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

[Ziggurat]

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.

Why? Because you object to Trump's emergency but you don't object to the others? If any of the others still in effect aren't true emergencies, why isn't it just as important to get them nullified?

What point?

That Trump's emergency declaration hasn't been distinguished from all of the others on the basis of it being "contrived".

 

[autumn1971]

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



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



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.

Ignoring the main point, i.e., “this is a blatant power-grab with a veneer of emergency that the POS is on record saying is not an emergency”, while harping upon a side point in order to derail the discussion into an argument about irrelevant semantics may be technically valid.

This isn’t the “Masturbatory Semantics” section though.

Oh wait, every thread eventually becomes that.

Sigh.

Is saying a thing isn’t an emergency requiring a single person to circumvent the Constitution just after subverting the Constitution okay or not?

 

[JoeMorgue]

This isn't a case of "Well there's nothing in the rulebook that says a Golden Retriever can't play football."

 

[Belz...]

Why? Because you object to Trump's emergency but you don't object to the others?

No, because it's the one we're currently discussing.

That Trump's emergency declaration hasn't been distinguished from all of the others on the basis of it being "contrived".

Right, ok. I can broadly agree to that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is saying a thing isn’t an emergency requiring a single person to circumvent the Constitution just after subverting the Constitution okay or not?

Wait... is it your position that the National Emergencies Act allows the president to circumvent the Constitution? Because if so, that would mean that it's an unconstitutional law.

This isn't a semantic quibble either, it's rather an important point.

 

[jimbob]

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.

Especially as it is pretty disingenuous to pretend that I was doing anything other than highlighting why it was obviously contrived.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

My research hasn't uncovered any. That was my point. But unlike the Donald, I have been known to make mistakes occasionally. But obviously my statement was based on my own perspective.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right, ok. I can broadly agree to that.

OK, good. Now let's look at your question:

do you think that this emergency is a real one?

"real one" in what sense?

It's certainly not an existential crisis, and it doesn't match what many people would consider an "emergency".

But there is a real problem at the border with drug smuggling and human trafficking. That problem won't change much if we continue with existing policy. Building additional barriers in sections of the border will likely decrease the amount of smuggling and human trafficking across the border, and doing so now will have likely prevent some drug smuggling and human trafficking that would have occurred if the barriers are built further in the future. So there is an actual problem here, and it can benefit from immediate attention.

The National Emergencies Act doesn't place much of any requirements on what constitutes an "Emergency". So from a legal standpoint, I suspect this will qualify. Because the situation is not evolving quickly, however, I understand why many people don't consider it an actual emergency and don't like the National Emergency Act being used here. And I don't really object to such a conclusion, except to note that it's not a legal conclusion.

I'm fully on board with objections to the president having such powers to begin with, but that's not a problem with Trump but with the law Congress passed. If your objection is to Trump using that power in this specific way but not with the president having that power to begin with, that's fine too, but it's a policy objection, one which is not fundamentally different than objecting to funding the wall through Congressional appropriations.

 

[Ziggurat]

My research hasn't uncovered any. That was my point.

That doesn't mean anything. That was my point.

 

[GlennB]

You seem to be confused about ...

You should adopt that as your sig line.

 

[jimbob]

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.

You can't legislate for every situation. In every democratic country with a written constitution there are norms and rules of behaviour that are there as well as the written constitution. Ultimately it is what is accepted by those with the levers of power. After all, from what I recall, the Soviet constitution supposedly guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of religion, universal suffrage (and the right to work). However, it didn't actually mean anything.

 

[Belz...]

But there is a real problem at the border with drug smuggling and human trafficking. That problem won't change much if we continue with existing policy. Building additional barriers in sections of the border will likely decrease the amount of smuggling and human trafficking across the border, and doing so now will have likely prevent some drug smuggling and human trafficking that would have occurred if the barriers are built further in the future. So there is an actual problem here, and it can benefit from immediate attention.

Do you agree that most of the problem, however, occurs through legal points of entry and that the wall by itself won't solve that?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you agree that most of the problem, however, occurs through legal points of entry and that the wall by itself won't solve that?

I know most illegal immigration occurs at legal points of entry. I'm not sure about drug smuggling and human trafficking. And yes, obviously the wall cannot stop what comes through legal points of entry. Not sure why that matters here, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't legislate for every situation. In every democratic country with a written constitution there are norms and rules of behaviour that are there as well as the written constitution. Ultimately it is what is accepted by those with the levers of power. After all, from what I recall, the Soviet constitution supposedly guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of religion, universal suffrage (and the right to work). However, it didn't actually mean anything.

These are two very different problems. One (what Trump is being accused of) is the violation of unwritten rules while adhering to the written ones, the other (the Soviets) is the violation of written rules.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

by definition, a Democracy can use constitutional means to turn itself into a Dictatorship.
We know this from countless examples, and Trump is trying to add one to the count.

 

[Belz...]

I know most illegal immigration occurs at legal points of entry. I'm not sure about drug smuggling and human trafficking. And yes, obviously the wall cannot stop what comes through legal points of entry. Not sure why that matters here, though.

Just checking where you stand on the facts.

I'll take this opportunity to mention that I was wrong about you never answering my question.

 

[Ziggurat]

by definition, a Democracy can use constitutional means to turn itself into a Dictatorship.
We know this from countless examples, and Trump is trying to add one to the count.

Those examples usually involve changing the constitution (one of the most popular steps being to remove term limits)

Trump has made no moves to modify the constitution. Hell, he hasn't really done anything to push legislation expanding the power of the presidency either. What he has mostly done is use existing powers in ways people don't like, but as I've been saying for years, perhaps you should rethink whether the president should have these powers at all. But Trump isn't the source of those powers.

 

[jimbob]

My research hasn't uncovered any. That was my point. But unlike the Donald, I have been known to make mistakes occasionally. But obviously my statement was based on my own perspective.

OK from the Wiki list of national emergencies.

Since Carter, when the current system came into place, I make it as following

34 concerned sanctions (including one in response to 9/11)
4 concerned export controls
1 was a public health emergency in response to the H1N1 pandemic
1 was in response to Cuba shooting down two civilian (but anti-Cuban) aircraft in international waters
1 concerned the Development fund for Iraq after the overthrow of Hussain
1 concerned military response as a result of 9/11



And one was Trump's wall.

One might argue about executive overeach and indeed whether they were the most appropriate systems, but for most it's hard to argue that most* of those are contrived. And obviously, all the current national emergencies except the three that Trump has declared have been approved by both Democrat and Republican presidents

*I can think of one that's not

 

[jimbob]

Those examples usually involve changing the constitution (one of the most popular steps being to remove term limits)

Trump has made no moves to modify the constitution. Hell, he hasn't really done anything to push legislation expanding the power of the presidency either. What he has mostly done is use existing powers in ways people don't like, but as I've been saying for years, perhaps you should rethink whether the president should have these powers at all. But Trump isn't the source of those powers.

No, it just needs those in the positions supposed to act as checks and balances to fail to do their job.

Trump is setting a bad precedent. I believe that the US has a similar idea about legal precedent as the UK.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Those examples usually involve changing the constitution (one of the most popular steps being to remove term limits)

Trump has made no moves to modify the constitution. Hell, he hasn't really done anything to push legislation expanding the power of the presidency either. What he has mostly done is use existing powers in ways people don't like, but as I've been saying for years, perhaps you should rethink whether the president should have these powers at all. But Trump isn't the source of those powers.

changing the constitution is always the LAST step.
First comes packing the courts to allow for massive gerrymandering, media control and election tampering; THAT gives you the votes necessary for changing the Constitution.
Trump is absolutely following the Dictator's handbook.