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

[cpwill]

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

It is not an assumption - it is a description of what has happened. We had one President grab the power to rewrite Legislation through Executive Action, effectively nullifying any Legislative restraints on his power, and we had a second who, because he is acting within the constraints of the authorities granted to him by Congress, remains constrained (however loosely).

The proper comparison is to see which president is more abusive and dangerous as a result of the power he has accumulated?

Hm. I would be inclined to not give that metric much weight for a couple of reasons.

1. "Who I think is more dangerous" is going to be heavily dependent on my personal preferences. People will argue that Trump's actions aren't dangerous, because he's just trying to protect America. Obama's actions, similarly, (his supporters will argue) weren't dangerous because he was just protecting children. First Citizen Trump is just trying to protect us from an Insidious Conspiracy Of Deep State Internationalists And Foreigners, And So Of Course He Has To Imprison Journalists - He's Not Dangerous, They Are (etc. so on and so forth) Whether or not you perceive that a President's use of his power is abusive or dangerous will be heavily colored by one's opinion of the policies he used that power in pursuit of. That is why the granting of any power is a fraught enterprise, which necessitating deep consideration of all the ways it could be abused, and how mechanisms can be put into place to check them.

*This, for example, is the situation we find ourselves in with the Emergency Powers Act, which seems to grant the President quite broad Authority, and which probably should have been thought through a bit better when written and passed. At the very least, probably, it should be time-limited, like the War Powers Act (though, again, under Obama we saw that the War Powers Act timeline wasn't really a limit either, as he blew through it).​

2. In terms of how power accumulates to the Executive, every power that a President seizes is a precedent that can be used by those who come after him. When Nancy Pelosi threatens that the next Democrat President can use Trump's expanded vision of a National Emergency to put major parts of the Green New Deal into place, she's not wrong.

*For example, if Trump were to follow Obama's precedent, he could issue an Executive Order telling the Defense Department that they were to now assume that their budget included the direction to build and man a wall along the Southern Border, and build it that way. Or, he could issue an Executive Order directing the entirety of the Executive Branch (including the Treasury Department) to just assume that Congress had granted him $8 Bn for the project, and to go ahead and build it.

Alternately, he could issue an Executive Order instructing the IRS to no longer collect Corporate Income Taxes above a rate of 5%, or telling the Social Security Administration Trustees to privatize Social Security. The precedent that Obama set - that, if the President really believes in a particular public policy, but Congress doesn't give him what he wants, that he can therefore just go out and do it anyway - is much more vast an expansion than Trump's expansion of how the President defines a National Emergency, especially given that it was the Congress gave him the authority to define what a National Emergency was or was not, whereas it never gave the President the authority to alter Immigration, Tax, or Entitlement law.​

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

Sure he does. If the President has the power to rewrite Legislation through EO's (which, per the Obama Administration's precedent, he does), then he can do anything (short of violating Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress) he likes.




TL/DR:

Trump is arguing: "I can use the specific powers given to me by Congress in ways of which they disapprove."
Obama argued: "I can take whichever powers I want from Congress without their permission, and use them however I please."

One of these is more dangerous than the other, and it's the second one.

 

[jghiretire]

look it up. the federal government 60 foot easement along the border they don't have to seize anything.

Care to try that again??

Nayda Alvarez wants nothing to do with any border wall, but her acre of land in Rio Grande City, Tex., where she lives in a brown house along the dividing line between the United States and Mexico, has become of great interest to the U.S. government.

She, along with dozens of other landowners in the Rio Grande Valley, received surprise letters from the federal government in recent months, requests from officials who are seeking access to their properties for surveys, soil tests, equipment storage and other actions.

It is, lawyers and experts say, the first step in the government trying to seize private property using the power of eminent domain — a contentious step that could put a lengthy legal wrinkle into President Trump’s plans to build hundreds of miles of wall, some of which passes through land like Alvarez’s.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trumps-border-wall-would-need-private-property-but-texas-landowners-plan-to-dig-in-for-lengthy-legal-fight/2019/01/10/d7e4cba8-1443-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html?utm_term=.13edb71877c9

 

[cpwill]

You cannot say that ALL cases (including the current one) of declaring National Emergency Power flow from Congress.

If the President invokes the Emergency Powers Act of 1976, then that is precisely what is happening, just as assuredly as when Congress exercises its Article 1 powers, those powers are flowing from the Constitution.

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).

The Emergency Powers Act was passed in 1976. FDR imprisoned U.S. citizens via Executive Order 9066.

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.

Indeed there is, though the case everyone is leaning on (when Truman tried to nationalize the Steel Industry) was also prior to the Emergency Powers Act, which granted the President broader authority (as near as I can tell) to determine what was and was not an Emergency.

Again, the law itself is a real problem. That, however, doesn't mean that Trump is not acting within its' strictures and restrictions.

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.

Since what is under discussion (and what concerns me here) is the expansion of Executive Authority... yeah.... that sort of seems the way to do an apples-to-apples comparison. Trump's seizure of expanded powers (which may later be checked, we'll see) v Obama's.

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.

That is incorrect. We do, indeed, have immigration law on the books that was the result of Congressional compromise. Law that Obama decided to re-write via Executive Action, because "Congress refused to act. (ie: change that compromise in ways that I wanted them to)".

Obama also could not redirect funds from other branches of the Executive branch to help financially the DACA kids.

Obama claimed the ability to rewrite legislation. Once the President has that authority, there is no restriction whatsoever on their ability to redirect funds, excepting in such ways as would also be illegal for the Congress.

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.

Trump is acting within a completed legislative action, utilizing the authorities granted to him therein.

One comparison there might be Obama opening up the campaign in Somalia utilizing the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF). No less a hawk than Senator McCain said that, had he known it would mean bombing Somalia, he wouldn't have voted for the AUMF, but, under AUMF authorities, the President has the authority to seek out affiliates and adherents of al-Qa'ida and associated movements (which includes al-Shabaab and, per a very, very stretched reading, ISIS) and take action against them. Obama was taking authority granted to him by Congress, and using it in a way of which they probably did not approve.


Here and now, Trump abusing the intent of that legislation (which is, the way it is written, ripe for abuse, which is why it should be re-written), but "using powers granted to me in ways the grantors did not imagine I would (bombing Somalia. building a wall)" is far less abusive than "I have the right to define my own powers however I find most convenient."

 

[Sgt Meowenstein]

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

No doubt some groups already had the papers ready to file in anticipation, because Trump has been sending out signals on this move for a while.

 

[jghiretire]

How many of you Trump supporters would back him up if said he was declaring abortion illegal due to "national emergency"?
All marijuana legalization laws cancelled and pot declared a major felony due to a "national emergency"
Social Security permanently suspended due to "national emergency"?
VA hospitals shut down permanently due to "national emergency"?
What about striking ALL EPA pollution regulations due to "national emergency"?
Full repeal and cancellation of all aspects of the ACA due to "national emergency?
What if he decided to cancel the 2020 elections on "national emergency" grounds?

There it is................trial balloon................

 

[pamak]

It is not an assumption - it is a description of what has happened. We had one President grab the power to rewrite Legislation through Executive Action, effectively nullifying any Legislative restraints on his power, and we had a second who, because he is acting within the constraints of the authorities granted to him by Congress, remains constrained (however loosely).

I will try to explain my position better after I address your point about the internment camps (in a different post). For the time being, I will simply say that what you present as a fact, I see it as a matter of legal opinion. If the SCOTUS decides that it is unconstitutional for a president in a certain case to take certain measures based on the 1976 Emergency Powers Act, then the SCOTUS will reject the argument that such act gives a president the right to do something which is unconstitutional. So, while the president will indeed TRY to argue that he acts based on the authority that Congress granted him, it does not mean that his argument will be convincing in every case.

Notice, that my opinion is that if SCOTUS prohibits the president from taking certain actions based on the 1976 ACT, it will not justify it on the grounds that the ACT itself is unconstitutional. It will justify on the grounds that the ACT does not give a president a blank check to do whatever he wants, and therefore in essence the SCOTUS will reject the president's argument that he is acting within the legal boundaries drawn by the Congress through the 1976 Act.

Sure he does. If the President has the power to rewrite Legislation through EO's (which, per the Obama Administration's precedent, he does), then he can do anything (short of violating Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress) he likes

Obviously, I am not an expert but my understanding is that a president cannot JUST sign an EO to transfer funds from one section of the executive branch to another. My understanding is that a president will ALSO HAVE TO ASSUME some form of emergency powers. If that was the case, then why did Trump need to actually declare a national emergency to get funds for the wall? He could just sign a regular EO and get whatever he wanted for the wall! Now, you are saying that a president can use an EO in a way to redirect funds. I think this was true before even the 1976 ACT as long as the president assumed some form of emergency powers, and previous presidents did something like this way before 1976. But this is not comparable to an EO related to DACA. Obama did not assume any emergency powers in that case.

more later...

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

[/B]
There it is................trial balloon................

Did you see all the whining outrage from a couple of people when I posted that? :lamo
Suddenly I'm "hyperventilating".
Hey, I just want to know how far they want to take this nonsense, that's all!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I will try to explain my position better after I address your point about the internment camps (in a different post). For the time being, I will simply say that what you present as a fact, I see it as a matter of legal opinion. If the SCOTUS decides that it is unconstitutional for a president in a certain case to take certain measures based on the 1976 Emergency Powers Act, then the SCOTUS will reject the argument that such act gives a president the right to do something which is unconstitutional. So, while the president will indeed TRY to argue that he acts based on the authority that Congress granted him, it does not mean that his argument will be convincing in every case.

Notice, that my opinion is that if SCOTUS prohibits the president from taking certain actions based on the 1976 ACT, it will not justify it on the grounds that the ACT itself is unconstitutional. It will justify on the grounds that the ACT does not give a president a blank check to do whatever he wants, and therefore in essence the SCOTUS will reject the president's argument that he is acting within the legal boundaries drawn by the Congress through the 1976 Act.



Obviously, I am not an expert but my understanding is that a president cannot JUST sign an EO to transfer funds from one section of the executive branch to another. My understanding is that a president will ALSO HAVE TO ASSUME some form of emergency powers. If that was the case, then why did Trump need to actually declare a national emergency to get funds for the wall? He could just sign a regular EO and get whatever he wanted for the wall! Now, you are saying that a president can use an EO in a way to redirect funds. I think this was true before even the 1976 ACT as long as the president assumed some form of emergency powers, and previous presidents did something like this way before 1976. But this is not comparable to an EO related to DACA. Obama did not assume any emergency powers in that case.

more later...

YOU SAID IT MUCH BETTER THAN I COULD, hats off to you.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You really can't see the difference?

Those are all basically "some s*** went down because of natural causes or a war that made people suffer, so we declare emergency to help the people"

If trump wanted to declare a national emergency at our border as a humanitarian crisis, because people are suffering, dying and starving because of conflicts in Honduras, Guatemala...I'd say Trump is right and we should fund that. But what is his justification? Bad hombres are coming to the country (at the lowest rate in 50 years, half as much as 15 years ago) and commiting crime (at a lower rate than citizens) ?

And like it or not, almost everyone would back him on it, too...including quite possibly the SCOTUS.

 

[pamak]

If the President invokes the Emergency Powers Act of 1976, then that is precisely what is happening, just as assuredly as when Congress exercises its Article 1 powers, those powers are flowing from the Constitution.

This has already been addressed at the start of my previous post.. Yes, Trump invokes the 11976 Act (this is a fact). But if he is actually authorized by the ACT to do what he wants is a matter of the SCOTUS legal opinion.

The Emergency Powers Act was passed in 1976. FDR imprisoned U.S. citizens via Executive Order 9066.

Okay, here there is one issue of misunderstanding and one issue related to the US history:

First, I will start with the misunderstanding. I was not telling you to compare FDR's action to Trump. My hypothetical scenario asked you to imagine a modern president (say Trump) within the existing legal frame (including the 1976 ACT) declaring a national emergency just like Trump did and imprisoning U.S citizens (just like Truman did in the past). Let's say that instead of Japanese -Americans the citizens are Iranian Americans. Would you find the argument that this modern president is acting within the legal restrictions granted to him by the Congress ( 1976 ACT) an argument that would likely convince the modern SCOTUS? I used this hypothetical to show that there is an obvious line which one will have to draw and that the 1976 ACT is not a blank check.

Second, presidents before the 1976 Emergency Powers Act could STILL declare a national emergency and assume emergency powers. Then they could use an EO to do things that were normally beyond the normal boundaries of the law. Here is an example of Wilson declaring a national emergency BEFORE WWI

Proclamation 1354—Emergency in Water Transportation of the United States | The American Presidency Project


February 05, 1917

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

...Now, Therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the authority conferred in me by said Act of Congress, do hereby declare and proclaim that I have found that there exists a national emergency arising from the insufficiency of maritime tonnage to carry the products of the farms, forests, mines and manufacturing industries of the United States, to their consumers abroad and within the United States...






more later

 

[pamak]

That is incorrect. We do, indeed, have immigration law on the books that was the result of Congressional compromise. Law that Obama decided to re-write via Executive Action, because "Congress refused to act. (ie: change that compromise in ways that I wanted them to)".

When I was typing my point I had a feeling that you would say this. Although what you say is correct (we had an immigration law prior to Obama's DACA EO) the same is true about Trump's wall. We did have a wall of a specific length prior to the talks about constructing "Trump's wall." I that sense, it i obvious that both presidents were alike in the sense that they wanted a change to the existing law and wanted Congress to pass a new law. Te difference is that while in Obama's case no new law was passed by the current at the time Congress, in Trump's case both parties of the current Congress reached a compromise and PASSED a new law which Trump just did not like it. In effect Trump bypassed not only the legislation from the previous Congress but also the compromise of the current Congress.

Obama claimed the ability to rewrite legislation. Once the President has that authority, there is no restriction whatsoever on their ability to redirect funds, excepting in such ways as would also be illegal for the Congress.

I do not agree with that since the use of an EO without assuming emergency powers gives less flexibility for the transfer of such funds. And from what I know Obama did not assume emergency powers when he signed the DACA EO

Trump is acting within a completed legislative action, utilizing the authorities granted to him therein.

Will you say this if Trump tomorrow invokes a national emergency to imprison Italian-American citizens? Or put it differently, can ANY legislative action authorize ANY president to initiate an unconstitutional policy? I assume we agree that it is unconstitutional to put American citizens of Italian origin in concentration camps tomorrow after declaring a "national emergency" which not even his intelligence directors can see.

More later...

 

[pamak]

One comparison there might be Obama opening up the campaign in Somalia utilizing the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF). No less a hawk than Senator McCain said that, had he known it would mean bombing Somalia, he wouldn't have voted for the AUMF, but, under AUMF authorities, the President has the authority to seek out affiliates and adherents of al-Qa'ida and associated movements (which includes al-Shabaab and, per a very, very stretched reading, ISIS) and take action against them. Obama was taking authority granted to him by Congress, and using it in a way of which they probably did not approve.

The legislation you bring is about giving War Powers, so I cannot compare it to a simple EO (like that for DACA) which does not come with such assumption of power.

But more importantly, even with War Powers under his belt, Bush could not convince the SCOTUS that as Commander In Chief had constitutional authority to do what he wanted

War Powers | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

...the Supreme Court again addressed the matter in 2006 when they decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 548 U.S. 557. The Court in Hamdan held that the President lacks constitutional authority under the Commander-in-Chief Clause to try detainees in military tribunals. The tribunals also violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, the Court rebuked the government's arguments that the AUMF expanded Presidential authority.


This is related to what I said earlier about the difference between having an president arguing that his action flow from a specific legislation which gives him broad powers and the legal opinion of the courts which will eventually determine if the president's claim will be accepted or not.

Here and now, Trump abusing the intent of that legislation (which is, the way it is written, ripe for abuse, which is why it should be re-written), but "using powers granted to me in ways the grantors did not imagine I would (bombing Somalia. building a wall)" is far less abusive than "I have the right to define my own powers however I find most convenient."

Personally, I think that if a president has the unquestionable support of one party and if this party controls a chamber, it is very difficult to have a law that can prohibit a president from trying to exploit the available legislation. The problem is that

a. the law cannot anticipate every possible scenario
b. the law cannot be too restrictive since in real emergencies presidents should have the flexibility to act fast without waiting for a Congressional legislation.

To me, I see the courts as the safety valve which can prevent an abuse by examining the intent of the original lawmakers, as they do it for example with the Constitution, and by examining the details of the scenario on hand and the constitutional principles that are at risk.

 

[Saladin4]

The legislation you bring is about giving War Powers, so I cannot compare it to a simple EO (like that for DACA) which does not come with such assumption of power.

But more importantly, even with War Powers under his belt, Bush could not convince the SCOTUS that as Commander In Chief had constitutional authority to do what he wanted

War Powers | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

...the Supreme Court again addressed the matter in 2006 when they decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 548 U.S. 557. The Court in Hamdan held that the President lacks constitutional authority under the Commander-in-Chief Clause to try detainees in military tribunals. The tribunals also violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, the Court rebuked the government's arguments that the AUMF expanded Presidential authority.


This is related to what I said earlier about the difference between having an president arguing that his action flow from a specific legislation which gives him broad powers and the legal opinion of the courts which will eventually determine if the president's claim will be accepted or not.



Personally, I think that if a president has the unquestionable support of one party and if this party controls a chamber, it is very difficult to have a law that can prohibit a president from trying to exploit the available legislation. The problem is that

a. the law cannot anticipate every possible scenario
b. the law cannot be too restrictive since in real emergencies presidents should have the flexibility to act fast without waiting for a Congressional legislation.

To me, I see the courts as the safety valve which can prevent an abuse by examining the intent of the original lawmakers, as they do it for example with the Constitution, and by examining the details of the scenario on hand and the constitutional principles that are at risk.

Good Knowledge...Way too much for the average slobbering ignorant trump supporter

 

[jghiretire]

We absolutely will, we just got rid of Scott Walker so we are once again pro education.

And I live in rural Wisconsin and work with farmers nearly every day.

Farmers are pissed.

We do on farm kills and we have a waiting list months long to butcher cattle that are too expensive to feed.

There are a lot of people culling their animals.

I really hate to hear this. I hope they manage to stay in business.

 

[SheWolf]

It is not an assumption - it is a description of what has happened. We had one President grab the power to rewrite Legislation through Executive Action, effectively nullifying any Legislative restraints on his power, and we had a second who, because he is acting within the constraints of the authorities granted to him by Congress, remains constrained (however loosely).




Hm. I would be inclined to not give that metric much weight for a couple of reasons.

1. "Who I think is more dangerous" is going to be heavily dependent on my personal preferences. People will argue that Trump's actions aren't dangerous, because he's just trying to protect America. Obama's actions, similarly, (his supporters will argue) weren't dangerous because he was just protecting children. First Citizen Trump is just trying to protect us from an Insidious Conspiracy Of Deep State Internationalists And Foreigners, And So Of Course He Has To Imprison Journalists - He's Not Dangerous, They Are (etc. so on and so forth) Whether or not you perceive that a President's use of his power is abusive or dangerous will be heavily colored by one's opinion of the policies he used that power in pursuit of. That is why the granting of any power is a fraught enterprise, which necessitating deep consideration of all the ways it could be abused, and how mechanisms can be put into place to check them.

*This, for example, is the situation we find ourselves in with the Emergency Powers Act, which seems to grant the President quite broad Authority, and which probably should have been thought through a bit better when written and passed. At the very least, probably, it should be time-limited, like the War Powers Act (though, again, under Obama we saw that the War Powers Act timeline wasn't really a limit either, as he blew through it).​

2. In terms of how power accumulates to the Executive, every power that a President seizes is a precedent that can be used by those who come after him. When Nancy Pelosi threatens that the next Democrat President can use Trump's expanded vision of a National Emergency to put major parts of the Green New Deal into place, she's not wrong.

*For example, if Trump were to follow Obama's precedent, he could issue an Executive Order telling the Defense Department that they were to now assume that their budget included the direction to build and man a wall along the Southern Border, and build it that way. Or, he could issue an Executive Order directing the entirety of the Executive Branch (including the Treasury Department) to just assume that Congress had granted him $8 Bn for the project, and to go ahead and build it.

Alternately, he could issue an Executive Order instructing the IRS to no longer collect Corporate Income Taxes above a rate of 5%, or telling the Social Security Administration Trustees to privatize Social Security. The precedent that Obama set - that, if the President really believes in a particular public policy, but Congress doesn't give him what he wants, that he can therefore just go out and do it anyway - is much more vast an expansion than Trump's expansion of how the President defines a National Emergency, especially given that it was the Congress gave him the authority to define what a National Emergency was or was not, whereas it never gave the President the authority to alter Immigration, Tax, or Entitlement law.​

Sure he does. If the President has the power to rewrite Legislation through EO's (which, per the Obama Administration's precedent, he does), then he can do anything (short of violating Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress) he likes.




TL/DR:

Trump is arguing: "I can use the specific powers given to me by Congress in ways of which they disapprove."
Obama argued: "I can take whichever powers I want from Congress without their permission, and use them however I please."

One of these is more dangerous than the other, and it's the second one.

Your problem is you don't understand a change in policy from declaring a national emergency. Comparing DACA to Trump's detainment policy would be more appropriate. Also, nice break down about what everybody else might think or say, but we are actually interested in your opinion about deciding what is and isn't dangerous. That's one, number two is to stop equating DACA with a fake national emergency. Once you do that, your arguments could make better sense.

 

[SheWolf]

I will try to explain my position better after I address your point about the internment camps (in a different post). For the time being, I will simply say that what you present as a fact, I see it as a matter of legal opinion. If the SCOTUS decides that it is unconstitutional for a president in a certain case to take certain measures based on the 1976 Emergency Powers Act, then the SCOTUS will reject the argument that such act gives a president the right to do something which is unconstitutional. So, while the president will indeed TRY to argue that he acts based on the authority that Congress granted him, it does not mean that his argument will be convincing in every case.

Notice, that my opinion is that if SCOTUS prohibits the president from taking certain actions based on the 1976 ACT, it will not justify it on the grounds that the ACT itself is unconstitutional. It will justify on the grounds that the ACT does not give a president a blank check to do whatever he wants, and therefore in essence the SCOTUS will reject the president's argument that he is acting within the legal boundaries drawn by the Congress through the 1976 Act.



Obviously, I am not an expert but my understanding is that a president cannot JUST sign an EO to transfer funds from one section of the executive branch to another. My understanding is that a president will ALSO HAVE TO ASSUME some form of emergency powers. If that was the case, then why did Trump need to actually declare a national emergency to get funds for the wall? He could just sign a regular EO and get whatever he wanted for the wall! Now, you are saying that a president can use an EO in a way to redirect funds. I think this was true before even the 1976 ACT as long as the president assumed some form of emergency powers, and previous presidents did something like this way before 1976. But this is not comparable to an EO related to DACA. Obama did not assume any emergency powers in that case.

more later...

Cp will keeps talking about DACA. I don't think DACA involved moving billions of funds like Trump is attempting. My understanding of a national emergency declaration is the same as yours, and it comes down to Trump needing money. Trump has changed many policies without going through Congress just like Obama did. He has also signed a ton of EOs.

 

[jghiretire]

Again, you did the same thing Hatuey did, instead of blaming the ENTIRETY of Congress......you blame one side,

That says so much

Basically because the Dems have negotiated in good faith and come up with Bipartisan solutions that the President then says Nyet to. But you know or believe none of that because you think every news source except Fox is Fake News thanks to the Jabba the Hut you helped elect..
So until you're willing to listen to anything besides Agent Orange - there will be no "civil" conversation because we aren't even in the same range.

 

[jghiretire]

All of them should be replaced with people who actually care about the American people, but until you do away with lobbying, and PAC, that simply won't happen.

Are you actually out there trying to change that??

 

[Hatuey]

Again, you did the same thing Hatuey did, instead of blaming the ENTIRETY of Congress......you blame one side,

That says so much

I blame the side of Congress who held the majority for 6 years and couldn't get their latest goal passed in all 6. Seems fair.

Not sure how you pointing that out provides a counter argument. Who are we supposed to blame? The people who didn't hold the majority? Weird.

I blame the Democrats for passing the ACA. Who do you blame? Lol.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Hatuey]

Congress being the entire body who for 30 years, can't figure out how to work with each other,

Funny how you went right to the right/left wing and not, they can't work together,

Why is that?

Congress hasn't been trying to build a wall for 6 years. At best for the last 3 some members of the GOP have been advocating for it.

Again, this last shutdown was over nothing other than the creation of a wall as depicted in various Trump communications. It wasn't something Reagan wanted and Trump decided to complete.

Why you cite other people who didn't ask to shut down the government to build the wall as a problem is beyond me - but it's not relevant either.

Focus, my man.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Basically because the Dems have negotiated in good faith and come up with Bipartisan solutions that the President then says Nyet to. But you know or believe none of that because you think every news source except Fox is Fake News thanks to the Jabba the Hut you helped elect..
So until you're willing to listen to anything besides Agent Orange - there will be no "civil" conversation because we aren't even in the same range.

So you believe it is "good faith" to give about a quarter of the money the President asked for and then put over 350 restrictions on the use of the money to restrict where wall could be constructed, what type of walls and a type of anmesty that would allow illegal immigrants to sponsor illegal children and not be processed for being illegal in this country. Things done just to prevent the actual building of wall and pursuing of illegals. Yeah, that's good faith.

 

[pamak]

Cp will keeps talking about DACA. I don't think DACA involved moving billions of funds like Trump is attempting. My understanding of a national emergency declaration is the same as yours, and it comes down to Trump needing money. Trump has changed many policies without going through Congress just like Obama did. He has also signed a ton of EOs.

Yes, this is my understanding in broad terms. I think a president has SOME flexibility to shuffle money WITHIN certain areas of the Executive branch but not across different departments.
And yes, Trump has actually signed way more EOs than Obama did during the same period.

Federal Register
::
Executive Orders

EOs for Trump during his first two years

2018 EO 13820 - EO 13856 (37)
2017 EO 13765 - EO 13819 (55)

Total is 92


EOs for Obama during his first two years

2010 EO 13526 - EO 13562 (36)
2009 EO 13489 - EO 13527 (38)

Total is 74

 

[tres borrachos]

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

They were. Trump's isn't.

 

[sjmay]

Basically because the Dems have negotiated in good faith and come up with Bipartisan solutions that the President then says Nyet to. But you know or believe none of that because you think every news source except Fox is Fake News thanks to the Jabba the Hut you helped elect..
So until you're willing to listen to anything besides Agent Orange - there will be no "civil" conversation because we aren't even in the same range.

If you believe this,

It's like saying the GOP negotiated in good faith when they dropped the nuclear option to get their way,

Seriously, the Dems negotiated this deal in good faith, starting out with saying not a dollar, so in your view because they gave more than a dollar, they compromised? Amazing how people spin this. I am willing to bet you don't even know what's in it, and what the restrictions are....

 

[sjmay]

I blame the side of Congress who held the majority for 6 years and couldn't get their latest goal passed in all 6. Seems fair.

Not sure how you pointing that out provides a counter argument. Who are we supposed to blame? The people who didn't hold the majority? Weird.

I blame the Democrats for passing the ACA. Who do you blame? Lol.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

So in your view, Congress is working just fine, nothing to see here? LOL interesting, how is that sand?