember that the RNC was hacked prior to the 2016 election. Have you seen any of the emails? Me neither. They are all acting like they're being blackmailed or extorted.i

The other interesting tidbit is the National Enquirer going after Jeff Bezos. Mr. Pecker is a good buddy of Trump's. Think of all the dirt they could have on these people. Bezos has enough money to tell them to pound sand but politicians?? Dirty little secrets??

 

[pamak]

On the contrary - in such a case, the President would have to sign legislation nullifying his own power, or Congress would have to block him with a 2/3rds' majority, and until then, the President is an unrestrained actor.

If the President has the ability to write and re-write legislation through Executive Fiat, then, short of changing the Constitution himself, there is literally no limit on his power[/I]. That is a far more unconstrained version of Executive Authority than the view that, when the Congress grants the President the authority to do X, the President can then do X even in ways in which Congress did not initially imagine that he would. If anything, much of what government does today is built upon the assumption of the latter. See, for example, Massachussetts v Environmental Protection Agency.

If the President has the ability to write and rewrite legislation through EOs then I can see how he can effectively be more damaging than a president who declares a national emergency in a more restricted way. But this is an assumption which compares a president who is unrestricted in issuing EOs to a president who has self-control after he declares national emergency. As you can see, you try to make a comparison in an uneven field. The proper comparison is to see which president is more abusive and dangerous as a result of the power he has accumulated? Is it one who is repeatedly using EOs or is it one who is repeatedly using declarations of an Emergency Power? Notice by the way, that no matter how many EOs a president is issuing, he can not use an EO to redistribute funds to boost his pet projects. By contrast, a president declaring a national emergency does not have such restrictions.

Quite the contrary - the National Emergency Powers flow from Congress in the first place.

You cannot say that ALL cases (including the current one) of declaring National Emergency Power flow from Congress. I think you agree that is unlikely for any president to simply declare a National Emergency and start detaining in internment camps US citizens (as it happened with the Japanese Americans in WWII). Plus there are past legal decisions which rejected attempts by presidents to declare a national emergency There is obviously some threshold in a president's freedom to declare whatever emergency he feels like. It is like arguing that ALL Executive Orders flow the Constitution. Some EOs flow from the Article Two of The Constitution according to court decisions (see the latest version of Trump's travel ban which was upheld in court). Other EOs have been ruled as being unconstitutional (see again Trump's initial version of the travel ban) and do not flow from the Constitution. In the same way, some declarations of Emergency Powers have been ruled as being constitutional and others have been rejected. As I told you before, you argue like you already know that Trump's declaration of National Emergency has been ruled as being Constitutional by the courts. We will see about this...

Oh. And what majority of Congress is necessary to overturn an Executive Order? And, if Congress passes a 2/3rds majority law stating that the President doesn't have the authority to enact X policy via Executive Order, what, in this world where An Executive Order is considered the equivalent of Legislation is to stop the President from simply releasing an Executive Order that says "I can', too"?

If the Congress passes in the first place a law about a certain issue with even simple majority, then a president would have to actually VETO the legislation AND issue an EO contrary to the legislation passed by the Congress , and of course Congress then will need a supermajority to force its version of law over the EO. BUT THIS type of presidential behavior is way more abusive compared to the one of just issuing an EO. Take Obama's actions and DACA. Obama did not nullify a compromise from the two chambers of the Congress and did NOT issue an EO which was pushing his version of DACA over the one that both parties had agreed. Obama also could not redirect funds from other branches of the Executive branch to help financially the DACA kids. By contrast, Trump disregarded a COMPLETED legislative action which was the result of a compromise by both parties and has more freedom to finance his decisions.

 

[Jack Hays]

So you'll understand , then,why no one responds to yours.

I get too many responses as it is. Anything that winnows out the chaff is welcome.

 

[jghiretire]

Talk about speculation. Only illegals could show that they’ll be harmed? Try again. Do you know how much private property the government would have to seize to build Trump’s masturbatory wall? I don’t know either, but you can bet on those property owners challenging those seizures in court.

What's a little eminent domain among friends tho??? Will be interesting to see how fast this goes to court.......