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

[Hatuey]

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

Your understanding that Congress isn't working fine is based on a single part of 1 bill not being passed.

My understanding of Congress not working fine is the GOP not being able to pass a part of their agenda after a majority in the Senate and House, and then blaming the party that they didn't need in the first place.

The solution isn't for Democrats to cave in and give the GOP a wall that Republicans didn't want to own when they controlled congress. You're playing checkers with a chess player.

Who do you blame for passing the ACA?

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

 

[sjmay]

Your understanding that Congress isn't working fine is based on a single part of 1 bill not being passed.

My understanding of Congress not working fine is the GOP not being able to pass a part of their agenda after a majority in the Senate and House, and then blaming the party that they didn't need in the first place.

The solution isn't for Democrats to cave in and give the GOP a wall that Republicans didn't want to own when they controlled congress. You're playing checkers with a chess player.

Who do you blame for passing the ACA?

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

Congress hasn't been working fine for decades now.....you realize what they passed was a spending bill right, not immigration reform which is needed, and it's a spending bill for a year, which will need CR after CR after CR, it's not about part of spending etc. It's about passing a spending bill that makes sense....and not putting in idiotic restrictions because they can't pass policy.

 

[Hatuey]

Congress hasn't been working fine for decades now.....you realize what they passed was a spending bill right, not immigration reform which is needed, and it's a spending bill for a year, which will need CR after CR after CR, it's not about part of spending etc. It's about passing a spending bill that makes sense....and not putting in idiotic restrictions because they can't pass policy.

Again, multiple bipartisan bills have been passed recently. Congress was shut down because of a single issue not included in a bill that Congress had already passed and submitted to the president.

Your problem with congress now is senseless.

You aren't getting a wall this Christmas either.

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

 

[sjmay]

Again, multiple bipartisan bills have been passed recently. Congress was shut down because of a single issue not included in a bill that Congress had already passed and submitted to the president.

Your problem with congress now is senseless.

You aren't getting a wall this Christmas either.

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

So your measure of if Congress is working is.....bipartisan bills have passed.....

Not if the bills make sense, or are any good...just that they passed?

Holy hell, talk about setting the bar low....

 

[cpwill]

Your problem is you don't understand a change in policy from declaring a national emergency.

I understand them just fine. One of them (declaring a national emergency) is within the lawful reach of Presidential powers. The other (changing policy) is not.

Comparing DACA to Trump's detainment policy would be more appropriate.

....No, that was a decision within the law, and following the law. A more direct example might be if - for instance - if Trump were to decide that the Corporate Income Tax Rate should be 5%, but, with a Democrat-controlled House refusing to act, ordered the IRS to just assume that the tax law had be rewritten to reduce the Corporate Tax Rate to 5%, effectively re-writing the law, but without Congressional approval.

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.

Power is dangerous, and precedent defines much of the boundaries within which power is exercised. We do not remember Marbury v Madison, for example, because whether or not William Marbury received a judgeship was so critical, but because it set the precedent that the Supreme Court could overturn acts of Congress and decisions by the President. The SCOTUS has since then applied Judicial Review in ways far beyond it's initial usage of refusing to act as an enforcer.

The Precedent that Trump is setting here is that the President, having been granted the right to determine what is and is not a National Emergency by Congress, has the right to do so, even when members of that Congress may not agree with his decision. It's dangerous because what Congress did was dangerous, but it is still limiting - Trump has only the authorities granted to him by Congress in this case, along with the (too few, agreeably) restrictions tied to it. The act of building a wall in and of itself isn't dangerous, it's the Executive Power that is.

The Precedent that Obama set, however, was not that the President can exercise authority duly granted him by law in order to achieve a policy preference - it was that the President can take legislative power from the Congress without their permission by effectively rewriting the law however he pleases. This means that the President is no longer limited by the authority granted to him by the Constitution, but is limited only by the authority granted to both the President and the Legislature under the Constitution. It is a vast power grab, under the act of doing something more restrained, just as Marbury v Madison set the SCOTUS over our other branches in authority, under the act of doing something more restrained. The act of not deporting illegal immigrants who came here as children in and of itself isn't dangerous, it's the radical expansion of Executive Power that is.

A future Democrat President can take Trumps precedent and (as Pelosi has warned) declare climate change to be an "emergency", allowing him (or her) to accomplish parts of the Green New Deal, so long as it does not violate individual or state rights, within the limits put on him (or her) by Congress. A future Republican (or Democrat) President can take Obama's Precedent and do whatever they want, without any Congressional limits at all. That is a different (and more dangerous) thing indeed.

That's one, number two is to stop equating DACA with a fake national emergency.

I am not saying they are equal. I am saying that the power grab inherent in DACA is more dangerous than the power grab inherent in the President using a definition of Emergency that Congress would not agree with, because the first is an unrestrained vision of executive power, and the second is not.

 

[cpwill]

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.

The effect is the same - in both instances, the President wanted a policy outcome that Congress refused to deliver. In Trump's case, he leaned on the specific authorities granted to him in law by Congress to buttress what Congress was doing (notice that Trump's actions do not overturn any part of passed law, they simply add more effort what was agreed upon), and in Obama's case he decided that he could act as Congress, and simply re-write the law as he saw fit (notice that Obama's actions did effectively overturn and rewrite portions of the law).

In terms of authority claimed, the recency of the latest piece of legislation is as irrelevant as the partisan makeup of the Congress that passed it.

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.

On the contrary, when you decide that you have the ability to rewrite legislation via E.O., then you have the power to do anything Congress can do, including transfer funds, raise taxes, lower taxes, declare war, etc. so on and so forth.

And from what I know Obama did not assume emergency powers when he signed the DACA EO

That is correct - he did not take up the limited power of a National Emergency declaration, but instead preferred the unlimited vision of an Executive capable of wielding Legislative power at will, and without the Legislature's permission.

Will you say this if Trump tomorrow invokes a national emergency to imprison Italian-American citizens?

1. I don't think that would pass Constitutional Muster, just as I don't think the original E.O. doing it should have.

2. That being said, you are focusing on the acts taken rather than the authorities claimed. If a police officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket, costing you $245, on the basis of his legal right to enforce speeding laws, and then I take $20 from you wallet on the basis that I get to take whatever I want from you, and you don't get to do anything about it, then my claim to authority is far more dangerous than the police officers', regardless of the current disparity in cost.

Or put it differently, can ANY legislative action authorize ANY president to initiate an unconstitutional policy?

No. The Congress can only delegate those powers they hold under the Constitution.

So, the Venn Diagram looks like this:

 

[cpwill]

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

Yup. And then Obama claimed that he could, anyway, without War Powers, Emergency, or any other form of expanded authorities (simply because he was President and It Needed To Be Done), and so he did.

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.

And it's a fantastic point, because it oulines well what I have been saying - that even the granting of broad powers by the Legislature to the Executive comes with limits. The simple seizure of Legislative power by the Executive, however, is limited only by what the Constitution would restrain the legislature itself from doing. It turns us from a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government into a Constitutional elective Monarchy, with two.

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.

If the intent of the original lawmakers is to hand over the authority to define what is and is not an Emergency :shrug: then it's simply Example #1,947 of how Congress has delegated far too much of it's authority to the Executive (see, for example, Regulatory Law). We would need a ruling that Congress cannot delegate its' authority to the President, which I would welcome, but which I doubt we will get.

We don't substitute "hopefully [the people who hold this particular position] will be wise and just" in place of restraints on power; that is asking for your government to fall as soon as you get the right (wrong) combination of foolish or unethical actors.

'In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.

-Thomas Jefferson​

 

[pamak]

The effect is the same - in both instances, the President wanted a policy outcome that Congress refused to deliver. In Trump's case, he leaned on the specific authorities granted to him in law by Congress to buttress what Congress was doing (notice that Trump's actions do not overturn any part of passed law, they simply add more effort what was agreed upon), and in Obama's case he decided that he could act as Congress, and simply re-write the law as he saw fit (notice that Obama's actions did effectively overturn and rewrite portions of the law).

In terms of authority claimed, the recency of the latest piece of legislation is as irrelevant as the partisan makeup of the Congress that passed it.



On the contrary, when you decide that you have the ability to rewrite legislation via E.O., then you have the power to do anything Congress can do, including transfer funds, raise taxes, lower taxes, declare war, etc. so on and so forth.



That is correct - he did not take up the limited power of a National Emergency declaration, but instead preferred the unlimited vision of an Executive capable of wielding Legislative power at will, and without the Legislature's permission.




1. I don't think that would pass Constitutional Muster, just as I don't think the original E.O. doing it should have.

2. That being said, you are focusing on the acts taken rather than the authorities claimed. If a police officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket, costing you $245, on the basis of his legal right to enforce speeding laws, and then I take $20 from you wallet on the basis that I get to take whatever I want from you, and you don't get to do anything about it, then my claim to authority is far more dangerous than the police officers', regardless of the current disparity in cost.



No. The Congress can only delegate those powers they hold under the Constitution.

So, the Venn Diagram looks like this:

View attachment 67250855

During the regular week, I keep things shorter and to the point, so I have in bold the sentences that express your main idea and will respond to them

The effect is the same - in both instances, the President wanted a policy outcome that Congress refused to deliver

Nope! There is still a difference between ignoring a Congress which does not come to a legislation (as Obama did with DACA) and ignoring a Congress which actually brings a legislation (as Trump did with the amount of money he wanted for the wall). There is also a difference between an executive action which changes policies without declaring a national emergency and an executive action which changes policy without such declaration and without assuming emergency powers

On the contrary, when you decide that you have the ability to rewrite legislation via E.O., then you have the power to do anything Congress can do, including transfer funds, raise taxes, lower taxes, declare war, etc. so on and so forth.

Then you need to explain why Trump's did not simply sign a regular EO instead of declaring a national emergency

That is correct - he did not take up the limited power of a National Emergency declaration, but instead preferred the unlimited vision of an Executive capable of wielding Legislative power at will, and without the Legislature's permission.

An EO which does not assume emergency powers is limited! You confuse the idea of what Obama could do in theory with what Obama actually did in practice!

I don't think that would pass Constitutional Muster, just as I don't think the original E.O. doing it should have.
in combination with

No. The Congress can only delegate those powers they hold under the Constitution.

So, even you agree with what I said earlier. That it is a matter of a legal decision if a certain executive actions flaws from a Congressional Legislation. This is EXACTLY why I was telling you that your argument that the 1976 ACT somehow authors Trump to rod what he wants is an assumption from your part because you THINK that such action is constitutional. Even you can see that if an action is considered to be unconstitutional then the president cannot argue that his authority flaws from any Congressional act.

 

[pamak]

Yup. And then Obama claimed that he could, anyway, without War Powers, Emergency, or any other form of expanded authorities (simply because he was President and It Needed To Be Done), and so he did.



And it's a fantastic point, because it oulines well what I have been saying - that even the granting of broad powers by the Legislature to the Executive comes with limits. The simple seizure of Legislative power by the Executive, however, is limited only by what the Constitution would restrain the legislature itself from doing. It turns us from a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government into a Constitutional elective Monarchy, with two.



If the intent of the original lawmakers is to hand over the authority to define what is and is not an Emergency :shrug: then it's simply Example #1,947 of how Congress has delegated far too much of it's authority to the Executive (see, for example, Regulatory Law). We would need a ruling that Congress cannot delegate its' authority to the President, which I would welcome, but which I doubt we will get.

We don't substitute "hopefully [the people who hold this particular position] will be wise and just" in place of restraints on power; that is asking for your government to fall as soon as you get the right (wrong) combination of foolish or unethical actors.

'In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.

-Thomas Jefferson​

Yup. And then Obama claimed that he could, anyway, without War Powers, Emergency, or any other form of expanded authorities (simply because he was President and It Needed To Be Done), and so he did.

Yes, but Obama's action was a TEMP measure of relief UNTIL Congress could come with a new legislation. By contrast, Trump undertakes actions that have a permanent effect.

And it's a fantastic point, because it oulines well what I have been saying - that even the granting of broad powers by the Legislature to the Executive comes with limits. The simple seizure of Legislative power by the Executive, however, is limited only by what the Constitution would restrain the legislature itself from doing. It turns us from a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government into a Constitutional elective Monarchy, with two.

And I assume then we can find a common ground that what you say applies also to the 1976 ACT which also has some limits which no president can cross. Therefore we should not accept as a fact that Trump actions flaw from the 1976 legislation.

If the intent of the original lawmakers is to hand over the authority to define what is and is not an Emergency then it's simply Example #1,947 of how Congress has delegated far too much of it's authority to the Executive (see, for example, Regulatory Law). We would need a ruling that Congress cannot delegate its' authority to the President, which I would welcome, but which I doubt we will get.

I have no problem to accept that Congress has delegated too much power to the president, but I still find difficult to comprehend how a legilslation can deal with all the minutia of regulations. Such task is impossible and will require a Congress debating endlessly to pass a law. I speak as a mechanical engineer in aviation industry (civil, maintenance). It is an industry which is heavily regulated by the government FAA. Imagine politicians try to pass a new legislation with all regulatory decisions regarding the operation and maintenance of an aircraft or for things close related to aircraft such as the qualifications and standards for materials used in the construction of tarmacs (runways at the airport) or the qualifications and training standards for pilots for planes of different size. It would be impossible to have aviation laws dealing with the millions of different details!

 

[Hatuey]

So your measure of if Congress is working is.....bipartisan bills have passed....

The purpose of Congress is literally for bills to be drafted, sponsored, debated, and then passed - not whatever subjective definition you've given for its use.

Again, Congress passed a bill which was then ignored by the president. It is the president who cannot work with congress - in this specific instance - not that Congress can't work.

Congress has worked, it just hasn't worked for the president and his campaign promise which Republicans did not bother to try and make happen until Democrats won the house in 2018.

How is this complicated for you?

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

 

[sjmay]

The purpose of Congress is literally for bills to be drafted, sponsored, debated, and then passed - not whatever subjective definition you've given for its use.

Again, Congress passed a bill which was then ignored by the president. It is the president who cannot work with congress - in this specific instance - not that Congress can't work.

Congress has worked, it just hasn't worked for the president and his campaign promise which Republicans did not bother to try and make happen until Democrats won the house in 2018.

How is this complicated for you?

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

Again, your measure for success is extremely low......

BTW, what you are saying....is exactly what happened with DACA right? When Obama ignored Congress to make legislation? That is the argument that cpwill is currently making and doing it well, much better than I could, I will tell you that...

But when you measure Congress only on the fact that it drafted and passed bills, regardless if they are good or not, you aren't setting the bar high, are you?

 

[jmotivator]

They are sanctions. No money was dierted. And this wasn't about a tantrum or because he failed at getting legislation. Not the same. Not even close.

How do you think a sanction is enforced?

As the CiC, Trump has ultimate control over the budget of the US military, so he has the legal authority and the constitutional power to do this.

 

[Top Cat]

How do you think a sanction is enforced?

As the CiC, Trump has ultimate control over the budget of the US military, so he has the legal authority and the constitutional power to do this.

We shall see. Let the courts decide.

 

[Objective Voice]

Correct. Trump is acting within his authority (even if he is abusing it), whereas Obama was not.

Actually, I want to correct myself and the record for mistakenly claiming that Obama issued an EO on DACA. He did not. A MEMORANDUM was actually issued by Sec. of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, not Obama, to members of her department on how to deal with low-priority immigration cases where DHS had limited resources for apprehensions. Now, granted DHS was under his watch at the time, but those of us - including myself - who are claiming Obama himself issued an EO on the matter are wrong. We've all gotten wrapped up in EO's lately. It's easy to get tripped up over even the minor details. Still, just to clarify: Obama did not issue an EO on DACA. He simply supported the policy on DACA that came directly from the Sec., DHS at the time.

Trump is stretching Legislative language, possible past the snapping point, Obama tossed it out altogether.

The portion in bold is a definite understatement.

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

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.

Since Obama didn't issue an EO on DACA but rather supported the policy as outlined by a cabinet appointee, I'd have to say your assessment here is completely wrong. The abuse of power right now giving the examples provided is on Trump, not Obama.

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

The POTUS does not need Congressional approval to use the WPA; he simply needs to keep Congress abreast of his actions within the specified reporting timeframes as set in the law. Congress can always override him if they so choose. As to the rest of your comment on the matter, irrelevant and an attempt to divert the thread topic. If Congress didn't want the POTUS to use military forces on a limited basis without a declaration of war, it will certainly make that known as was the case concerning Syria.

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.

Is this your attempt to show how empirical Obama was over previous Presidents or how misguided his Administration might have been in some of the rules it tried to implement or procedures it failed to adequately follow? I see nothing empirical about wanting to obtain evidence of drug trafficking during a routine traffic stop only to be told by the SC that doing so violates one's right to privacy and that law enforcement would still need a warrant to search your cellphone. Again, procedural not empirical. It would have been the latter had the Obama Administration persisted in their efforts. They didn't...move along.

 

[cpwill]

Yup. And then Obama claimed that he could, anyway, without War Powers, Emergency, or any other form of expanded authorities (simply because he was President and It Needed To Be Done), and so he did.

Yes, but Obama's action was a TEMP measure of relief UNTIL Congress could come with a new legislation. By contrast, Trump undertakes actions that have a permanent effect.

1. This is untrue. Obama absolutely meant for his policy change to become permanent.

2. It is also irrelevant, since what is important (and dangerous) is not what action was performed, but rather what authority to perform actions was claimed. Trump is claiming the authority to act within the boundaries proscribed by law, endorsed by the Legislature. Obama claimed the authority to alter the law without the permission or agreement of the Legislature.

If, for example, Trump were to have taken the current bill, and simply struck out the text "$1.3 Billion" and wrote "$5 Billion" in the margin, effectively changing the law, then the resulting actions (more money for a wall) would be the same, but the authority that Trump would be claiming (the right to simply rewrite law at will) would make his actions far, far more dangerous.

And it's a fantastic point, because it oulines well what I have been saying - that even the granting of broad powers by the Legislature to the Executive comes with limits. The simple seizure of Legislative power by the Executive, however, is limited only by what the Constitution would restrain the legislature itself from doing. It turns us from a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government into a Constitutional elective Monarchy, with two.

And I assume then we can find a common ground that what you say applies also to the 1976 ACT which also has some limits which no president can cross. Therefore we should not accept as a fact that Trump actions flaw from the 1976 legislation.

I agree the law limits the Presidency to actions within the authorities granted (though I think those authorities granted are too broad). That is, after all, why I argue that Trump's actions within those authorities, leveraging those authorities are not nearly as dangerous a precedent as the claim by President Obama that he did not require the Legislature's permission to take on their powers, but could simply assume them when he perceived that they had failed to produce the result he preferred.

If the intent of the original lawmakers is to hand over the authority to define what is and is not an Emergency then it's simply Example #1,947 of how Congress has delegated far too much of it's authority to the Executive (see, for example, Regulatory Law). We would need a ruling that Congress cannot delegate its' authority to the President, which I would welcome, but which I doubt we will get.

I have no problem to accept that Congress has delegated too much power to the president, but I still find difficult to comprehend how a legilslation can deal with all the minutia of regulations. Such task is impossible and will require a Congress debating endlessly to pass a law. I speak as a mechanical engineer in aviation industry (civil, maintenance). It is an industry which is heavily regulated by the government FAA. Imagine politicians try to pass a new legislation with all regulatory decisions regarding the operation and maintenance of an aircraft or for things close related to aircraft such as the qualifications and standards for materials used in the construction of tarmacs (runways at the airport) or the qualifications and training standards for pilots for planes of different size. It would be impossible to have aviation laws dealing with the millions of different details!

That may be a debate for another time, though it would be interesting indeed. The relevant point here is that it is Congress that has (as I understand it, and I would welcome correction if I am wrong) granted the President the authority to determine what is and is not a Crises, and so for a President to do so is not in violation of his limits.

 

[cpwill]

Actually, I want to correct myself and the record for mistakenly claiming that Obama issued an EO on DACA. He did not. A MEMORANDUM was actually issued by Sec. of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, not Obama, to members of her department on how to deal with low-priority immigration cases where DHS had limited resources for apprehensions. Now, granted DHS was under his watch at the time, but those of us - including myself - who are claiming Obama himself issued an EO on the matter are wrong. We've all gotten wrapped up in EO's lately. It's easy to get tripped up over even the minor details. Still, just to clarify: Obama did not issue an EO on DACA. He simply supported the policy on DACA that came directly from the Sec., DHS at the time.

That only makes my case stronger - if Obama did indeed argue that cabinet secretaries could rewrite the law as they saw fit.....


....then why even have a Legislature, other than as a prop?

The portion in bold is a definite understatement.

It is a mark of how incredibly broad the powers are that Congress has decided to abdicate to the Executive that it isn't that much of one.

Since Obama didn't issue an EO on DACA but rather supported the policy as outlined by a cabinet appointee, I'd have to say your assessment here is completely wrong. The abuse of power right now giving the examples provided is on Trump, not Obama

Good point. Trump should just have the Secretary of Homeland Security issue a Memorandum reading that portions of the national budget had been reallocated for wall construction, and opponents were to be considered guilty of terrorism.


After all, if Cabinet Secretaries can write and alter laws at will, well, now we can really Get Stuff Done. No more icky need to make difficult compromises with opposition parties in Congress.

The POTUS does not need Congressional approval to use the WPA; he simply needs to keep Congress abreast of his actions within the specified reporting timeframes as set in the law.

That is incorrect:

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.​

which is why I asked:

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

Obama blew past both of those deadlines, and received neither an AUMF nor a declaration of war from Congress.... and simply didn't care. :shrug:

Congress can always override him if they so choose. As to the rest of your comment on the matter, irrelevant and an attempt to divert the thread topic. If Congress didn't want the POTUS to use military forces on a limited basis without a declaration of war, it will certainly make that known as was the case concerning Syria.

Our actions in Syria are authorized under an AUMF (see above), passed by Congress and signed by the President. Our actions in Libya were not.

Is this your attempt to show how empirical Obama was over previous Presidents or how misguided his Administration might have been in some of the rules it tried to implement or procedures it failed to adequately follow? I see nothing empirical about wanting to obtain evidence of drug trafficking during a routine traffic stop only to be told by the SC that doing so violates one's right to privacy and that law enforcement would still need a warrant to search your cellphone. Again, procedural not empirical. It would have been the latter had the Obama Administration persisted in their efforts. They didn't...move along.

Deciding that, as President, you have the right to determine the rules by which the Senate shall be run is not "procedural, not empirical". It is a violation of Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution.

"Empirical" isn't even a word that - so far as I am aware - makes sense in that context.

 

[Objective Voice]

cpwill,

Let me put it to you this way: If a Cabinet member (i.e., Secretary or Director of a specific Department) can change the rules governing their department or remove them altogether - a process Republicans call deregulation - then how is what former Sec. Napalitano's memorandum on DACA policy any different? She set forth the guidelines under which HER DEPARTMENT would operate in streamlining resources (i.e., "manpower") in apprehending illegal aliens within the United States. Even today we're complaining that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol lacks manpower. So, why should streamlining HER DEPARTMENT trouble you so much? If this had happened today under Sec., DHS Nielsen, would you be so upset with reallocating her resources, running DHS more efficiently and reducing cost to taxpayers? Furthermore, point to the specific provision of law former DHS Sec. Napolitano rewrote per the aforementioned memorandum? All she did was "exercise of our prosecutorial discretion" as a department head while continuing to "enforce the Nation's immigration laws". So, what law or provision thereto did she rewrite?

As to the WPA, I think you need to re-read what I wrote and then re-read your own commentary. I said:

The POTUS does not need Congressional approval to use the WPA; he simply needs to keep Congress abreast of his actions within the specified reporting timeframes as set in the law.

To which you replied:

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

The first sentence should have stopped you cold! For it confirms exactly what I said, to wit, the POTUS does not need to obtain approval from Congress before implementing executive action under the WPA. However, he does have to meet specific reporting requirements to Congress with justification. Otherwise, he has to withdraw U.S. forces. Nothing of what I stated concerning the President's use of the WPA changes based on what you posted. With that said, I'm not about to rehash how Obama used the WPA either in Yemen, Libya or Syria. Old news...debated to death.

I understand how you're trying to use Obama's use of the WPA to illustrate how he abused executive power include some Supreme Court decisions that didn't go his way, but if your only defense is your lack of knowledge as to whether or not Obama didn't submitted notifications to Congress about his actions, timely or otherwise, or that he tried (and failed) to go around Congress and make recess appointments, you'll have to do far better that than to prove corrupt intend or abuse of power. Executive over-reach, I'll give you in some cases but that's just a matter of a POTUS stepping into those grey areas where in some areas things aren't quite clear or you take a chance on a rule change via your Cabinet which gets challenged in court where your Administration loses then you just move on. That's completely different from issuing an Executive Order that's challenged in court and is struck down.

While I will admit there were times I believed Pres. Obama went a step too far, i.e., Libya, I don't believe his presidency was marred in such glaring abuses of power as you're attempting to claim. If that were the case, he certainly would have been impeached.

 

[cpwill]

cpwill,

Let me put it to you this way: If a Cabinet member (i.e., Secretary or Director of a specific Department) can change the rules governing their department or remove them altogether - a process Republicans call deregulation - then how is what former Sec. Napalitano's memorandum on DACA policy any different?

It depends on what they are changing - are they altering policies within the scope of authorities that are delegated to them by Congress (for example; Congress has granted the EPA the right to determine how much mercury should be in our drinking water. It's within their purview to change from (making up numbers) 3 parts per million to 6 parts per million), or is it an attempt to replace the Statutory authority of Congress (for example: Congress has granted the Treasury the authority to collect taxes. This does not give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to de-facto alter tax rates by simply declining to collect - for instance - taxes above a certain rate).

As to the WPA, I think you need to re-read what I wrote and then re-read your own commentary. I said:

The POTUS does not need Congressional approval to use the WPA; he simply needs to keep Congress abreast of his actions within the specified reporting timeframes as set in the law.

To which you replied:

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

The first sentence should have stopped you cold!

No, because I have the ability to read to the second part, as you should have done.

So, we are back to my original question:

How long does the WPA give the President the authority to deploy troops into military action without Congressional authority, versus how long did he deploy them without Congressional authority in Libya?


Because the answer is that the law: forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

and yet Obama blew past both of those deadlines without Congressional authorization, and neither pulled back troops, nor cared that he was violating the legal limits on his power.

For it confirms exactly what I said, to wit, the POTUS does not need to obtain approval from Congress before implementing executive action under the WPA. However, he does have to meet specific reporting requirements to Congress with justification. Otherwise, he has to withdraw U.S. forces. Nothing of what I stated concerning the President's use of the WPA changes based on what you posted. With that said, I'm not about to rehash how Obama used the WPA either in Yemen, Libya or Syria. Old news...debated to death.

:lol: so Obama's violations of law don't count because they happened during the Obama administration. neat trick, that

I understand how you're trying to use Obama's use of the WPA to illustrate how he abused executive power include some Supreme Court decisions that didn't go his way, but if your only defense is your lack of knowledge as to whether or not Obama didn't submitted notifications to Congress about his actions, timely or otherwise, or that he tried (and failed) to go around Congress and make recess appointments, you'll have to do far better that than to prove corrupt intend or abuse of power.

OTC, claiming the right to determine when a house of Congress is or is not in session in order to avoid the Constitutional requirement for Advise-and-Consent is absolutely an abuse, as are the other times he tried to take on Legislative authority.

While I will admit there were times I believed Pres. Obama went a step too far, i.e., Libya, I don't believe his presidency was marred in such glaring abuses of power as you're attempting to claim. If that were the case, he certainly would have been impeached.

Nope. Should he have been? Maybe. Would it have been political suicide for Republicans to push for it, and would it have failed? Absolutely.

The same is true of Trump.

I think you are confusing "my general preference for the Obama administration" with "therefore his actions in this particular sphere weren't that bad"".