|
Replies: 23
| visibility 430
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I thought I knew something about National Emergencies.
Feb 15, 2019, 10:16 AM
|
|
I realized my understanding was very wrong when I actually googled it. I was thinking about hurricanes or major terrorist attacks, and stuff like that. I was thinking about people dying and suffering. But the national emergencies that have actually been declared are mostly about things like placing sanctions on various entities. For example, one of the national emergencies President Trump has declared is about election interference sanctions, of all things.
Also, I found that these emergencies usually last a really long time, decades even. There are 31 of them active right now, one of them dating back to 1979.
I left the Wikipedia page more unsure than when I went in, in regards to what the standard should be for a national emergency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If I were President, I would announce one to permanantely
Feb 15, 2019, 10:20 AM
|
|
change the Super Bowl and NCG to Saturdays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The more I read, I believe the Constitutionality of this
Feb 15, 2019, 10:29 AM
|
|
is sound. Congress passed a law in 1976 allowing the President to do this. The law doesn't seem to give a standard for what an emergency should be; it's at the President's discretion. One of the specific emergency provisions allowed by the law is appropriation of defense funds. It's right there in the law.
I don't like it, as I see it is a way around the checks and balances our founders installed. But it's a workaround Congress decided to allow in 1976.
There is a check still there, in the form of a veto override.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Congress limited the President's power in 1976.
Feb 15, 2019, 10:40 AM
|
|
That is not when they granted the power.
I think if he'd done it immediately after taking office then it would have been much sounder. Now it appears to be an abuse of power, going around congress, and a political move. While he has the constitutional right to declare, he is not granted the power to go against congressional appropriations.
I expect it will be overridden, and if not will be struck down in the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I understand. What I should have said...
Feb 15, 2019, 10:56 AM
|
|
was the law that the President is invoking was passed in 1976. It's an actual law, passed by Congress, allowing him to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11137]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14025
Joined: 9/2/03
|
Goes back farther than that. George W,
Feb 15, 2019, 10:49 AM
[ in reply to The more I read, I believe the Constitutionality of this ] |
|
not Bush, but Washington declared national emergency to raise a militia in case there was a rebellion after implementing taxes on whiskey. Decent lawyers could easily argue either side given the history of its use. Will end up in front of the supremes? I don't know, but pretty sure the conservative court will allow it.
Problem is, everybody knows....you know it, I know it, your neighbor knows it, especially law enforcement in border towns know it...that the absence of a wall on the southern border is not a national emergency. This is Trump pitching a fit; I want it, I want it, I want it, NOW! How anybody would support this is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Problem is, what is the definition of a national emergency?
Feb 15, 2019, 10:57 AM
|
|
I don't see it in the law.
So we can oppose based on opinion, as I do, but not based on law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11137]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14025
Joined: 9/2/03
|
and thats why we have lawyers. Current definition
Feb 15, 2019, 11:10 AM
|
|
of national emergency seems to be that Trump has pooped himself and needs a wipey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Hard to argue what color the law says the sky is
Feb 15, 2019, 8:58 PM
|
|
If the sky isn't mentioned in the law.
It'd be nice if they amended the law to put standards defining an emergency. Congress could do that (not today, I guess).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11137]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14025
Joined: 9/2/03
|
What would be nice is if spineless sacks of
Feb 15, 2019, 11:29 AM
|
|
goo like Mitch McConnell and other GOP member of congress finally tell this imbecile of a President "NO".
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I do agree that Congress has the power to stop this
Feb 15, 2019, 11:32 AM
|
|
and I wish they would, but am not predicting that they will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Last resort? He shouldn't have that resort.
Feb 15, 2019, 2:27 PM
|
|
That makes at sound as if he reserves ultimate power and if the checks and balances don't work... he gets to do whatever he wants as a last resort. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The way I see it, the President, if 1/3 of Congress agrees
Feb 15, 2019, 11:07 AM
|
|
with him, can do a whole lot of stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
The irony is that an increase in democracy has led to
Feb 15, 2019, 11:24 AM
|
|
more centralization.
Used to, the president was elected by electors, and the Senate was elected by state legislatures.
Many checks and balances were replaced or worn down by direct access to the mass of voters.
Same sh*t that led to tyrants in ancient Greece. Certain oligarchs (demagogues) appealed to the masses and used their popularity to centralize power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I support the building of wall along the Southern Border
Feb 15, 2019, 11:18 AM
|
|
but this is a strike against the President, when it comes to my opinion and vote in 2020.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Pelosi and Schumer have released a joint statement...
Feb 15, 2019, 11:34 AM
|
|
decrying the violation of the Constitution and of the law.
Unless I'm having major reading comprehension problems, they are dead wrong. Read the law, Mr. Leader and Mrs. Speaker. Read the law, please. And do something about it besides complaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Where in the Constitution does it say the executive branch
Feb 15, 2019, 11:39 AM
|
|
has additional powers if he/she declares an emergency?
Spoiler: Nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Then the law passed by Congress in 1976 is
Feb 15, 2019, 11:48 AM
|
|
un-Constitutional. But the Supreme Court apparently disagreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
The Supreme Court passed Plessy Vs Ferguson
Feb 15, 2019, 1:36 PM
|
|
The Supreme Court (Marshall) invented Judicial Review and the Supreme Court has trampled all over the Constitution several times.
The Supreme Court can botch it just like a President or Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34533]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41379
Joined: 4/20/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34533]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41379
Joined: 4/20/01
|
Correct, we're under 31, now 32, national emegencies***
Feb 15, 2019, 11:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
On the surface, this seems like a lot more of an "emergency"
Feb 15, 2019, 11:50 AM
|
|
Than a lot of the other "emergencies" that have been declared. The difference is that this one is on a politically controversial topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Every instance of circumventing the Constitution
Feb 15, 2019, 1:46 PM
|
|
is equally as dangerous.
That is regardless of the narrative around it.
The Constitution made it pretty simple.
10th Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Well, there are no EMERGENCY POWERS in the Constitution. Doesn't take a genius to figure out what has been going on. Short-term practical expediency has trumped long-term adherence to our laws. And the people, largely willfully ignorant of our founding principles, are the opposite of vigilant.
Jefferson said “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Well, our vigilance wasn't eternal. Freedom dies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 430
|
|
|
50
