Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Here we go...
It should be noted that the government shutdown netted Trump -$200M in barrier funding. The Art of the Deal!
The First 100 days
- Thread starter theiioftx
- Start date
Here we go...
It should be noted that the government shutdown netted Trump -$200M in barrier funding. The Art of the Deal!
Don’t worry, he’ll make it up with his “brown new deal”!
Did you just quote yourself and tell yourself you were right? Did you hit your head when you broke your wrist?
Did you just quote yourself and tell yourself you were right? Did you hit your head when you broke your wrist?
Playing the long game. Congress didn’t approve what the border agents requested. Now Trump says he can.
"Nobody negotiates tougher than me. Nobody."
Get ready for a long court battle.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Remember this tweet the next scream of "crisis" as justification for diverting funds previously allocated for other initiatives.
Last edited:
It really looks bad and sets a terrible precedent. If it's an emergency, why even go to Congress? That weakens his case.
He's free to try, but he's on questionable ground. And of course, be prepared for a national emergency on climate change, healthcare access, gun control, etc. next time a Democrat is in the White House and can't get what he wants through Congress.
The better question to ask is “will a wall help limit illegal immigration, slow the entry of illegal drugs, and reduce the burden on our welfare system?”. The answer is yes, yes, and yes.
Does it hurt Democrats? Yes, but that is irrelevant.
Does it hurt Democrats? Yes, but that is irrelevant.
Last edited:
That is mitigated by the fact that Democrats have voted for wall funding in the past, and any reasonable person would assume they would vote similarly given another chance. Explain that?
Last edited:
I agree; these types of judgment calls are very precarious. Was DACA sold as an emergency?
No. It was sold as a prosecutorial discretion measure, and that was BS.
They wanted to get political mileage. I understand if it's a resource issue but they got specific and added conditions/standards. A resource issue should only be evident by lower overall deportations; not classes of deportees.
And that's why it was BS. It wasn't mere prosecutorial discretion. They made up a whole new status and pulled it out if their *** and set up an application process for it.
No doubt. The arrogance that accompanied the PRESIDENTIAL discretion was pretty bad. It was blatant.
Another moral imperative argument (like maybe an emergency?) that covers all wiavers of law, process or facts.
Obviously they've flip-flopped, but voting for wall (or fence) funding doesn't make it an emergency.
If your child or spouse was murdered last week by an illegal, would you change your mind about that?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Vox (of all people) concedes he has the authority
Stop Complaining About Trump’s Emergency Powers, Congress
“He has broad leeway to declare an emergency, frankly, whether one exists or not,” Elizabeth Goitein, a co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, who recently wrote an in-depth explainer of presidential emergency powers in the Atlantic, told me in January.
Stop Complaining About Trump’s Emergency Powers, Congress
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Here is Heritage/John Malcolm on the authority
Trump Has a Strong Legal Argument That He Can Declare National Emergency at Border
In a recent study, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law identified 136 different provisions of law granting a president a range of powers he can exercise if he declares a national emergency. The powers that a president can utilize under such circumstances can be quite broad. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service has said:
* * * Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.
There are two other laws that the president might cite, but both come with some important caveats.
The first would apply if a president were to declare a national emergency “that requires the use of the armed forces.” If that were to happen, the secretary of defense could authorize the military departments to “undertake military construction projects … that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” so long as the amount spent on such projects does not exceed “the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.”
The second would apply if a president were to declare a national emergency “that requires or may require the use of the armed forces.” If that were to happen, the defense secretary would be empowered to “(1) terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense, and (2) apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”
The first would apply if a president were to declare a national emergency “that requires the use of the armed forces.” If that were to happen, the secretary of defense could authorize the military departments to “undertake military construction projects … that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” so long as the amount spent on such projects does not exceed “the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.”
The second would apply if a president were to declare a national emergency “that requires or may require the use of the armed forces.” If that were to happen, the defense secretary would be empowered to “(1) terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense, and (2) apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”
Trump Has a Strong Legal Argument That He Can Declare National Emergency at Border
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
This one is a Trump-hating legal blog --
Can President Trump Fund the Wall by Declaring a National Emergency?
6. Can a decision to invoke either statute be challenged in court?
You’d need someone with standing. The House Democrats might take a shot at it, but legislative standing is difficult to establish to say the least. Other possible litigants with standing might include a landowner who faces eminent domain as a result of this (and there would be *MANY* of those), or perhaps someone who was going to receive a contract from the Defense Department had the military funds not been reprogrammed (as to them: reporters need to be all over the question of which projects won’t get funded thanks to massive redirection of DOD spending, should things go this direction).
7. Let’s assume someone does have standing. Won’t the courts just defer to the Commander-in-Chief on whether military necessity and national defense were sufficiently implicated?
In normal times, that is certainly the safe bet; there is a longstanding, robust “national security fact deference” tradition. Indeed, I wrote all about the underlying justifications for such deference (and their limitations) in this article. But we are not in normal times. The border litigation quickly would join the Travel Ban and Steel Tariffs litigations as instances in which a formal claim of national security justification would run up against serious skepticism about whether that justification was just a litigation smokescreen masking different reasons motivating the president. The outcome in Travel Ban suggests that it remains unwise to bet against the executive branch in such cases, of course, but one never knows these days.
You’d need someone with standing. The House Democrats might take a shot at it, but legislative standing is difficult to establish to say the least. Other possible litigants with standing might include a landowner who faces eminent domain as a result of this (and there would be *MANY* of those), or perhaps someone who was going to receive a contract from the Defense Department had the military funds not been reprogrammed (as to them: reporters need to be all over the question of which projects won’t get funded thanks to massive redirection of DOD spending, should things go this direction).
7. Let’s assume someone does have standing. Won’t the courts just defer to the Commander-in-Chief on whether military necessity and national defense were sufficiently implicated?
In normal times, that is certainly the safe bet; there is a longstanding, robust “national security fact deference” tradition. Indeed, I wrote all about the underlying justifications for such deference (and their limitations) in this article. But we are not in normal times. The border litigation quickly would join the Travel Ban and Steel Tariffs litigations as instances in which a formal claim of national security justification would run up against serious skepticism about whether that justification was just a litigation smokescreen masking different reasons motivating the president. The outcome in Travel Ban suggests that it remains unwise to bet against the executive branch in such cases, of course, but one never knows these days.
Can President Trump Fund the Wall by Declaring a National Emergency?
Two of the 58 previous National Emergency measures were:
1) Stopping investment in Burma
and
2) Stopping the importation of diamonds from Sierra Leone
If those two acts pass muster, the wall is a piece of cake from a precedent standpoint.
1) Stopping investment in Burma
and
2) Stopping the importation of diamonds from Sierra Leone
If those two acts pass muster, the wall is a piece of cake from a precedent standpoint.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Even liberal law prof Jonathan Turley agrees: national emergency powers give Trump the legal right
Yes, Trump has authority to declare national emergency for border wall
" ..... Any declaration would create a myriad of legal issues and likely face an immediate legal challenge. Two questions that a court would have to consider are the source of the authority and the source of any funds. The latter is where some challenges could arise.
Congress gave Trump such authority in the National Emergencies Act, augmenting claims of inherent authority, but the source of the funds could be more challenging. Under two laws in Title 10 and Title 33 of the United States Code, he could seek to use unobligated funds originally set aside for military construction projects, or divert funds from Army civil works projects. There are limitations on the use of such money, and there could be strong challenges to the use of unobligated funds in other areas. There is money there to start but not nearly enough to finish such a wall without proper appropriation. Recall Obama funded the undeclared war in Libya out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without the new strict constitutionalists objecting from the Democratic side of the aisle.
Courts generally have deferred to the judgments of presidents on the basis for such national emergencies, and dozens of such declarations have been made without serious judicial review. Indeed, many of the very same politicians and pundits declared the various travel ban orders to be facially unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ultimately lifted the injunctions of lower courts. Moreover, Trump does not have to ultimately prevail to achieve part of his objective. Even if a court were to enjoin construction, the declaration could afford Trump the political cover to end the government shutdown, as the issue moved its way through the courts.
While the matter could be expedited to move through the courts in a matter of months, the government could seek to slow litigation to push any final decision into 2020. There are compelling arguments against funding the entire wall demanded by Trump, although some added border barriers clearly are warranted. However, one can oppose an emergency declaration without claiming that it is facially unconstitutional. It is not."
Congress gave Trump such authority in the National Emergencies Act, augmenting claims of inherent authority, but the source of the funds could be more challenging. Under two laws in Title 10 and Title 33 of the United States Code, he could seek to use unobligated funds originally set aside for military construction projects, or divert funds from Army civil works projects. There are limitations on the use of such money, and there could be strong challenges to the use of unobligated funds in other areas. There is money there to start but not nearly enough to finish such a wall without proper appropriation. Recall Obama funded the undeclared war in Libya out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without the new strict constitutionalists objecting from the Democratic side of the aisle.
Courts generally have deferred to the judgments of presidents on the basis for such national emergencies, and dozens of such declarations have been made without serious judicial review. Indeed, many of the very same politicians and pundits declared the various travel ban orders to be facially unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ultimately lifted the injunctions of lower courts. Moreover, Trump does not have to ultimately prevail to achieve part of his objective. Even if a court were to enjoin construction, the declaration could afford Trump the political cover to end the government shutdown, as the issue moved its way through the courts.
While the matter could be expedited to move through the courts in a matter of months, the government could seek to slow litigation to push any final decision into 2020. There are compelling arguments against funding the entire wall demanded by Trump, although some added border barriers clearly are warranted. However, one can oppose an emergency declaration without claiming that it is facially unconstitutional. It is not."
Yes, Trump has authority to declare national emergency for border wall
You're pulling the Michael Dukakis death penalty question. Lol
I try to be objective, so logically, one horrible and intensely emotional anecdote shouldn't change my view on a broad policy issue. At the same timet, people change their positions that were reached rationally based on emotional experiences all the time. If my own child was dying of something my health insurer wouldn't cover but I was aware of some government system somewhere that would have covered it, might that make me more receptive to that government system? Logically it shouldn't, but my emotions would surely tug on me.
Instead of one anecdote, what if there were 3,000 similar anecdotes? That’s approximately the same number of people killed on 9-11. Would that be an emergency? How about adding child sex trafficking, thousands of assaults, thousands of drug overdose deaths, and billions of dollars flowing out of the treasury to these new illegal wards of the State? Does that make it an emergency? I guess we just need to define an emergency. Not calling an ambulance when you are having a heart attack doesn’t change the fact that an emergency exists.
And that's where the initial fight is going to be. The National Emergencies Act doesn't define the term, so the courts are going to do it for them. I'm sure that a liberal district court judge will define it narrowly and invalidate the wall. If the case is brought in California (quite likely), the 9th Circuit will affirm. It'll be up to Supreme Court to decide whether the border constitutes an emergency. I'm sure that 4 liberal justices will say it doesn't. 3 conservative justices will say it does. The 2 moderately conservative justices will ultimately decide.
I think Professor Turley is correct that if it is an emergency, the authority is there. However, that authority doesn't end the question. The funding mechanism will be a whole separate fight in the court system. Even when that's resolved, there will be massive numbers of eminent domain and environmental lawsuits. Those will last years after Trump has left office. And of course, if a Democrat gets elected President at any point during that time, the national emergency will end as soon as he/she/xe takes her/zir hand off the Bible (or Quran).
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
