'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency declar - Page 2

saltwn · #11 (**permalink**) 02-15-2019, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Reviewing the list of currently active emergency declarations shows concerns for security situations in several African nations, Iran and Nicaragua. The security of far away nations is something to be addressed by emergency declarations but not the US border security situation.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-...res-what-means

When Obama blatantly invaded the Senate's authority to set its own rules by making recess appointments when they were in session Democrats cheered him for his boldness. When Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi undermined regular order to pass Obamacare on a party line vote it was called progress. But if Trump uses the same authority other Presidents have used to declare a national emergency it undermines our Republic.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-...res-what-means

those are executive orders are not national emergencies. only 58 have been declared. and they were real emergencies. this is a campaign ad and money grab.

saltwn · #12 (**permalink**) 02-15-2019, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjohns

I do not think that President Trump's declaration of a national emergency is abusive or lawless. In fact, other presidents--of both parties--have frequently declared national emergencies.

Nonetheless, I do think that it is of questionable wisdom.

After all--as I am certainly not the first to point out--a future Democratic president may declare a national emergency as regarding, say, climate change (and therefore prompt Congress to prohibit the internal-combustion engine); gun violence (and therefore seek to confiscate our guns); or healthcare insurance (and therefore ask Congress to enact UHC).

I do think that President Trump is weary of Congress' refusal to act; so he has responding by taking action, himself.

I just am not certain that, in the long run, it will prove to be a wise choice.

That is the point. Congress did in fact act. did republicans get all they wanted? no. Did democrats? no. And they abided by a compromise they are proud of and the American people should be. Trump is a baby man. full stop. dictatorial wanna be emperor pretending at some emergency to rally the troops for a 2020 run.

saltwn · #13 (**permalink**) 02-15-2019, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Declaring a national emergency is not going to prompt Congress to do anything. Democrats are terrified at the prospect of a Senate vote on the Green New deal they are even more terrified of any President who would be foolish enough to try outlawing the internal combustion engine. Likewise they aren't going to jump off the cliff by using a national emergency to ban guns.

The argument that Democrats wouldn't undertake an action unless Republicans set a new precedent is laughable. FDR discarded the precedent of two terms for the President to become President for life. Obama wrecked public financing of Presidential campaigns. Harry Reid destroyed the filibuster of judicial nominations. Obama ignored the legal requirement to submit a Federal budget by a legally specified date then refused to work with Congress to defend his own proposal. There are other examples where Democrats discard precedent for political advantage.

Pious intonations of sacred precedent are only invoked when useful for stymieing Republicans.

There were no term limits till after FDR

Dog Man · #14 (**permalink**) 02-15-2019, 03:42 PM

[QUOTE=FrancSevin;962033][

I]Dangerous abuse of power [/I]is when Justice Department lawyers attempt a coup d'état' to reverse the results of a national election.

I sure hope that an investigation commences soon on this subject. Because this is far more dangerous than anything Trump would, or could do.

FrancSevin · #15 (**permalink**) 02-15-2019, 05:09 PM

[quote=Dog Man;962098]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrancSevin

[

I]Dangerous abuse of power [/I]is when Justice Department lawyers attempt a coup d'état' to reverse the results of a national election.

I sure hope that an investigation commences soon on this subject. Because this is far more dangerous than anything Trump would, or could do.

Lawyers have attempted to reverse national elections in our courts before . But most notably 2000, 2004 and now 2016. But this time they weren't employed by the Democratic party but employed by the USA government as agents sworn to protect the Constitution. Instead they attempted to twist the law and remove an elected president by invoking the 25 amendment. Which cannot be employed as they attempted.

But they succeeded in convincing many jurist, citizens and the media that they could. The connections of these same people to the foreign dossier' compiled by Russian agent makes the attempt itself a justification for a federal grand jury to investigate possible treason.

McCabe's own words, "The Russian government is our nation's biggest enemy." To that, I say "BINGO!"

pjohns · #16 (**permalink**) 02-20-2019, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Pious intonations of sacred precedent are only invoked when useful for stymieing Republicans.

This is not entirely untrue. Very often, the left wishes to do exactly that.

But anyone who knows me would not think that I am a member in good standing (or any kind of standing) of the left.

saltwn · #17 (**permalink**) 02-20-2019, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrancSevin

Dangerous abuse of power is when Justice Department lawyers attempt a coup d'état' to reverse the results of a national election.

if you are talking about polling cabinet members on the 25th amendment that is part of the constitution (hence the name "amendment")

Quote:

When the Congress, because of time constraints, not in session or gridlock, cannot or will not address a current crisis? This is what the emergency power granted to the executive is intended.

Congress did act. created a budget with wall money they agreed upon. The Trump-O decided he wanted it done quicker so fakes an emergency. Not his greatest idea

Quote:

One can perhaps make the argument such is not the case. However that argument is not proven here simply because the media wants to avert America's eye's to the issue. The crisis on our southern border has been in existence since President Clinton promised to fix it.

How can you claim that when they have been there with cameras the whole time?

Quote:

Every Congress, and every President, since has failed to do what they promised.

And so did this POTUS. He was willing to take a lot more then a lot less then canceled those due to his own flakey fakey propagandistas.

Quote:

And the organized resistance to fixing the issue, we see before us now, is evidence as to why none ever really tried. People who object to a secure border should be asked what it is that they don't want to stop from crossing it.

Security and 25 billion dollars in concrete taken from FEMA and our military are two entirely different things.

pjohns · #18 (**permalink**) 02-21-2019, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

if you are talking about polling cabinet members on the 25th amendment that is part of the constitution (hence the name "amendment")

To use the 25th amendment as a pretext for removing a sitting president from office--for anything other than medical or psychological incapacity--is simply a horrible misuse of this constitutional provision.

In fact, law professor Alan Dershowitz--who is hardly a conservative--said precisely that: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...oup_detat.html

jimbo · #19 (**permalink**) 02-21-2019, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

There were no term limits till after FDR

There's a difference between limits and precedents. Look it up.

Hairy Jello · #20 (**permalink**) 02-21-2019, 01:55 PM

Quote:

'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless'

All of those things describe the situation at the border.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post:
CindyB, FrancSevin, jimbo

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
Dog Man, GetAClue

The Following User Says Thank You to Hairy Jello For This Useful Post:
pjohns