Executive Power

[twenty02]

Surprised there isn't more discussion on what's going on right now in the a Senate.

Major turmoil simmering within GOP ranks regarding the emergency order, to the point it looks like there will be a push to change the 1970s era law (which is a good thing, IMO)

Congress needs to eventually start acting like adults and take some serious responsibility for running the country, rather than an endless campaign for the next king/queen

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Surprised there isn't more discussion on what's going on right now in the a Senate.

Major turmoil simmering within GOP ranks regarding the emergency order, to the point it looks like there will be a push to change the 1970s era law (which is a good thing, IMO)

Congress needs to eventually start acting like adults and take some serious responsibility for running the country, rather than an endless campaign for the next king/queen

I agree the law should be revised, but it doesn't mean much* if the GOP can't also muster up the strength to override a veto.

* And I don't just mean it doesn't mean much practically. I mean it doesn't mean much in terms of this "major turmoil" having a basis in any sort of principle.

 

[twenty02]

I agree the law should be revised, but it doesn't mean much* if the GOP can't also muster up the strength to override a veto.

* And I don't just mean it doesn't mean much practically. I mean it doesn't mean much in terms of this "major turmoil" having a basis in any sort of principle.

Actually think it means a good bit, politically. And maybe even legally (re: court decisions upcoming)

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Actually think it means a good bit, politically.

Meh. Maybe I'm overly cynically, but I don't see the value in "We need to change this! (But not this time!)" It might sound good to the rubes, but it won't move any needles among any portions of the electorate not already in one camp or the other.

And maybe even legally (re: court decisions upcoming)

Yes, that's why I support revisiting the law. This needs changed. I'm only saying I'm not going to give the GOP any credit over it if the best they can do is, "Well, after this point in time, we should probably change things..."

 

[twenty02]

Meh. Maybe I'm overly cynically, but I don't see the value in "We need to change this! (But not this time!)" It might sound good to the rubes, but it won't move any needles among any portions of the electorate not already in one camp or the other.


Yes, that's why I support revisiting the law. This needs changed. I'm only saying I'm not going to give the GOP any credit over it if the best they can do is, "Well, after this point in time, we should probably change things..."

I don't really care much about giving credit to anyone. Hypocrisy is rampant in politics.

I'm just encouraged that there is some momentum to change/update the law.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Surprised there isn't more discussion on what's going on right now in the a Senate.

Major turmoil simmering within GOP ranks regarding the emergency order, to the point it looks like there will be a push to change the 1970s era law (which is a good thing, IMO)

Congress needs to eventually start acting like adults and take some serious responsibility for running the country, rather than an endless campaign for the next king/queen

What's wrong with the law and how would you change it?

In my view it's important for the executive to have the power to declare an emergency and take prompt action to remedy the situation. The problem with the current border crisis belongs 100% in congress with an assist from some judges who think they are members of congress. The Trump administration did nothing to cause the border crisis. Congress does zip to help while some judges love to stick a writ up Trump's ass.

All that being said, I don't think declaring an emergency permits building permanent infrastructure, like a wall. That appropriation is a separate issue.

 

[twenty02]

What's wrong with the law and how would you change it?

In my view it's important for the executive to have the power to declare an emergency and take prompt action to remedy the situation. The problem with the current border crisis belongs 100% in congress with an assist from some judges who think they are members of congress. The Trump administration did nothing to cause the border crisis. Congress does zip to help while some judges love to stick a writ up Trump's ass.

All that being said, I don't think declaring an emergency permits building permanent infrastructure, like a wall. That appropriation is a separate issue.

I'd change it in the manner that Lee is proposing in his bill. Any emergency declaration must be approved by Congress within 30 days or it goes away.

The idea of an "emergency" is just that....something that needs an immediate response before Congress has the time to act.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'd change it in the manner that Lee is proposing in his bill. Any emergency declaration must be approved by Congress within 30 days or it goes away.

The idea of an "emergency" is just that....something that needs an immediate response before Congress has the time to act.

Congress is singularly ill-equipped to deal with an emergency in any time let alone in 30 days. If they want to write into a law an expiration for all emergency declarations, I guess I'd agree that is a congressional prerogative (I don't think that is a good idea). But to have congress to take back the decision about whether something is an emergency after thirty days . . . . .um . . . nope.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'd change it in the manner that Lee is proposing in his bill. Any emergency declaration must be approved by Congress within 30 days or it goes away.

The idea of an "emergency" is just that....something that needs an immediate response before Congress has the time to act.

I might even go a step further and require assent from leadership of the House and Senate to start. A simple phone/text/email consent would be required. The speed of communications should allow for that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I might even go a step further and require assent from leadership of the House and Senate to start. A simple phone/text/email consent would be required. The speed of communications should allow for that.

Why? A couple of decades ago I might have agreed with you. But the current "RESIST!" environment is mostly why we have a crisis at the border. Nothing will be helped by putting more cooks in the kitchen.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Why? A couple of decades ago I might have agreed with you. But the current "RESIST!" environment is mostly why we have a crisis at the border. Nothing will be helped by putting more cooks in the kitchen.

I never took you for the imperial presidency type. They are not more cooks in the kitchen, they are the elected leaders that the Constitution gives specific powers regarding the raising and spending of money to. I do not want a president to create M4A using an emergency decree, but I will admit you are right and the conservative RESIST ALL HEALTHCARE REFORM movement has made it too attractive for a president to pass up.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I never took you for the imperial presidency type. They are not more cooks in the kitchen, they are the elected leaders that the Constitution gives specific powers regarding the raising and spending of money to. I do not want a president to create M4A using an emergency decree, but I will admit you are right and the conservative RESIST ALL HEALTHCARE REFORM movement has made it too attractive for a president to pass up.

You can't change government structure and roles of the branches just cuz you don't like a particular election result. And I sure don't think exercising emergency authority is anything close to an imperial presidency. Finally, Trump has been much less inclined to use EO's to implement policy than his predecessor. I'd go so far as saying legislative process, procedure, and action is mutually exclusive of declaring an emergency. And I think it should be. That said, once emergency funds are gone, or if none are available, congress has a definite role.

I'm not going down your healthcare rabbit hole in this thread.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You can't change government structure and roles of the branches just cuz you don't like a particular election result. And I sure don't think exercising emergency authority is anything close to an imperial presidency. Finally, Trump has been much less inclined to use EO's to implement policy than his predecessor. I'd go so far as saying legislative process, procedure, and action is mutually exclusive of declaring an emergency. And I think it should be. That said, once emergency funds are gone, or if none are available, congress has a definite role.

I'm not going down your healthcare rabbit hole in this thread.

You brought up RESIST which has nothing at all to do with the point. A president, any president of any party, should have to prove he has an emergency. I know of no way of doing that without congressional approval. Emergencies also should come with an end (be it a date or an event). We have dozens of emergencies in force right now that shouldn't be so. You seem to suggest a leader would disregard a bonafide emergency just because of politics, maybe I am naive but I think real emergencies will be respected. If China bombs Pearl, I suspect leadership will give Trump whatever he wants until they can vote. If leadership doesn't agree, I have to wonder if it is an emergency.

 

[twenty02]

Congress is singularly ill-equipped to deal with an emergency in any time let alone in 30 days. If they want to write into a law an expiration for all emergency declarations, I guess I'd agree that is a congressional prerogative (I don't think that is a good idea). But to have congress to take back the decision about whether something is an emergency after thirty days . . . . .um . . . nope.

That's totally ridiculous. How long did Congress take to respond to 9/11? Or to the Lehman collapse?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You brought up RESIST which has nothing at all to do with the point.

RESIST! has everything to do with this. RESIST! is a clear signal to not negotiate or agree with Trump unless certain elements agree. For example, criminal justice reform was okay. A border barrier is RESIST!

A president, any president of any party, should have to prove he has an emergency.

No. You can never "prove" an emergency. And the process of convincing somebody (assuming they are willing to be convinced) that one exists is too cumbersome.

Emergencies also should come with an end (be it a date or an event).

Agreed.

We have dozens of emergencies in force right now that shouldn't be so.

Perhaps. Do you have a list?

You seem to suggest a leader would disregard a bonafide emergency just because of politics, maybe I am naive but I think real emergencies will be respected.

Yes. I am suggesting that. But I also agree that most emergencies are pretty objective and there shouldn't be a debate.

If leadership doesn't agree, I have to wonder if it is an emergency.

An analogy. Parts of five federal lands -- including two designated national monuments -- continue to post travel warnings or be outright closed to Americans who own the land because of the dangers of "human and drug trafficking" along the Mexican border. I suggest that if parts of 5 federal lands were closed because of an oil spill, the Democrats would declare an emergency and demand immediate remediation of the hazard. But not the federal lands in AZ because the reason for the closure is immigration. Yes, emergencies can be political.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's totally ridiculous. How long did Congress take to respond to 9/11? Or to the Lehman collapse?

So, the worst attack on the homeland since the Brits burned Washington D.C. and the worst financial crisis ever are your metrics for measuring prompt congressional action? I don't think I am the one being ridiculous here.

 

[twenty02]

So, the worst attack on the homeland since the Brits burned Washington D.C. and the worst financial crisis ever are your metrics for measuring prompt congressional action? I don't think I am the one being ridiculous here.

I'm not the one being fast and loose with the definition of emegency to justify the implementation of a contentious public policy and an end run around Article 1 of the constitution.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

RESIST! has everything to do with this. RESIST! is a clear signal to not negotiate or agree with Trump unless certain elements agree. For example, criminal justice reform was okay. A border barrier is RESIST!



No. You can never "prove" an emergency. And the process of convincing somebody (assuming they are willing to be convinced) that one exists is too cumbersome.



Agreed.



Perhaps. Do you have a list?



Yes. I am suggesting that. But I also agree that most emergencies are pretty objective and there shouldn't be a debate.



An analogy. Parts of five federal lands -- including two designated national monuments -- continue to post travel warnings or be outright closed to Americans who own the land because of the dangers of "human and drug trafficking" along the Mexican border. I suggest that if parts of 5 federal lands were closed because of an oil spill, the Democrats would declare an emergency and demand immediate remediation of the hazard. But not the federal lands in AZ because the reason for the closure is immigration. Yes, emergencies can be political.

Here is the list of the current national emergencies. I am curious, how many of them do you think required a president to act this second? Scroll down the CNN page, they are toward the bottom.

 

[wiede]

Why? A couple of decades ago I might have agreed with you. But the current "RESIST!" environment is mostly why we have a crisis at the border. Nothing will be helped by putting more cooks in the kitchen.

You’re assuming that there’s actually a “crisis” that necessitates emergency action.

It IS a crisis, but it’s humanitarian in nature.

And, it’s pretty clear that something doesn’t qualify as an emergency if A) you tried to get a deal with Congress, agreed to one for more money, reneged on said deal, then eventually accept a compromise for less, B) publicly state that you didn’t have to do it, but it’s easier this way (as Trump did) & C) wait several months while threatening to do it before you do it.

However you define it, it’s pretty damn clear this isn’t an emergency. It’s a move to get your way after you threw a fit and didn’t get your way.

I suppose you’d feel the same way if a dem president declared an emergency revolving around climate change? Or income inequality? Both of which are much more pressing issues right now than the border “crisis”. BTW, I wouldn’t support actions by a dem president declaring those things as emergencies.

It’s time for for Congress (the senate in this case) to put on their big boy pants and actually do their damn job. Twenty is absolutely correct.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It’s time for for Congress (the senate in this case) to put on their big boy pants and actually do their damn job. Twenty is absolutely correct.

I don't know why we keep letting congress off the hook, but they absolutely refuse to be accountable for anything. The most egregious case I can think of is the open ended declaration of war in the middle east against whomever we want, whenever we want, for any reason we want.

 

[tooold4]

Here is the list of the current national emergencies. I am curious, how many of them do you think required a president to act this second? Scroll down the CNN page, they are toward the bottom.

In defense of Tr, nope can't say it. In defense of the campaign strategy (wall) consider the millions and millions of illegals, going back however far, and wonder where they live. Chances are they are not in your neighborhood. The r's have a political interest in this fight because it translates into votes come election day.

The wall and the associated emergency are nothing but political strategy.

As for a national emergency, it's kinda like porn, you'll know it when you see it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm not the one being fast and loose with the definition of emergency to justify the implementation of a contentious public policy and an end run around Article 1 of the constitution.

You’re assuming that there’s actually a “crisis” that necessitates emergency action.

It IS a crisis, but it’s humanitarian in nature.

And, it’s pretty clear that something doesn’t qualify as an emergency if A) you tried to get a deal with Congress, agreed to one for more money, reneged on said deal, then eventually accept a compromise for less, B) publicly state that you didn’t have to do it, but it’s easier this way (as Trump did) & C) wait several months while threatening to do it before you do it.

However you define it, it’s pretty damn clear this isn’t an emergency. It’s a move to get your way after you threw a fit and didn’t get your way.

I suppose you’d feel the same way if a dem president declared an emergency revolving around climate change? Or income inequality? Both of which are much more pressing issues right now than the border “crisis”. BTW, I wouldn’t support actions by a dem president declaring those things as emergencies.

It’s time for for Congress (the senate in this case) to put on their big boy pants and actually do their damn job. Twenty is absolutely correct.

If both of you actually read the thread, you would have quickly seen that I am not suggesting an end run around anything. We have thousands of homeless and unfed people, many of whom also need medical care, and some others who need rape counseling, and all whom are are attempting to enter the USA. Our facilities and personnel are overwhelmed. POTUS is correct in declaring an emergency to mobilize people, equipment, and other resources, including reallocating funds, to take care of all these people. There might be some controversy about POTUS wanting to comply with the asylum and other immigration laws on the books (which congress won't fix) but that's it. I agree (and said so weeks ago) that POTUS cannot build a permanent wall with this process. So all your yammering about climate change, M4A, income inequality is just stoopid.

Speaking of stoopid:

However you define it, it’s pretty damn clear this isn’t an emergency.

No? Who is going to feed, provide shelter, and treat medical conditions? The congressional Democrats? I don't think so. We must mobilize additional people and reallocate funds to do this.

It’s time for for Congress (the senate in this case) to put on their big boy pants and actually do their damn job.

It's not the GOP senate that refused to build more shelter space. The congressional approval rating being less than half of Tump's is richly deserved.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

you are right and the conservative RESIST ALL HEALTHCARE REFORM movement has made it too attractive for a president to pass up.

I like how you used CO's own favorite tactic against him.

 

[UncleMark]

POTUS is correct in declaring an emergency to mobilize people, equipment, and other resources, including reallocating funds, to take care of all these people.[...] I agree (and said so weeks ago) that POTUS cannot build a permanent wall with this process.

I suspect he'd have no problem getting Dem support for the former legislatively, but he's not going to get any for the latter. And it's the latter he wants the money for, not the former.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I suspect he'd have no problem getting Dem support for the former legislatively, but he's not going to get any for the latter. And it's the latter he wants the money for, not the former.

Right, has anyone heard Democrats oppose methods of humanely housing people seeking sanctuary? Maybe I have just missed it.

 

[UncleMark]

Right, has anyone heard Democrats oppose methods of humanely housing people seeking sanctuary? Maybe I have just missed it.

My understanding is there were substantial funds appropriated for just that purpose. But none for Wall. Hence, the "emergency".

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I suspect he'd have no problem getting Dem support for the former legislatively, but he's not going to get any for the latter. And it's the latter he wants the money for, not the former.

That's obvious. More barriers (wall) is a no brainer and there is absolutely no downside to the latest proposal for it. Congress and other presidents have built barriers, fences, walls, gates, checkpoints, and more. The only reason we can't have those things now is RESIST!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

My understanding is there were substantial funds appropriated for just that purpose. But none for Wall. Hence, the "emergency".

I recall the Pelosi and Schumer absolutely opposed more detention facilities for asylum seekers. The reason obviously was that would force us to turn them loose because of over-crowding. I don't know if that stuck in the final bill, but I think it did.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I recall the Pelosi and Schumer absolutely opposed more detention facilities for asylum seekers. The reason obviously was that would force us to turn them loose because of over-crowding. I don't know if that stuck in the final bill, but I think it did.

How was the new facility announced last month funded?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

How was the new facility announced last month funded?

Is that additional capacity or simply replacing the inadequate facilties we have been forced to use? The article is ambiguous on that point.

 

[wiede]

If both of you actually read the thread, you would have quickly seen that I am not suggesting an end run around anything. We have thousands of homeless and unfed people, many of whom also need medical care, and some others who need rape counseling, and all whom are are attempting to enter the USA. Our facilities and personnel are overwhelmed. POTUS is correct in declaring an emergency to mobilize people, equipment, and other resources, including reallocating funds, to take care of all these people. There might be some controversy about POTUS wanting to comply with the asylum and other immigration laws on the books (which congress won't fix) but that's it. I agree (and said so weeks ago) that POTUS cannot build a permanent wall with this process. So all your yammering about climate change, M4A, income inequality is just stoopid.

Speaking of stoopid:


No? Who is going to feed, provide shelter, and treat medical conditions? The congressional Democrats? I don't think so. We must mobilize additional people and reallocate funds to do this.



It's not the GOP senate that refused to build more shelter space. The congressional approval rating being less than half of Tump's is richly deserved.

You’ve moved the goalposts out of the stadium, and also the city, state, country and continent.

His usage of this power is explicitly to build a wall. That’s it.

Humanitarian aid had zero to go with it. Building more facilities has zero to do with it. If that was what it was for, he’d have the support of the dems. Probably all of them.

Cmon man. That’s not even a good faith attempt at an argument.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You’ve moved the goalposts out of the stadium, and also the city, state, country and continent.

His usage of this power is explicitly to build a wall. That’s it.

Humanitarian aid had zero to go with it. Building more facilities has zero to do with it. If that was what it was for, he’d have the support of the dems. Probably all of them.

Cmon man. That’s not even a good faith attempt at an argument.

Not everything is about Trump. You have Trump derangement syndrome. Did you even bother to understand the OP? It’s about a president’s emergency powers and the movement to change it. I’m opposed to the proposed changes and I said why. I also pointed out how trump’s order, except for building the wall, is an appropriate use of the emergency power. And I also said here, and previously, how the wall is not an emergency issue.

You have the same problem another poster has. You talk about moving the goal posts without ever seeing the goalposts.

 

[wiede]

Not everything is about Trump. You have Trump derangement syndrome. Did you even bother to understand the OP? It’s about a president’s emergency powers and the movement to change it. I’m opposed to the proposed changes and I said why. I also pointed out how trump’s order, except for building the wall, is an appropriate use of the emergency power. And I also said here, and previously, how the wall is not an emergency issue.

You have the same problem another poster has. You talk about moving the goal posts without ever seeing the goalposts.

That makes sense re: the executive order’s constitutionality IF and ONLY IF the executive power was going to be used to deal with the humanitarian crisis. That truly IS a crisis. Because we’re separating families, and literally caging children.

However, you’re seeing goalposts that were never there. His executive order is EXPLICITLY to build a physical wall. Not the other stuff that you’re basing your argument upon. If it were used to address the severe overcrowding of refugees, then it’s probably fine on all counts. But you and I know that’s not what he declared this for in this case.

And yes, I can’t stand Trump. But I’d be pissed if a dem president pulled something like this also. Especially after congress refused to fund whatever it was the dem president was trying to do. Here’s something that will shock you- Obama overstepped when he created DACA by executive order. Had the freedom caucas not held the government hostage, we had a pretty good compromise plan in place. Which would have included... hundreds of miles of new physical walls. I get why Obama felt compelled to do it, but it was wrong.

The reason I called out Trump was because of the way he did this. It’s a naked power grab, and he did it ONLY to keep a campaign pledge. And, he’s going to try to pull funding from other sources that need the money. In almost every respect, it’s out of bounds.

So, I agree with most of what you’re saying. Except for the part where you make up a straw argument (the money will be used for something other than a physical wall) out of thin air to say it could be justified.

And, it’s funny that you say I have Trukp derrangement syndrome. I see you as bending over backwards to justify his unjustifiable behavior. I’d feel bad as well if I voted for the guy, but continuing to do what you’ve done since he’s been in office has really undermined your credibility on this board.

 

[tooold4]

Not everything is about Trump. You have Trump derangement syndrome. Did you even bother to understand the OP? It’s about a president’s emergency powers and the movement to change it. I’m opposed to the proposed changes and I said why. I also pointed out how trump’s order, except for building the wall, is an appropriate use of the emergency power. And I also said here, and previously, how the wall is not an emergency issue.

You have the same problem another poster has. You talk about moving the goal posts without ever seeing the goalposts.

It seems that there is no way to quickly pull on the reins of a kingly president.
Can the Supremes be asked (mandated) to rule on a presidential emergency declaration? I doubt it but I will look for the answer. ( it seems that the Supreme Court can respond to a controversy but in this case would most likely be an overstep )

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...mergency-declarations/?utm_term=.4d6600a3261d

Yosarian said "that's some catch'

edit- answering my own lame question

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Can the Supremes be asked (mandated) to rule on a presidential emergency declaration?

I don't think a court can review an emergency declaration. I think that is a separation of powers issue. However, the court can and has ruled on improper spending of funds, particularly spending without an appropriation. While the executive does have authority to change some funding priorities to remediate and emergency, there are limits. An extreme example explains my point. POTUS does not have authority build a new highway because he thinks too much traffic.

 

[twenty02]

Not everything is about Trump. You have Trump derangement syndrome. Did you even bother to understand the OP? It’s about a president’s emergency powers and the movement to change it. I’m opposed to the proposed changes and I said why. I also pointed out how trump’s order, except for building the wall, is an appropriate use of the emergency power. And I also said here, and previously, how the wall is not an emergency issue.

You have the same problem another poster has. You talk about moving the goal posts without ever seeing the goalposts.

I've followed what you have said here and you've made some interesting points I'll consider. Will be intriguing to watch the court battle.

Counter-point.... was there not a change in the current emergency law due to a court decision?.... Specifically making what happened today with the disapproval vote different than what Congress originally intended? (Wasn't subject to a veto, maybe?).

I thought I read something about that....could be wrong.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't think a court can review an emergency declaration. I think that is a separation of powers issue. However, the court can and has ruled on improper spending of funds, particularly spending without an appropriation. While the executive does have authority to change some funding priorities to remediate and emergency, there are limits. An extreme example explains my point. POTUS does not have authority build a new highway because he thinks too much traffic.

Why can't he build a highway? You seem to suggest it cannot be permanent, but what definition of permanent includes a wall, a road, but not a building? A detention facility is probably going to need a roof and walls.

 

[tooold4]

I've followed what you have said here and you've made some interesting points I'll consider. Will be intriguing to watch the court battle.

Counter-point.... was there not a change in the current emergency law due to a court decision?.... Specifically making what happened today with the disapproval vote different than what Congress originally intended? (Wasn't subject to a veto, maybe?).

I thought I read something about that....could be wrong.

Within the original attempt to curtail Presidential Emergency Powers was a process that gave congress the right to veto the President with a simple yes/no majority vote. (1976)

In 1983 the Court ruled that Congress doesn't have veto power and must pass laws that can be vetoed by the executive branch as per the constitution.

I think that is the gist of it. A much better explanation is in the article linked in my last post, I've probably buggered it up a bit.

 

[MonroeCity]

Tom Cotton: "Democrats say declaring a national emergency is lawless. But for an act to be lawless, one actually has to act outside the law. On the contrary, the president is using clear statutory authority delegated to him by Congress."

 

[mashnut]

Tom Cotton: "Democrats say declaring a national emergency is lawless. But for an act to be lawless, one actually has to act outside the law. On the contrary, the president is using clear statutory authority delegated to him by Congress."

And I’m certain you and Tom Cotton will feel the same when President Buttigieg legally declares an emergency to pay for the green new deal without appropriations from congress, right?