The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

[jimbob]

Er no

It is not a necessary condition to show that but it is a sufficient condition.

Er yes

It is sufficient to prove it was a contrived national emergency.

Only someone being deliberately obtuse would read the exchange as making a claim about whether any of the other national emergencies were contrived.

However I have seen nobody present any evidence or even argument that any particular other emergency is contrived.

 

[theprestige]

Well, the fact that Trump said he didn't need to do it, was a bit of a giveaway.

Doesn't Trump lie about everything all the time whether he needs to or not?

If Trump says it's a fake emergency, then we should seriously consider the possibility that it's a real emergency and that saying it's fake is a lie he's telling himself to make him feel more in control.

 

[Ziggurat]

That quote doesn't support your claim.

That something is a dead giveway doesn't mean that it's the only way to tell.

Stop reaching and give me an answer: do you think that this emergency is a real one?

You're missing the other half, Belz, which is whether none of the other emergencies are contrived. If there are any other ways to tell, then at least one of those other ways has to be used in order to determine that the other emergencies were not contrived. But no other methods were used, it was simply declared to be so.

 

[Ziggurat]

Give us an example of other Presidentially contrived National Emergencies.

You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies. It wasn't my claim that any of the others were contrived, it was your claim that none of them were.

Let's look at how this opens Pandora's box. A Democratic President could authorize funds for implementing environmental protection that Congress said no to by declaring a "National Emergency".

Yes, they could. And they could do so regardless of Trump. The box was opened when the law was passed.

How long is it going to take you to realize the fundamental problem isn't that Trump is exercising presidential powers in ways you don't like, but that the presidency itself is too powerful? I've been saying this for years now.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Because Trump is reading the stage directions along with his dialog.

There's an open secret, unspoken "I'm totes doing this for political reason but everyone knows that and is playing the same game" to 99% of politics. Hell that subtext is politics.

Problem with Trump is that A) he does it with things that aren't political footballs and B) he has not concept of just not outright saying it.

Someone once noted that Trump's "internal monologue" seems to be directly connected to his mouth.

 

[Belz...]

You're missing the other half, Belz, which is whether none of the other emergencies are contrived. If there are any other ways to tell, then at least one of those other ways has to be used in order to determine that the other emergencies were not contrived. But no other methods were used, it was simply declared to be so.

Could you please answer my question, Zig?

 

[Ziggurat]

Could you please answer my question, Zig?

I could, but it's not necessary to my argument, which I'd like to settle first.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I'm gonna hand this chimp a machine gun to prove that machine guns are too dangerous to have around" is... not smart.

Questions of limits on Presidential Power will always, and should always be, on the table but when Presidents from both parties manage to use one specific Presidential power in at least vaguely sane ways 58 times over a course decades and then one person comes along and uses it in some insane way... the "Lookit that it proves how insane the power is" argument is kind of a hard sale.

 

[Stacko]

"I'm gonna hand this chimp a machine gun to prove that machine guns are too dangerous to have around" is... not smart.

Questions of limits on Presidential Power will always, and should always be, on the table but when Presidents from both parties manage to use one specific Presidential power in at least vaguely sane ways 58 times and then one person comes along and uses it in some insane way... the "Lookit that it proves how insane the power is" is kind of a hard sale.

"Yes, Trump is a weak, disorganized president. But the office he occupies is so strong that even a weak-minded fool can leave lasting scars."

The only real check on Trump’s power will come if he is punished in 2020 for these kind of illegitimate power grabs. Douthat seems to expect this. Chafetz and Kriner do as well. And it is true that if the wall is unpopular, declaring a state of emergency to do so is even more unpopular. If Trump loses reelection, then the weak man wins, and Trump becomes an object lesson in what not to do as president.

The thing is, he has a decent chance of winning. The economy is still strong, and this time he is running as the incumbent. Democrats will have plenty of opportunities to shoot themselves in the foot over the next 18 months, and if they don’t, Howard Schultz might shoot them instead. The 2016 election should have taught observers that it is possible for a man with low approval ratings to win. And if Trump is reelected, then all of this talk of weakness needs to be discarded.

 

[jimbob]

How long is it going to take you to realize the fundamental problem isn't that Trump is exercising presidential powers in ways you don't like, but that the presidency itself is too powerful? I've been saying this for years now.

That is true - however Trump is the pressing problem.

You might have a load of old gas cylinders stored in your garage, which might be a fire risk, but it's still a worse idea to then give the key to the local pyromaniac.

ETA:

Actually better put below:

"I'm gonna hand this chimp a machine gun to prove that machine guns are too dangerous to have around" is... not smart.

Questions of limits on Presidential Power will always, and should always be, on the table but when Presidents from both parties manage to use one specific Presidential power in at least vaguely sane ways 58 times over a course decades and then one person comes along and uses it in some insane way... the "Lookit that it proves how insane the power is" argument is kind of a hard sale.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is true - however Trump is the pressing problem.

No. Trump is the symptom. And the world won't fall apart if this national emergency stands and he builds the wall.

 

[WilliamSeger]

You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies. It wasn't my claim that any of the others were contrived, it was your claim that none of them were.



Yes, they could. And they could do so regardless of Trump. The box was opened when the law was passed.

How long is it going to take you to realize the fundamental problem isn't that Trump is exercising presidential powers in ways you don't like, but that the presidency itself is too powerful? I've been saying this for years now.

Contesting whether or not it's an actual emergency is only half the battle Trump faces. The other half is what money he can get his tiny hands on, specifically if he can take it from a military appropriation. Declaring an emergency and misappropriating money for his Magic Wall are two different things.

 

[Belz...]

I could, but it's not necessary to my argument, which I'd like to settle first.

The most pressing and important issue is whether this national emergency is an actual emergency. The side-issue of whether someone's off-hand comment about it being the only questionable emergency is so trivial and unimportant that I really don't care about it at all.

But I'm pretty confident that, whatever happens, you'll never answer my question.

 

[Lurch]

Everyone keeps bringing up Trump's Rose Garden admission that "I didn't need to do this." But in that same 'speech' he also said, "The only reason we're here is because of the election." To me that screams political emergency, not national emergency. Yet another vocalazing of his inner dialogue.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No. Trump is the symptom. And the world won't fall apart if this national emergency stands and he builds the wall.

The world won't fall apart if a lot of stuff happens. That shouldn't be our standards.

The sitting President of the United States of America wasting 6.5 billion (or whatever number got pulled out of whoever's ass last) to never actually get around to building a racist boondoggle that wouldn't even solve the problem that doesn't exist shouldn't be the kind of thing we accept with a shrug and a Bob-like "Well it makes a minor point about some Polysci talking point so all's good in the hood."

This wall, either as an actual thing that eventually happens or a political talking point that nobody is pretending will ever happen, is not worth some minor "Take the Presidential Power down a notch" win.

 

[Ziggurat]

The most pressing and important issue is whether this national emergency is an actual emergency.

No, actually, it isn't. Seriously, the consequences either way are not that high.

The side-issue of whether someone's off-hand comment about it being the only questionable emergency is so trivial and unimportant that I really don't care about it at all.

Then why did you even jump into the conversation about that very topic which you don't care about?

But I'm pretty confident that, whatever happens, you'll never answer my question.

Concede my point (or provide a compelling counter-argument) and we can move on to your question. Or not, as you wish. I am no more capable of compelling interest in you than you are in me.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Everyone keeps bringing up Trump's Rose Garden admission that "I didn't need to do this." But in that same 'speech' he also said, "The only reason we're here is because of the election." To me that screams political emergency, not national emergency. Yet another vocalazing of his inner dialogue.

But remember you can't hold the presidents words against him, it isn't like any of that can be taken seriously, just like when he threatens or slanders people, no reasonable person could take that seriously either as the courts have found.

 

[Belz...]

No, actually, it isn't. Seriously, the consequences either way are not that high.

God, please stop playing with words. I didn't say we had to deal with it post haste. I said that it's far more important to determine whether Trump's emergency is one than to determine whether all the other ones are full-on emergencies.

Then why did you even jump into the conversation about that very topic which you don't care about?

If you remember, far back in the olden days of this morning, I was addressing the issue of whether a particular criterion was the only important one, not whether a bunch of national emergencies qualify.

Concede my point (or provide a compelling counter-argument) and we can move on to your question.

What point? That some of the other emergencies might not be urgent? That though Trump admitting that it's not an emergency is a sufficient reason to discount the wall as an emergency it is not a necessary condition? I happily concede both since they are both trivial and unimportant, and neither I nor anyone else argued otherwise.

So?

 

[Parsman]

You KNOW it isn't the declaration of a National Emergency that is the problem. The problem is that Trump plans to use it to take money from agreed spending within the government to pay for his white elephant. THAT is the problem part, that is unconstitutional and that is why there is every chance this will get struck down in the courts.

 

[Ziggurat]

Contesting whether or not it's an actual emergency is only half the battle Trump faces. The other half is what money he can get his tiny hands on, specifically if he can take it from a military appropriation. Declaring an emergency and misappropriating money for his Magic Wall are two different things.

Sure, but that's a technical legal question, one which the arguments here don't really address. I've seen knowledgeable people argue that legally he's able to do that. Perhaps they're wrong, but the argument that he can certainly can't be dismissed without consideration, and due consideration shouldn't depend on whether or not you want him to be able to do that. If the law says he can but you don't want him to be able to, then the remedy is to change the law.