Political Wrinkles

Political Wrinkles (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/)
-   The President & the Executive Branch (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/president-executive-branch/)
-   -   'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency declar (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/president-executive-branch/57046-dangerous-abuse-lawless-bipartisan-attack-trump-national-emergency-declar.html)

saltwn 02-14-2019 10:16 PM

'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency declar
 
'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency declaration

Quote:

Lawmakers in both parties sharply criticized President Donald Trump on Thursday for planning to declare a national emergency to build his long-promised border wall.

"Declaring a national emergency would be a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for his wall," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement.

“It is yet another demonstration of President Trump's naked contempt for the rule of law. This is not an emergency, and the president's fear-mongering doesn't make it one," they added.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, also advised against such a move by the president.

"I think it's a dangerous step," Cornyn said.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump would sign a congressional deal to avoid a shutdown Friday but will also declare a national emergency "to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border."
Quote:

The potential emergency declaration, which Trump could try to use to obtain existing government funds from agencies and departments to build the wall without congressional approval, set off a chorus of criticism from Democrats and Republicans.

"It would be a gross abuse of power — and likely illegal — for President Trump to go around Congress to fund his wall. Inventing an unnecessary national emergency would be a power grab that would likely be blocked by the courts," Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in a tweet.

Democrats highlighted other pressing problems for which they said a national emergency would be appropriate and accused Trump of manufacturing a crisis at the border to uphold a campaign promise to build a wall on the southern border.

"Gun violence is a national emergency. Climate Change is a national emergency. Income inequality is a national emergency. Access to healthcare is a national emergency. Building a wall on the southern border is not," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., tweeted Thursday.
Quote:

Rep. Mike Levin, D-Calif., said in a statement he would "support every effort to challenge his declaration in court."

"We cannot allow the president to get away with a national emergency declaration, which is a clear abuse of power and likely unconstitutional," he said.
Quote:

Sen. Brian Schatz‏, D-Hawaii, said he could only imagine the blowback if President Barack Obama had tried the same thing.

"The inability to negotiate with a coequal branch is not an emergency. A failure to secure money is just not just the same as a natural disaster or terrorism event. And I look forward to a big bipartisan vote rejecting this nonsense. Can you imagine the screaming (if) Obama did this?" he asked.

A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS ALSO SAID THEY WOULD OPPOSE ANY EMERGENCY DECLARATION, ARGUING THAT IT SETS A PRECEDENT FOR A FUTURE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION AND AMOUNTS TO PRESIDENTIAL OVERREACH.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., criticized the administration for the idea of issuing a national declaration, as well as Congress voting on a voluminous bill with little time for consideration.

"I, too, want stronger border security, including a wall in some areas. But how we do things matters. Over 1,000 pages dropped in the middle of the night and extraconstitutional executive actions are wrong, no matter which party does them," Paul said in a tweet.

"I’m disappointed with both the massive, bloated, secretive bill that just passed and with the president's intention to declare an emergency to build a wall," he added.

Other Republican lawmakers echoed Paul's concerns, worried that such a move by Trump would embolden a future Democratic president to tackle controversial issues such as gun violence.

"I do not support this decision because declaring a national emergency sets a very dangerous precedent that undermines our constitutional separation of powers. By circumventing Congress and Article I of the Constitution, President Trump is opening the door for any future president to act alone without congressional approval," Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wa., said in a statement.

"If elected president, how would Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders use this precedent for a national disaster declaration to force the Green New Deal on the American people?"

Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, concluded, "Whether the president has the authority or not, it sets a dangerous precedent and places America on a path that we will regret."
Oh I think we regret it already. :redface

Hairy Jello 02-14-2019 10:29 PM

Re: 'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency de
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn (Post 961995)
Oh I think we regret it already. :redface

Why? Because of an opinion piece by NBC?

cnredd 02-14-2019 11:10 PM

Re: 'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency de
 
Quote:

"Declaring a national emergency would be a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for his wall," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement.
Quote:

On Jan. 6, the president made it clear that he was strongly considering making an emergency declaration. "I may declare a national emergency dependent on what's going to happen over the next few days," CNN noted he told reporters at the White House. Trump has the authority to declare a national emergency under the 1976 National Emergencies Act. This law essentially allows a president to define what he believes constitutes a national emergency and subsequently make a related declaration, the Washington Post reported. This declaration then allows the president access to specialized funds via certain emergency laws.

All recent presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have declared at least one national emergency during their time in office, CNN noted. For his part, Barack Obama declared 13 national emergencies, with many of them focused on international affairs and containing foreign conflicts, the outlet reported.
Presidents have the authority and every president has used it since the law went into effect...

...but "Trump", so wah, wah, wah...:rolls

saltwn 02-14-2019 11:46 PM

Re: 'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency de
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd (Post 961998)
Presidents have the authority and every president has used it since the law went into effect...

...but "Trump", so wah, wah, wah...:rolls

congress just voted on a bill dealing with the subject, he cannot bypass congress just because he doesnt like the out come they came up with. thats usurpation of powers not delegated to him
now if congress had refused to act or couldnt reach a solution then yes he might have a leg to stand on

and the fact it is a made up emergency should also scare the hell out of people.

GetAClue 02-15-2019 07:01 AM

Re: 'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency de
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn (Post 962009)
congress just voted on a bill dealing with the subject, he cannot bypass congress just because he doesnt like the out come they came up with. thats usurpation of powers not delegated to him
now if congress had refused to act or couldnt reach a solution then yes he might have a leg to stand on

and the fact it is a made up emergency should also scare the hell out of people.

You may want to educate yourself on the 1976 National Emergencies Act. It does exactly that.

FrancSevin 02-15-2019 07:30 AM

Re: 'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency de
 
Dangerous abuse of power is when Justice Department lawyers attempt a coup d'état' to reverse the results of a national election.
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.

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.


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

AZRWinger 02-15-2019 09:58 AM

Re: 'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency de
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn (Post 962009)
congress just voted on a bill dealing with the subject, he cannot bypass congress just because he doesnt like the out come they came up with. thats usurpation of powers not delegated to him
now if congress had refused to act or couldnt reach a solution then yes he might have a leg to stand on

and the fact it is a made up emergency should also scare the hell out of people.

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. :rolls

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. :o

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

pjohns 02-15-2019 11:52 AM

Re: 'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency de
 
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.

AZRWinger 02-15-2019 12:31 PM

Re: 'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency de
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pjohns (Post 962061)
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.

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. :rolls

WallyWager 02-15-2019 02:31 PM

Re: 'Dangerous.' 'Abuse.' 'Lawless': Bipartisan attack on Trump national emergency de
 
"I didn't need to do this"

Those words will severely handicap him if this goes to court.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0