Replies: 51
| visibility 612
|
All-In [46664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30614
Joined: 8/11/15
|
So right leaning PR loungers: What's your take
Feb 1, 2019, 9:14 AM
|
|
on the President declaring a national emergency to build the wall?
It's looking more and more like the dems will not cave on wall funding. I don't think the President would survive another drawn out shut down. Looks like the national emergency route is becoming more and more apparent.
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [154409]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65237
Joined: 5/6/13
|
probably constitutionally defensible.
Feb 1, 2019, 9:17 AM
|
|
Also would mark yet another precedent as a tactic that someone would undoubtedly employ in the future for something I completely disagree with.
In other words, just more decline in the way this country is governed.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31784]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37085
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I'm not sure it's defensible....
Feb 1, 2019, 9:37 AM
|
|
I don't see how a problem that has existed for decades and will take years(?) to "fix" can be deemed an emergency.
An emergency is when the POTUS needs to do something in real-time to defend the country when it is impractical to have Congress approve...not as a means to work around Congress. Same goes for DACA, which should not have been done (and allow to be done by the courts) via an EO.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23390
Joined: 8/16/03
|
It's clearly an abuse of the concept of emergency.
Feb 1, 2019, 10:26 AM
|
|
This is what happens when people with no intrinsic appreciation for the founding values of our government are put in a position of power to potentially threaten it.
And people like that are only enabled when the electorate has become so insulated from suffering and so distracted by tribalism that they have lost their vigilance to keep themselves free.
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [154409]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65237
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I don't disagree, I'm just saying that
Feb 1, 2019, 10:33 AM
|
|
if the defense were positioned properly, in front of a friendly court, I imagine they could find a loophole. Doesn't mean I agree with the concept, I'm just being pragmatic.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23390
Joined: 8/16/03
|
If what you mean is that they can get away with it...
Feb 1, 2019, 10:41 AM
|
|
then yes they absolutely can get away with it because the Constitution has been long ignored for over 100 years.
But if the question is it is actually Constitutional... then the clear answer is no.
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [154409]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65237
Joined: 5/6/13
|
It's constitutionally nebulous because it was
Feb 1, 2019, 10:44 AM
|
|
never clearly defined what was meant by "emergency".
I think that's because the framers always thought that we the people would be electing real well meaning adults who would use the power judiciously.
hahahahahahah! jokes on them!
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30614
Joined: 8/11/15
|
No they didn't
Feb 1, 2019, 10:46 AM
|
|
that's why it's so #### hard to pass legislation.
The entire system is designed to be slow and tedious.
Which is why quickly circumventing branches should be frowned upon.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23390
Joined: 8/16/03
|
No, they warned us to assume that everyone is untrustworthy.
Feb 1, 2019, 10:51 AM
[ in reply to It's constitutionally nebulous because it was ] |
|
“There is a degree of watchfulness over all men possessed of power or influence upon which the liberties of mankind much depend. It is necessary to guard against the infirmities of the best as well as the wickedness of the worst of men. Jealousy is the best security of public Liberty.” Sam Adams
Later the idea was made up that if the Constitution doesn't specifically say that the govt can't do something, that it meant you could wing it.
“We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto turned over, for proofs irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and cruel as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power. All projects of government, formed upon a supposition of continued vigilance, sagacity, and virtue, firmness of the people when possessed of the exercise of supreme power, are cheats and delusions. The fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratic council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor. Equally bloody, arbitrary, cruel, and in every respect diabolical.” John Adams
“The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of Legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution …” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1797
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [154409]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65237
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I was being tongue in cheek, but point taken***
Feb 1, 2019, 10:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23390
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Well my sense of humor went out the window for a bit. Sorry.***
Feb 1, 2019, 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30614
Joined: 8/11/15
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15641
Joined: 10/10/02
|
So in this thought, I wonder what would happen if
Feb 1, 2019, 1:06 PM
|
|
Border states declared a state of emergency and asked for federal help?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30614
Joined: 8/11/15
|
hmmmmmm
Feb 1, 2019, 1:10 PM
|
|
interesting question.
One I have no idea the answer to
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15641
Joined: 10/10/02
|
I don't either.***
Feb 1, 2019, 1:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23390
Joined: 8/16/03
|
It's not even a state vs federal thing...
Feb 1, 2019, 3:18 PM
[ in reply to So in this thought, I wonder what would happen if ] |
|
It's a separation of powers thing.
The state or federal government shouldn't be circumventing the separation of powers.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23390
Joined: 8/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think it'd be wrong, unless he can
Feb 1, 2019, 9:18 AM
|
|
justify the declaration, based on prior such precedents.
I'm in favor of a wall being built, but if the votes aren't there in Congress, it shouldn't happen. That's the way our government works. The President can't just decide to do things.
I and many others may influence the situation by voting for different representatives when given the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [118837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54053
Joined: 6/24/09
|
The dems will cave on about 200 miles of wall
Feb 1, 2019, 9:19 AM
|
|
And other technology for the rest.
Bank on it...
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Or...Congress will admirably agree on a compromise.
Feb 1, 2019, 9:20 AM
|
|
For the good of the country.
Doesn't have to be one side "wins" and the other side "caves". That's what's wrong with this whole situation.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30614
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I think with the rhetoric from both sides
Feb 1, 2019, 9:30 AM
|
|
but especially fox news and trump, the base wont' see it that way. If they would have went softer on the rhetoric he wouldn't be backed into such a corner.
Now it's either get the wall or lose his base.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Neither base will see it that way.
Feb 1, 2019, 9:32 AM
|
|
Again, the problem.
Honestly, I see a lot of talk on social media among his ardent supporters "Don't cave! You will lose your supporters!" But based on my observations in the last 2+ years, that's just talk. They'll still be with him if there is no wall, they'll just blame Democrats for there not being one.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30614
Joined: 8/11/15
|
He will never lose his most hardcore supporters
Feb 1, 2019, 9:41 AM
|
|
He could #### a pig on national TV and his hardcore base would praise him for trolling dems
But there are a bunch of his supporters who are becoming more and more ill with his crap and starting to see through the facade. And those are the ones who will either vote for a primary challenger or will sit home for the election.
JMO
Message was edited by: FBCoachSC®
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15641
Joined: 10/10/02
|
In the end, the economy is all that will matter.
Feb 1, 2019, 1:08 PM
|
|
Everything else is window dressing to the majority of the electorate.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31784]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37085
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I actually support a more secure border, but think this...
Feb 1, 2019, 9:33 AM
|
|
move is unconstitutional (at best).
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47303]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30182
Joined: 11/15/99
|
Curious why you say the"move is unconstitutional"?***
Feb 1, 2019, 9:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31784]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37085
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41706]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37922
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I would hope common sense would kick in for everyone here...
Feb 1, 2019, 9:38 AM
|
|
And realize the danger of allowing any president to circumvent Congress to get what he wants when legislation fails. We can't have that regardless of who occupies the White House.
I hope those in love with Trump are willing to look past that adoration and embrace common sense in that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31784]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37085
Joined: 11/22/03
|
100% agree and would also hope those that...
Feb 1, 2019, 9:40 AM
|
|
agreed with President Obama's DACA EO because "Congress wouldn't act", but think Trump is over-reaching with this action see the error of their ways.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41706]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37922
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You know how I feel about EOs...
Feb 1, 2019, 9:51 AM
|
|
Honestly feel like they should be outlawed. I know, some say they serve a purpose, but it seems like they are abused over and over. Obama was a good example of that. Let Congress pass the laws.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31784]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37085
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I'm actually a "Strong Executive" guy....
Feb 1, 2019, 10:03 AM
|
|
I think there are plenty of valid needs for EOs, so I don't think they should be done away with entirely. They just ought not to be abused and when they are, something has to be done about it specifically.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23390
Joined: 8/2/10
|
Well the Founding Fathers were not.
Feb 1, 2019, 10:39 AM
|
|
...the first thing they had to discuss was if there would be one chief executive or more than one chief executive. And that was not an easy decision; it was by no means a foregone conclusion. People were very suspicious of anything that would resemble monarchical rule.
Benjamin Franklin, for instance, felt very strongly that it should be a plural executive, perhaps three people.
They decided on one executive, but then the next issue was, if there was one executive, he has to have an executive council, to kind of spread out the power. Several luminaries were in favor of an executive council: Franklin and James Madison and George Mason, the guy who really pushed the Bill of Rights. But the executive council kind of got lost in the shuffle for most of the convention.
They didn’t worry about it too much because, for most of the convention, many of the powers that we associate with the president were given to the Senate. The president didn’t have that much power for most of the convention.
They’d been meeting for over three months, and until two weeks before the end the key powers of treaty-making and appointive powers — appointing ambassadors and Supreme Court justices — these would all be done by the Senate. So the president, two weeks until the end, the president was elected by Congress, a creature of Congress, and he did not have power over foreign policy to make other major appointments. That’s the way it stood — and we would have had a very different government.
Then a few people, who really wanted a stronger, more independent president, spearheaded by Gouverneur Morris, sent that idea to committee. In committee, that’s when they decided that the president shouldn’t be elected by Congress but should be elected by this very complex elector scheme that we are still saddled with today — and which they didn’t have a very firm handle on.
When they made the president independent of Congress, to be selected by electors instead of Congress, they also switched his key powers of treaty-making and appointive powers from the Senate to the president. They didn’t want to switch them totally, so that’s why they gave the Senate the “advice and consent.” So that’s where that curious phrase came in — less than two weeks from the end.
When this comes up from committee to the floor with these extra powers, the people who favored an executive council really flipped out. Mason and Madison and Franklin all said — you know, this is James Madison, the father of the Constitution, and Benjamin Franklin, the wise man! — they said, no way! Putting such powers in the president alone would be very dangerous. So they renewed their push for an executive council.
So what would that look like?
There were two proposals.
Madison, Franklin and Mason wanted an independent executive council. They never got to the point of how many people would be on it or how it would be chosen, but the key thing is they wanted it independent.
Gouverneur Morris, who’d pushed for an independent presidency, wanted an executive council that would be very much like our Cabinet who would be appointed by the president, but including the chief justice of the United States.
Mason, Franklin and Madison wanted to limit the powers of the presidency because it was too dangerous — and the only argument made against it was that it was so late in the game and they were tired and they didn’t want to create a brand-new body of government!
Rufus King from Massachusetts said they didn’t want “an unnecessary creation of a new core which must increase the expense as well as the influence of government.” They wanted to create this government on the cheap, so they didn’t want an extra body of government. Also, they were too tired to create it.
Even though these amazing men like Mason, Franklin and Madison wanted an executive council, the rest of the guys said, it’s going to be too expensive and we want to get home anyway. Let’s just settle with the president needing the advice and consent of the Senate. So that was a kind of weak compromise.
Madison was very upset. Remember, this is James Madison, the father of our Constitution! He was very upset that the president alone had the power to make treaties. This is an amazing thing that people should know: He said that a president might gain so much power from conducting war that the Senate should be able to negotiate a peace treaty behind the president’s back and without his consent.
“The president would necessarily derive so much power and importance from a state of war that he might be tempted, if authorized, to impede a treaty of peace.” So he said that’s why the Senate needed to have independent power to conduct a treaty of peace.
Isn’t that amazing?
He said that wars can be good for a president’s power. He wanted an alternate route to conduct the peace so that the president alone wouldn’t have that control.
So there’s a lot of resistance to a full executive power. And you can understand why! They’d just been through the Revolutionary War and they didn’t want to recreate a monarch. Though some, like Alexander Hamilton, who wanted to get as close to a monarch as he possibly could — that wasn’t a very popular opinion. When he offered that idea, he got zero support. Not a single person among the Framers came to his defense for that idea.
They settled on this kind of compromise, which wound up giving more power to the president than the Founders wanted — but they were really too tired to start over.
On Sept. 4, when they heard this new proposal, they just pretty much said, OK. We’ll go with that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/the-president-was-never-intended-to-be-the-most-powerful-part-of-government/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ad8de5192802
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31784]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37085
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I don't believe that's a very accurate accounting of...
Feb 1, 2019, 11:14 AM
|
|
how that all went down, based on what I've read about it.
There was a lot of debate on the subject, but it didn't happen like that. For example "On Sept. 4, when they heard this new proposal, they just pretty much said, OK. We’ll go with that"
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23390
Joined: 8/16/03
|
I wasn't there, but from my understanding that's not
Feb 1, 2019, 3:21 PM
|
|
unbelievable. The physical suffering involved (discomfort actually in the room) and the practical need to end debate were absolutely part of the causal factors of our founding documents.
I don't know if his choice of words are exactly correct, but it is clear that the executive branch was intended to be weak, and even those who were on the side of a stronger executive, certainty would abhor just how powerful it is today. And that is the main point.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64579
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Lol. We've had that going on for 30 years with immigration
Feb 1, 2019, 9:54 AM
[ in reply to I would hope common sense would kick in for everyone here... ] |
|
There are plenty of laws right now on the books, that if enforced, would cause an uproar. The President (Obama, Clinton, Bush 1 and 2) have ALL ignored enforcement of immigration laws. Those laws are still there. They didn't disappear. Congress never reformed those laws. They're just ignored. Remember when Trump was blasted for splitting apart families? Well, that's the law. It's still on the books. He CAN do it. Clinton DID do it.
Companies better watch out. A crackdown on employment of illegals would be easy to do, legal, and actually required under existing law.
So no, I don't think Trump declaring an emergency to get a wall built is any worse than purposefully refusing to enforce US laws, as passed by Congress.
We're already broken. Want a precedent? Let's say that dems get their 90% tax on the rich some day. Guess Trump, or whoever becomes president who isn't a dem, can just direct the IRS not to enforce collection of that tax if he doesn't like it. THAT precedent is staring us in the face with immigration. Again, already broken.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47303]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30182
Joined: 11/15/99
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41706]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37922
Joined: 11/30/98
|
So when another Obama takes office,
Feb 1, 2019, 9:52 AM
|
|
And that will happen one day, you're okay with him going around Congress to get what he wants by declaring a "national emergency" even though you disagree with why he's doing it?
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64579
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Obama already went around Congress on immigration.
Feb 1, 2019, 10:00 AM
|
|
So did Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2. Heck, Trumps done more enforcement than anyone and all he catches is #### for enforcing the law. He could do a lot more. I always said the solution to immigration is enforcement. Just go to the current immigration law, and enforce it. Fine the crap out of a few million companies. Fly a few hundred thousand back home. Split up families. Do what the law requires. Deport those here illegally.
Maybe by enforcing Congress' laws that they refuse to reform, it will drive them to reform those laws. THAT's the solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23390
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Any time the executive branch declares an emergency
Feb 1, 2019, 9:46 AM
|
|
and it is not really an emergency, then it violates the spirit of the Constitution. I am strongly opposed to it, despite the fact I am very hawkish on enforcing immigration laws.
We don't need a runaway executive branch in order to enforce it, and the border isn't really an "emergency." World War II was an emergency. Not this.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1405]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 3412
Joined: 1/10/13
|
Re: So right leaning PR loungers: What's your take
Feb 1, 2019, 10:00 AM
|
|
Congress should repeal the National Emergencies Act. If a power is needed by a President in an emergency that he can declare by himself, just let him have those powers all the time. If not, repeal them.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17019]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14033
Joined: 12/14/98
|
100% for it! Caravans heading our way! Must be stopped!***
Feb 1, 2019, 10:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9633]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11379
Joined: 9/10/99
|
No sir. I don't like it. It's a big problem, but it's not
Feb 1, 2019, 10:16 AM
|
|
an emergency.
However, it's a sign of the times, isn't it?
Dems/Pubs are so politically divided now that they can't work together at all. I think Obama abused the Executive Order - but what else could he do? Congress wouldn't work together on anything.
There are unenforced immigration laws on the books. So what else can Trump do? Build a wall to keep people out - because once they're in, they're in.
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [154409]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65237
Joined: 5/6/13
|
"What else could he do"
Feb 1, 2019, 10:20 AM
|
|
Well, nothing, or work within the laws in place as you indicated.
Congress isn't something to be overcome by a President when he's not getting his way, that's how it works by design.
A lot of us are grateful for a good old legislative logjam.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9633]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11379
Joined: 9/10/99
|
It seems (to me anyway) that the good old-fashioned
Feb 1, 2019, 11:05 AM
|
|
logjam is completely clogged - and now there are little streams being created around the logjam. (non-enforcement of laws, Obama's EOs, Trump's emergencies)
When I said "what else could he do?" - I meant that was his only way to get it done. I didn't mean to imply it was right.
I didn't agree with Obama's EOs and I won't agree with Trump's emergency declaration, if he does it.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31784]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37085
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Wait a minute...that is how Obama portrayed it....
Feb 1, 2019, 10:57 AM
[ in reply to No sir. I don't like it. It's a big problem, but it's not ] |
|
on many issues, but it wasn't always (maybe ever) true.
Take DACA for example....he said he issued the DACA orders because Congress "wouldn't act"...in reality, what he calls "not acting" is in fact "not agreeing with him."
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9633]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11379
Joined: 9/10/99
|
Yes. I didn't agree with Obama's EOs and I won't agree
Feb 1, 2019, 11:06 AM
|
|
with Trump's emergency, if he does it.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80643]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 55743
Joined: 9/13/04
|
How would he not survive it?***
Feb 1, 2019, 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [52]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: So right leaning PR loungers: What's your take
Feb 1, 2019, 10:54 AM
|
|
I'm a Libertarian. I want the least amount of government possible, but I still recognize the necessity of sovereignty and the necessary evil of a minimalist government.
I really don't understand why there isn't a wall in the first place. If you dont have clearly defined, defensible borders, you will never be able to establish true sovereignty. Without sovereignty, you are not your own nation. Its simple.
There are large swaths of the border that have no deterrents. I dont see why people would want to encourage that?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: So right leaning PR loungers: What's your take
Feb 1, 2019, 12:02 PM
|
|
Looks like it's pretty dead out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [52]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: So right leaning PR loungers: What's your take
Feb 1, 2019, 2:29 PM
|
|
True, at the time of those pictures it was. But still, whats to stop someone from driving a 4wheeler right up to the border and swimming across? It does happen.
I admit, crossing through that desert is the least efficient way of coming through, but it still happens.
Frankly, I like the idea of the wall for the simple reason that its a physical symbol of US sovereignty. Without defined borders, the Westphalian state disintegrates.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15710]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17356
Joined: 2/1/99
|
That’s the 2nd time I have seen you imply that another shut down
Feb 1, 2019, 11:59 AM
|
|
Would effectively end Trump’s presidency. I’m not saying you are right or wrong, but I just don’t get that feeling at all. I don’t read every article about the shut down...or any of them...so, take it for what it’s worth.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30614
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Just my opinion
Feb 1, 2019, 12:01 PM
|
|
the shutdown dropped his numbers from what I've seen. I'm assuming another one would drop them more.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 51
| visibility 612
|
|
|