The First 100 days

[Seattle Husker]

Every president since 1976 has declared multiple National Emergencies.

Carter: 2
Reagan: 6
HW Bush: 4
Clinton: 17 (lol)
W. Bush: 12
Obama: 13
Trump: 3 (so far)

The full list of National Emergencies. Read through the list. How is this different?

 

[Seattle Husker]

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).

The funding has to come from somewhere. One of the fights will be around Trump stealing from money Congress has allocated for a different purpose.

There are so many ways this could fail in the courts.

 

[bystander]

The funding has to come from somewhere. One of the fights will be around Trump stealing from money Congress has allocated for a different purpose.

There are so many ways this could fail in the courts.

It's an interesting civics lesson. The funding mechanism is separate from the emergency. I thought I read in some of the links provided above that there was some "slushy" "unobligated" Pentagon funds laying around. If he militarizes the emergency then there's your money.

But it appears we're saying that every single dime spent by the President to manage the country must come from some specific Congressional appropriation. The funny thing is that there is no budget ceiling for these appropriations; only that he is allowed to spend the money. I say, "No Ceiling" because it's obvious there is no credible variance analysis being performed in DC. It looks to me as if we can blow any amount of money as long as their is an appropriation.

I thought it funny that someone described the Left as sudden strict constructionist devotees in this matter.

 

[Seattle Husker]

thought it funny that someone described the Left as sudden strict constructionist devotees in this matter.

Conversely, the right previously cared "slushy" funds. I guess government waste is fine in some cases.

Hypocrisy on many sides.

I'll go back to the point that THIS National Emergency is quite different than any other on that list.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The funding has to come from somewhere. One of the fights will be around Trump stealing from money Congress has allocated for a different purpose.

There are so many ways this could fail in the courts.

He has a degree of latitude to get some of the money but not enough to build the whole thing, and the eminent domain angle will be very lengthy. But the bigger worry for me is the precedent that is being set with this.

Frankly, I hope Congress takes this as a wake-up call and changes the law. It's way too broad.

 

[Seattle Husker]

He has a degree of latitude to get some of the money but not enough to build the whole thing, and the eminent domain angle will be very lengthy. But the bigger worry for me is the precedent that is being set with this.

Frankly, I hope Congress takes this as a wake-up call and changes the law. It's way too broad.

Putting the Unitary Executive Theory to the test.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Copying this from the Washington Post.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a Trump ally on most issues, is asking him to hold off on declaring a national emergency.

“We have long fought against attempts by the executive branch to usurp the powers of Congress and to create law, such as we have seen in recent decades with the rise of the regulatory administrative state,” the group’s president, Thomas J. Donohue, said in a statement issued shortly before Trump was scheduled to speak.

“The U.S. Chamber urges the president not to attempt to declare a national emergency. Instead, we urge the president and members of Congress of both parties to negotiate and find common ground on immigration and border security,” he said. “The declaration of national emergency in this instance will create a dangerous precedent that erodes the very system of government that has served us so well for over 200 years.

 

[bystander]

Conversely, the right previously cared "slushy" funds. I guess government waste is fine in some cases.

Hypocrisy on many sides.

I'll go back to the point that THIS National Emergency is quite different than any other on that list.

I glanced at the list; it seemed the vast majority were overseas emergencies. Is that what you were thinking?

I'm not in favor of slush funds. In addition to specifically earmarked spend, our company has what are known as blanket or bucket capital spending funding projects which are earmarked at a high level with the idea that something always comes up. It's tightly managed and a case has to be made to spend it. The Pentagon money sounded something like that.

 

[bystander]

Copying this from the Washington Post.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a Trump ally on most issues, is asking him to hold off on declaring a national emergency.

“We have long fought against attempts by the executive branch to usurp the powers of Congress and to create law, such as we have seen in recent decades with the rise of the regulatory administrative state,” the group’s president, Thomas J. Donohue, said in a statement issued shortly before Trump was scheduled to speak.

“The U.S. Chamber urges the president not to attempt to declare a national emergency. Instead, we urge the president and members of Congress of both parties to negotiate and find common ground on immigration and border security,” he said. “The declaration of national emergency in this instance will create a dangerous precedent that erodes the very system of government that has served us so well for over 200 years.

I think it's a rational statement. I have always been extremely leery of executive orders. I do believe it has been reasonably proven that the declaration of an emergency is within the power of the executive branch. Of course, as has been mentioned or asked her, What is an emergency?

Well, an emergency can be obvious (9/11) or subtle. It's a matter of degree. For the sake of argument, if you have a flood of people from the south, bringing entire families and our facilities are being over-run and people are screaming about families being broken up and children are dying and nobody will be honest about what led to their death (the journey being life-threatening as an example) then is that an emergency? I'd say yes.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I glanced at the list; it seemed the vast majority were overseas emergencies. Is that what you were thinking?

I'm not in favor of slush funds. In addition to specifically earmarked spend, our company has what are known as blanket or bucket capital spending funding projects which are earmarked at a high level with the idea that something always comes up. It's tightly managed and a case has to be made to spend it. The Pentagon money sounded something like that.

1. Nearly all International actions and non-controversial. They were actions levied against bad guys.
2. Actions were primarily related to our banking system.
3. Each emergency took little resources to enact and virtually no federal funds.

The POTUS likely has authority to declare the NE but he'll be using the power in ways previously unforseen. I'm with Deez, Congress needs to take back their power.

 

[bystander]

1. Nearly all International actions and non-controversial. They were actions levied against bad guys.
2. Actions were primarily related to our banking system.
3. Each emergency took little resources to enact and virtually no federal funds.

The POTUS likely has authority to declare the NE but he'll be using the power in ways previously unforseen. I'm with Deez, Congress needs to take back their power.

I agree that Congress needs to do their job. In general, Trump should enforce the law. Was DACA an over-reach or was it an emergency? I know some Dreamers so it's real to me. Why won't Congress just solve the problem? I can guess: because the border situation is not being addressed. If you amnesty Dreamer's and leave it at that then we'll be right back in the same situation.

Are Dreamer's in the illegal crossing category or the parents overstayed their VISA category? Trump wants a comprehensive package. Take care of the Dreamers and slam the door behind them.

But we have advocates for open borders, sanctuary cities, tipping off of would-be deportees and calls to abolish ICE (along with the Muslim Jew hating representative who wants to abolish the Homeland Security department). That's not slamming the door; that's a revolutionary approach to immigration just like AOC's revolutionary approach in the Green Deal. I have no problem with Trump saying no to all of that. But is all of that the real problem that is preventing Congress from enacting real border control (with or without a wall)?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Well, an emergency can be obvious (9/11) or subtle. It's a matter of degree. For the sake of argument, if you have a flood of people from the south, bringing entire families and our facilities are being over-run and people are screaming about families being broken up and children are dying and nobody will be honest about what led to their death (the journey being life-threatening as an example) then is that an emergency? I'd say yes.

Respectfully, that sounds like rationalization.

 

[bystander]

Respectfully, that sounds like rationalization.

Respectfully, it's not.

EDIT:

I don't think so. I'm not trying to take up for Trump. Did you consider it to be an emergency when those kids were coming up to our border during Obama's term? It seemed like one to me.

Maybe the nuance is my example of border problems is a situational emergency but not a national emergency.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Did you consider it to be an emergency when those kids were coming up to our border during Obama's term? It seemed like one to me

No. That was simply immigration enforcement. I had no problem with the Obama Administration quietly putting thousands on planes to send them home.

 

[Seattle Husker]

"I didn't need to do this...wanted it faster." - Trump while justifying National Emergency from the Rose Garden.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

It is kind of weird that all the angst and hysteria about kids being separated at the border, no room for "refugees," people in cages, all that fun stuff... has sort of gone away now that the discussion centers on whether there is a national emergency at the border. It really felt like an emergency as it was described to me by hysterical leftists.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It is kind of weird that all the angst and hysteria about kids being separated at the border, no room for "refugees," people in cages, all that fun stuff... has sort of gone away now that the discussion centers on whether there is a national emergency at the border. It really felt like an emergency as it was described to me by hysterical leftists.

Wait...if you don't support the wall then you must not care about the treatment? That's the angle?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Wait...if you don't support the wall then you must not care about the treatment? That's the angle?

You've been reading too much HuffPo writing if you think that was my point.

"PH Points out that people who thought it was an emergency before are now claiming it's not an emergency."
"PH clearly is a right-wing Trump zealot who wants to build the wall."
"PH must want to virtue-signal and try to claim that people "don't care" about people if they disagree with the view he must hold, because that's the only argument I understand anymore."

 

[Seattle Husker]

You've been reading too much HuffPo writing if you think that was my point.

"PH Points out that people who thought it was an emergency before are now claiming it's not an emergency."
"PH clearly is a right-wing Trump zealot who wants to build the wall."
"PH must want to virtue-signal and try to claim that people "don't care" about people if they disagree with the view he must hold, because that's the only argument I understand anymore."

Please enlighten me how advocating humane treatment equates to an emergency to build a wall.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Please enlighten me how advocating humane treatment equates to an emergency to build a wall.

I don't have to, because I never said it. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I remember that time when you refuted my interpretation of an article which not only did you not read, but said you had no interest in reading. So apparently now you're not even bothering to read my posts before you disagree with them.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I don't have to, because I never said it. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then why bring up the topic? Do you think "the left" can only care about 1 topic at a time?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Then why bring up the topic? Do you think "the left" can only care about 1 topic at a time?

You are absolutely determined to put words into my mouth on this one. I'm not answering any questions from you because you clearly don't care about understanding the answer anyway.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You are absolutely determined to put words into my mouth on this one. I'm not answering any questions from you because you clearly don't care about understanding the answer anyway.

I assumed you wanted to discuss your statement. If you'd rather make pronouncements without threat of discussion blogging is a better platform.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I assumed you wanted to discuss your statement

I have no problem discussion my statement. But you don't want to discuss my statement. You want to discuss all the other things you're trying to accuse me of saying. You're having arguments with all these other posters and you just assume that I must be in lock step with them, so you just transfer every one of their talking points onto me and try to start another argument based on that. I'm just not interested in that.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Horn6721]

I just want to understand how Dems etc ignore the good news for all the minority groups, all the money coming back, the HUGE numbers of a mfg jobs created PLUS the increase in pay.

 

[bystander]

I just want to understand how Dems etc ignore the good news for all the minority groups, all the money coming back, the HUGE numbers of a mfg jobs created PLUS the increase in pay.

Some quotes by the opposition to Amazon:

"Queens Borough President Melinda Katz seemed to echo the mayor’s sentiments, pointing a finger of blame at Amazon for turning its back on the borough.

“We all want jobs to come to Queens, and Amazon used the promise of job creation to extract major concessions for this project. But after last month’s City Council hearing, it became increasingly clear that they had no intentions of being good neighbors and committing to the required negotiations,” Katz said. “They rejected our values of supporting working people and were unwilling to work with our local communities toward a mutually beneficial resolution. New York has the best tech work force in the nation, much of which is here in Queens, so if Amazon wants to take their jobs somewhere else with a lesser work force so they can undercut wages and workers’ rights, that’s their choice.”


For his part, Senator Michael Gianaris told The New York Times that he believed Amazon was acting like a “petulant child” by backing out of the deal.

“Even by their own words,’’ he told the Times, referring to the Amazon statement, “Amazon admits they will grow their presence in New York without their promised subsidies. So what was all this really about?”

In a separate statement, Gianaris said that Amazon’s behavior “shows why they would have been a bad partner for New York in any event. Rather than seriously engage with the community they proposed to profoundly change, Amazon continued its effort to shakedown governments to get its way. It is time for a national dialogue about the perils of these types of corporate subsidies.”

Van Bramer struck up a more celebratory tone, saying, “when our community fights together, anything is possible, even when we’re up against the biggest corporation in the world. I am proud that we fought for our values, which is a fight for working families, immigrants, and organized labor.”

“Defeating an anti-union corporation that mistreats workers and assists ICE in terrorizing immigrant communities is a victory,” City Councilman Van Bramer said. “Defeating an unprecedented act of corporate welfare is a triumph that should change the way we do economic development deals in our city and state forever.”

 

[Garmel]

I just want to understand how Dems etc ignore the good news for all the minority groups, all the money coming back, the HUGE numbers of a mfg jobs created PLUS the increase in pay.

When did the Dems ever pay attention to reality?

 

[LongestHorn]

The bipartisan spending binge is now worse than under Bush and Obama

 

[Joe Fan]

Twitter finally did it
They censored the President of the United States
His crime?
He retweeted something that made mild fun of some professional politicians