• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

National Emergency

Because there's always a tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/535441553079431168?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress.
Click to expand...
 
The declaration of an emergency to complete a pet project pisses me off to no end. Even worse is McConnell saying he will support the president in this. Mitch... why even bother with a ******* legislature if you are going to allow the president to just declare an emergency when he is not getting what he wants.

IMO if the president declares an emergency like this and the senate and house vote to override it, it should not be subject to veto power. Otherwise that's concentrating too much power in the executive branch (which I would argue there already is). They'd be able to do pretty much whatever they wanted provided they had even a small amount of support in the Senate.

This is just crazy. I am dumbfounded by the whole thing. The more I think about it, the angrier I get. On purely ideological grounds, you'd think Republicans would be rioting in the streets over this. Just imagine if a Democratic president tried this.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I'm telling you all again, this is theater. Trump understands the law, but doesn't want to look bad. He CANNOT shut the government down again. That was a disaster.
He also KNOWS the courts will say no. But it's the optics he cares about. This way he can declare victory and keep blaming everyone else. He can get the crazies off his back and can even use this to rally them.
Click to expand...

I think he believes he will have a chance at the Supreme Court. I hope not.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If he does, and if the case ends up in court, there is a real chance that the current Supreme Court will allow the appropriation of funds from other sources to be used by a Republican president, but will deny it to a Democrat.
The current SCOTUS is happy to ignore precedent if it suits its ideology.
Click to expand...
Do you think that is something new for the courts?
 
I am pro-wall, and I think reducing the required enforcement coverage will make the corridors easier to police, as well as freeing up resources at the ports of entry.

I am for Nancy declaring a National Emergency on illegal guns. That would be the greatest declaration ever. Trump should do it.
 
Since there are supposedly 30 ongoing "national emergencies" such that the program is kinda BS, would a court stop any particular one? Are the ones going on since the Clinton administration actually justified?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Since there are supposedly 30 ongoing "national emergencies" such that the program is kinda BS, would a court stop any particular one? Are the ones going on since the Clinton administration actually justified?
Click to expand...

I suppose it would take someone with standing taking up the issue. How many of these 30 ongoing emergencies have been challenged by a Senator or Representative in court?
 
Parcher-
I think he is going to reject the spending bill.

Supposedly, and I'm reading this on Twitter, there is a provision in the bill that allows border counties to reject wall construction. He won't have that. The cartels have influence over some local politicians, so he will not accept that provision.
 
Drewbot said:
Parcher-
I think he is going to reject the spending bill.

Supposedly, and I'm reading this on Twitter, there is a provision in the bill that allows border counties to reject wall construction. He won't have that. The cartels have influence over some local politicians, so he will not accept that provision.
Click to expand...

Source? That's about the eleventh Twitter Rumor (usually promulgated by uber right wingers) the Donnie ultimately won't sign.

I think there's a better chance that he not only signs but that he says, "Just kidding about the emergency dontcha know."
 
Drewbot said:
Parcher-
I think he is going to reject the spending bill.

Supposedly, and I'm reading this on Twitter, there is a provision in the bill that allows border counties to reject wall construction. He won't have that. The cartels have influence over some local politicians, so he will not accept that provision.
Click to expand...

That option went out the window last night when both chambers passed the bill by greater than two-thirds majorities -- it's veto-proof.
 
WilliamSeger said:
That option went out the window last night when both chambers passed the bill by greater than two-thirds majorities -- it's veto-proof.
Click to expand...

They had a veto-proof bill before. But Mitch refused to allow a vote. I may be wrong but couldn't he do that again? I don't think its likely but it is legally possible.
 
Cavemonster said:
They had a veto-proof bill before. But Mitch refused to allow a vote. I may be wrong but couldn't he do that again? I don't think its likely but it is legally possible.
Click to expand...

McConnell can't refuse a re-vote on a veto; the Constitution says they have to "reconsider."
 
I really hope the Democrats have "But they can't do that!" crocheted on the pillows in their parlor at this point.
 
WilliamSeger said:
McConnell can't refuse a re-vote on a veto; the Constitution says they have to "reconsider."
Click to expand...

I think the point was that the there was a bill presented that, if it passed and the president veto'd it, it would have overridden the veto. McConnell refused to allow the bill to even come to a vote so it could never get veto'd in the first place.
 
I just want to point out that there is no automatic veto override. If Trump vetoed the bill, there would have to be a second vote, even though the first vote had enough support to clear the veto override.

It is conceivable that a "veto proof" bill could fail to override a veto if enough of the original supporters changed their vote on the second time around.

I think it's rare, if unheard of, for a president to call the bluff of a veto proof bill, but given the especially whipped nature of the Republicans right now, I wouldn't be totally shocked if they bent themselves over for Trump on a second vote.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom