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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Oh, he did worse than that. He spied on and prosecuted journalists.

And I don't recall you listing saying mean things about the press as being among the first steps in the Dictator's Handbook. Are there multiple editions?
Click to expand...

You obviously can't tell the difference between applying the law and trying to demonize an entire section of the foundation of the state.
 
Trump Tweets

The Washington Post is a Fact Checker only for the Democrats. For the Republicans, and for your all time favorite President, it is a Fake Fact Checker!
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear.

The law itself is a way for things to be done in an... extra-Constitutional way. It would probably withstand a direct Supreme Court challenge because world events happen with much less than the three-month lag time of the 18th century.

At question is using emergency powers to do something that Congress has specifically said not to do. That I would term a subversion of the Constitution, not just a work-around.

Even more so because the President was refused this pet project for over two years, most of that time by a sycophantic Congress of toadies and sniviling yes-men.

More than even that, the President immediately said that there was not, in fact, an emergency, simply a preference that it be done faster than necessary.

ETA: I agree that Presidential power has been expanded in a “hey, our guy is in, let’s give him more power! That’ll never bite anyone on the ass!” kind of way.
 
Last edited:
autumn1971 said:
I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear.

The law itself is a way for things to be done in an... extra-Constitutional way.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's an accurate description.

At question is using emergency powers to do something that Congress has specifically said not to do. That I would term a subversion of the Constitution, not just a work-around.
Click to expand...

In what sense did Congress specifically say not to? Did they outlaw such expenditures? No, they just didn't specifically appropriate funds. But this isn't the first time that a National Emergency has been used to allocate funding for something that wasn't specifically appropriated for. Congress has already authorized the construction of the wall, and that authorization hasn't been repealed.

More than even that, the President immediately said that there was not, in fact, an emergency, simply a preference that it be done faster than necessary.
Click to expand...

I think people are reading far more significance into this than is warranted.
 
Another investigation into actions of the Trump administration, this time involving nuclear power and Saudi Arabia.

From: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47296641
A Democratic-led House panel has launched an inquiry over concerns about the White House plan to build nuclear reactors across the kingdom. Whistleblowers told the panel it could destabilise the Middle East by boosting nuclear weapons proliferation. Firms linked to the president have reportedly pushed for these transfers.
 
Ziggurat said:
I sure can. The application of the law is more consequential than mere speech.
Click to expand...

Application of the law can be more immediately consequential, but in any event it is, by definition, done by a legislated--and accepted--set of rules.

Speech spewed irresponsibly can be corrosive, on scales small or large, even if it takes some time. A small number of rabble rousers can impact the outlook of receptive listeners and lead to the potential for terrible consequences. Such as a mail bomb campaign against political opponents, for example. Or gunning down innocent Jews in a synagogue.
 
Lurch said:
Application of the law can be more immediately consequential, but in any event it is, by definition, done by a legislated--and accepted--set of rules.

Speech spewed irresponsibly can be corrosive, on scales small or large, even if it takes some time. A small number of rabble rousers can impact the outlook of receptive listeners and lead to the potential for terrible consequences. Such as a mail bomb campaign against political opponents, for example. Or gunning down innocent Jews in a synagogue.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, full blown religious movements have begun from the germ of "mere speech".

The claim is completely and utterly laughable.
 
As far as I understand, *all* prior declarations of emergency did not involve the expropriation of funds. Or at least expropriation in defiance of the purse holder, Congress. Furthermore, in all those prior emergencies, Congress was in agreement. The co-equal branches were working in harmony.

Now we have a slow motion so-called 'emergency' that *everyone* saw building for *months*, even years. The Party in power for two years did zilch; the GOP didn't want this boondoggle. But all of a sudden, the only altered variable is that the Dems took the House. Both they and the GOP voted to not fund a wall. A *bipartisan* bill was issued! Imagine! Donny lost.

But the brat in chief just wants a fight in order to look not weak, and so will pull every lever he can in order to look 'strong' to the base and the whacko right-wing punditieri.

It's so transparently a purely political move--even if Trumpy didn't blurt out his not needing to do this, as well as admitting it's all because of the election.

Yes, Congress needs to reel back in some of the powers given so blithely to the President. Or at least define these powers in unambiguous language. In this case, the Presidential prerogative to unilaterally declare an emergency must be defined as applying only when real haste is necessary, so as to overcome the lag in convening Congress and enacting legislation. Furthermore, Congress must approve of the emergency measure after the fact, upon convening and debating. The People's Representatives must not be *subordinate* to the individual of the President. Else we have effectively a monarchy.
 
Last edited:
I just heard the state Attorney General of California, Xavier Becerra, explain the basis of their state's lawsuit against Donnie regarding the use of Emergency Powers. He was very plain spoken about it. He made two points.

  • That no president has the right to appropriate funds from existing programs to reuse those funds in a different way.
  • He especially does not have a right to appropriate funds to use on a project that Congress -- the elected representatives of the American people -- has ruled should not be built.
In an interview on Sunday on ABC's "This Week" news program, Becerra said:
It’s become clear that this is not an emergency not only because no one believes it is but because Donald Trump himself has said it’s not. But there is enough evidence to show that this is not the 9/11 crisis that we faced back in 2001; it’s not the Iran hostage crisis we faced in 1979. It’s not even the type of national emergency where we are trying to take action against a foreign enemy or to avoid some type of harm befalling Americans abroad...The national interests aren’t at stake here. We have the lowest level of entries into the country by those that don’t have permission than we’ve had in some 20 years. The Department of Homeland Security itself has said to the president that it is more difficult to cross into the U.S. at our land borders than it has been in a long time. Link
Click to expand...
 
What did Trump say that undercut his declaration of a national emergency? USA Today:
Thirty minutes into an off-the-cuff defense of his decision to declare a national emergency to help build his border wall, President Donald Trump made an admission that may have handed ammunition to legal opponents of the move. Trump, who has long described the situation on the Southwest border as a "crisis" and an "invasion," appeared to suggest his administration had all the time it needed to build the hundreds of miles of border barrier he has demanded for months. "I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this," Trump told reporters gathered in the White House Rose Garden on Friday, shortly before he signed a proclamation declaring the emergency. "But I'd rather do it much faster." Link
Click to expand...

George Conway, married to Trump aide Kellyanne Conway, also believes Trump unwittingly admitted this is not a bona fide emergency when he said, "I didn't need to do this," Conway tweeted: "This quote should be the first sentence of the first paragraph of every [lawsuit] filed."

Donnie seems to have misunderstood a basic fact here. He seems to think if can get the money by declaring "an emergency" it doesn't matter whether it is really an emergency or not. Just so long as he, Donnie, is willing to say it is.
 
Ziggurat said:
Those examples usually involve changing the constitution (one of the most popular steps being to remove term limits)
Click to expand...

Your Founders set up a system of Government with three co-equal branches

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

That system has oversight, and checks and balances. Such a system is a very good and noble way to set up government, but for it to work properly, it requires a LOT of trust between the branches.

Before you can change the constitution, what do you have to do?

1. You have to get the Senate to go along with everything you want to do.

2. You have to have a Judicial Branch that will do your bidding.

Read on....

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Prior to Trump being elected, you pretty much had 43 presidents (I exclude Nixon) who could, for the most part, be trusted NOT to abuse their powers, and even in the event that they did, you always had the two houses of the Legislative branch, who would do what is right for the country, to bring the president into line, and failing that, an impartial judiciary as a last resort. You no longer have these constraints.

For the first two years of Trump's presidency, there was virtually no oversight, and there were no checks and balances. You had a Senate (and prior to 2019, a House of Representatives) that has given this president carte blanche to abuse those powers as he sees fit, allowed him to repeatedly lie, allowed him to repeatedly attack the media, allowed him to repeatedly deny cold hard facts, allowed him to repeatedly alienate long time allies. Until this year, the Legislative Branch has done nothing to curb his worst impulses. This president has spent the last two years stacking the judiciary with loyalist right-wing judges so that the Judicial Branch can no longer be regarded as impartial. Only the 9th Circuit appears to be impartial, and guess what, Trump doesn't like that panel of judges - why? Because he hasn't been able to stack it with his own loyalists....... yet!

Take a long hard look at what has happened in the last two years. Things that the ordinary American public would never have put up with; things that were unthinkable just a couple of years ago have become normalized - a president who lies all the time, name-calls political opponents, tries to get political adversaries investigated and indicted, fires people via social media, ignores his intelligence officials, demonizes an ethnic group, sympathises with white nationalists and supremacists. Look at how the standard for what counts as "normal" has slowly been eroded so that the public accept the outrageous.

This is a softening up process; this is how the public is made insensitive to what is happening. At the risk of invoking Godwin, this is exactly how Hitler came to power, and how he was able to to get 90% of the people to agree to him becoming Führer, and to get them to go along with “Kristallnacht” and the wholesale extermination of Jews.

One of the things it takes for Democracy to die is for the general public to become indifferent to the outrageous. If you value your freedom; if you value your democracy, you should keep in mind that freedom is not a right that comes automatically; it has to be earned, and the systems and processes that give you freedom, have to be respected and looked after.

This might be uncomfortable for you to accept, but your country is a lot closer to losing its Democracy than it was two years ago. You might not see it looking out from the inside, but to those of us on the outside, looking in, it obvious. Always keep in mind the wise words of American abolitionist, advocate for Native Americans, orator, and attorney Wendell Phillips (1811 – 1884)....

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unremitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.” ​

Prophetic words indeed!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Prior to Trump being elected, you pretty much had 43 presidents (I exclude Nixon) who could, for the most part, be trusted NOT to abuse their powers, and even in the event that they did, you always had the two houses of the Legislative branch, who would do what is right for the country, to bring the president into line, and failing that, an impartial judiciary as a last resort. You no longer have these constraints.
Click to expand...

This is historically ignorant. Nothing Trump has done compares to the abuses of power by Wilson and FDR. And Trump has been constrained in his actual actions.

And your Hitler comparisons are simply further proof that you are not to be taken seriously. Trump is no more Hitler than Obama was a secret Muslim.
 
newyorkguy said:
He especially does not have a right to appropriate funds to use on a project that Congress -- the elected representatives of the American people -- has ruled should not be built.
Click to expand...

Congress doesn’t rule, it legislates. And it has not legislated any such thing.
 
Ziggurat said:
I sure can. The application of the law is more consequential than mere speech.
Click to expand...
Puhleese! You think propaganda has no effect?

And following the law means due process so those consequences are not a given POTUS power.

I'm not happy that Obama tried to spy on reporters to get whistleblowers. The man had many faults. None of that compares to the idiot running the country right now.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is historically ignorant. Nothing Trump has done compares to the abuses of power by Wilson and FDR.
Click to expand...

- Declaring a national emergency where none exists on order to further his own political career.
- Banning people from certain countries exclusively on the basis of their religion.
- Sympathising with with white nationalists and white supramacists

Ziggurat said:
And Trump has been constrained in his actual actions.
Click to expand...

Who by, and when?

Ziggurat said:
And your Hitler comparisons are simply further proof that you are not to be taken seriously. Trump is no more Hitler than Obama was a secret Muslim.
Click to expand...

A strawman; I didn't say he was, I'm saying that the methodology is similar

- keep repeating the Big Lies so that the people believe them
- demonize a group (Mexicans) based in race and ethnicity
- surround himself with like-minded yes men
- attack the media as an "enemy of the people"

I guess you can lead a blind horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom