• 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

Belz... said:
The fact that the President doesn't pass laws, primarily.
Click to expand...

Well, suppose Congress passes a law that says the president can also pass laws? That's the un-Constitutional equivalent of saying a president can appropriate money.
 
Norman Alexander said:
How
Now consider this Wall "National Emergency". Trump has already conceded out loud it isn't even needed, he's just doing it because he wants to. So in what way is this different to the above in-house hamberder joint? Nothing much.
Click to expand...

And that admission is going to give the courts every reason to side with the states and individuals bringing cases before them.
 
Norman Alexander said:
How broadly?

What if Trump defined his National Emergency as "I need to build a MacDonalds outlet in the White House basement so I can order hamberders 24/7. And a Tiffany's shop for my main squeeze too." Do you think Congress would say payment for that is authorised with no questions asked? Surely there would be some oversight and potential brake-squeals from the Capital. It would be rightly considered a huge misunderstanding of what "National" and "Emergency" really mean. It isn't needed; it's just a personal whim.

Now consider this Wall "National Emergency". Trump has already conceded out loud it isn't even needed, he's just doing it because he wants to. So in what way is this different to the above in-house hamberder joint? Nothing much.
Click to expand...

Because congress would be addressing it, I could see a judge saying it is non justiciable.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Well, suppose Congress passes a law that says the president can also pass laws? That's the un-Constitutional equivalent of saying a president can appropriate money.
Click to expand...

I'm generally on the side of non delegation doctrine advocates. We lose...a lot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)[1] that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[2]

...

Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine.
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
Wouldn't that require an amendment?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's the point: Passing legislation and appropriating money are powers reserved to Congress, and they can't be delegated without changing the Constitution. A somewhat similar case was the line item veto, which Congress did pass into law, but the Supreme Court decided it violated the Constitutional separation of powers.
 
You all understand that Trump doesn't care if he gets the wall?

What he wants is 18 months of the media and democrats saying they don't care about the border of our country, they don't care about fentanyl deaths, they don't care about sex-trafficking.

Regardless of whether it will stop any of those things, he has framed it so they all look like they hate America, and he will use it to get reelected.

Last time it was drain the swamp, don't elect Hillary. This time it is going to be if you love America, don't elect these people who don't want to protect America.

As Admiral Akbar said: "ITS A TRAP!"
 
Drewbot said:
You all understand that Trump doesn't care if he gets the wall?

What he wants is 18 months of the media and democrats saying they don't care about the border of our country, they don't care about fentanyl deaths, they don't care about sex-trafficking.

Regardless of whether it will stop any of those things, he has framed it so they all look like they hate America, and he will use it to get reelected.

Last time it was drain the swamp, don't elect Hillary. This time it is going to be if you love America, don't elect these people who don't want to protect America.

As Admiral Akbar said: "ITS A TRAP!"
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, all the people that ignorant and gullible are already on the Trump Train, headed for the washed-out 2020 bridge. You may have missed it, but Democrats had a winning strategy in 2018: Get people who are sick of Trump to the voting booths.
 
Drewbot said:
You all understand that Trump doesn't care if he gets the wall?

What he wants is 18 months of the media and democrats saying they don't care about the border of our country, they don't care about fentanyl deaths, they don't care about sex-trafficking.
Click to expand...
Y'all understand that it doesn't matter if there is not 18 months of media and democrats saying all those things, he'll simply claim they said all those things and his base will believe it?

"Truth isn't truth."
 
WilliamSeger said:
You may have missed it, but Democrats had a winning strategy in 2018: Get people who are sick of Trump to the voting booths.
Click to expand...

I am feeling the following two emotional response in equal measure.

1. I hope you are right.
2. I'll believe it when it see it.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Unless, of course, all the people that ignorant and gullible are already on the Trump Train, headed for the washed-out 2020 bridge. You may have missed it, but Democrats had a winning strategy in 2018: Get people who are sick of Trump to the voting booths.
Click to expand...

Easy to have a winning strategy when Trump isn't up for election.

he's definitely got the winning strategy as long as the Dems keep walking into his traps.
 
"Trump is obviously gonna lose. Lookit his support numbers" was the Dem's entire strategy in 2016 as well.

I swear I'm trying to get over this but "I don't understand. I keep explaining why he should be losing" ISN'T A GODDAMN STRATEGY.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yeah, they really fell for that shut-down trap, huh. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ah... yeah. They absolutely did.

In what world is Trump shutting down the government for over a month a win for the Democrats?

More "Oh it showed how bad he is and that eroded his base in ways that are completely invisible?"
 
JoeMorgue said:
Ah... yeah. They absolutely did.

In what world is Trump shutting down the government for over a month a win for the Democrats?

More "Oh it showed how bad he is and that eroded his base in ways that are completely invisible?"
Click to expand...

In the same way that Benghazi eroded Clinton's base in ways that were not visible until people went to the polls.
 
Belz... said:
In the same way that Benghazi eroded Clinton's base in ways that were not visible until people went to the polls.
Click to expand...

And again I really, really, with zero snark or ulterior motive hope that all this is correct. I really, really do.

I get it, and I'll honestly try to ease this button for a while because I'm working myself up a bit and I don't like that, but I'm trying real hard to balance "I hope this time is different" with "That's exactly what every said last time."
 
JoeMorgue said:
And again I really, really, with zero snark or ulterior motive hope that all this is correct. I really, really do.

I get it, and I'll honestly try to ease this button for a while because I'm working myself up a bit and I don't like that, but I'm trying real hard to balance "I hope this time is different" with "That's exactly what every said last time."
Click to expand...

The point is that public opinion can be swayed over long periods of time, and the people holding those opinions might not even realise it. All those things that _might_ damage Trump's image can build up over time and result in major changes.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And again I really, really, with zero snark or ulterior motive hope that all this is correct. I really, really do.

I get it, and I'll honestly try to ease this button for a while because I'm working myself up a bit and I don't like that, but I'm trying real hard to balance "I hope this time is different" with "That's exactly what every said last time."
Click to expand...

Joe, I like you, but you go on this type of rant at least once a week. I really don't know why you decry the lack of result when you don't have any apparent idea of what a positive result would be. Yes, I wish Trump would shrivel up into a tiny raisin and fall between the cracks of an old hardwood floor. But I think that's about as likely as his resignation.

So what do you actually want? Go ahead and paint me a rosy (though realistic) picture of a positive outcome. It's really not that easy, because a slim majority of the senate is controlled by evil people, and they're not going anywhere until the next election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom