it's that the that party claims to defend the constitution sided with Trump against the constitution - not because they like Trump or agree there is a national emergency at the southern border, but because their vote will help save their jobs.
look out.
Did any of you complain when Obama did it?
(no message)
Previous national emergencies - idiotic as they were - never sought to override a congressional vote. They almost always dealt with sanctions on individuals.
Whataboutism failure.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
power of the purse. A clear overreach.
(no message)
Congress.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
his override is certainly within his power as well. He is acting within the boundaries of the law. Even Ben Sasse, a NeverTrumper, agrees.
(no message)
I might have listened. We could have explored it. I had no idea it happened, and I doubt you did either.
No one created a fuss because it is a different situation. Obama did not make his rallying cry "Free elections in Burundi" at his campaign rallies. It seems he had a genuine, non-political reason to declare that emergency.
Trump, by contrast, has been shut down for over two years on a signature campaign promise, and now decides its a national emergency. You don't see the difference?
I ask, because I know you have no idea.
Congress should take this lesson to heart. They can surrender power to the president, but it they want the power back, then they have to do so over the president's veto. They were foolish to give this power to the president.
Does the president have any limit at all?
Does it simply say that the president a) can call anything he/she wants to be a national emergency; and b) can spend any amount he/she wants on addressing that emergency in any manner he/she wants?
I suspect there is some wording in the statute that would be subject to interpretation. I suspect there is a reasonable interpretation of the statute that would render this declaration unconstitutional.
I agree with you, though, that it would have been better if Jim had that all figured out before he posted.
I'm fairly convinced that Trump's actions are no different than the other national emergencies--as far as the language of the statute is concerned, that is.
If it were me, i would say that few to none of the prior emergencies qualify. At one point, the statute says, "When the President declares a national emergency, or the Congress declares war..." That would seem to argue that a presidentially declared emergency must be on par with war. But, the statute is very open ended...it does not define emergency. And, no one before now has interpreted it strictly to be a true emergency like war.
So, Congress opened the door and is allowing POTUS to drive a Mac truck through it...and they now need a 2/3 majority to take back what they granted with a simple majority...and no POTUS will surrender the power, so the veto override is necessary.
Frankly, this all seems unconstitutional to me (on the basis that Congress cannot surrender powers to the president without a constitutional amendment), but I don't think you can argue that Trump's action is uniquely unconstitutional and the other actions of other presidents are fine and dandy. In fact, Trump's may be more justifiable than some of the others as a real emergency (relatively speaking only, that is).
Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg1255.pdf
I agree with you on that.
One thing confused me - it says that a concurrent Congressional Resolution can end the emergency. Does a Congressional Resolution like that require the POTUS signature? [edit - apparently it does not]. If it doesn't, how can Trump veto this? Am I reading the business about the concurrent resolution incorrectly?
If that sounds weird to you (that the President can veto Congress rescinding a power that Congress naturally possesses and gave on loan to the President), then we agree on that. But, that is my understanding.
The declaration of an emergency isn't against the constitution, but the ill use of one where there is no emergency rather a political power play is. Maybe a little harsh to say "against the constitution" but any political play to use a tool in the constitution is essentially "against the constitution".
But then, my post was about the protectors of the constitution siding with POTUS in a political ploy involves a certain amount gall.
Your attack on the use of this power is not constitutional (and I give you credit for noting that it is "maybe a little harsh to say 'against the constitions'").
You are actually attacking it based on the fact that you (and both chambers) don't like how the granted power is being used.
I would have loved for Congress to unanimously shut Trump down on this, and take the power back for themselves. But, they didn't.
Many in Congress obviously believe this is one of the many national emergencies we are currently experiencing. Let's fact it, the standard for a national emergency is quite low.
executive branch. I would like to see it changed asap.
Suppose you agree that there is a humanitarian crisis at the border - does that mean that the president is authorized to do anything he says is addressing the issue?
For example, "there is a national emergency at the border, therefore I am buying a new Air Force One jet (hopefully a Boeing Max8) to address the issue."
Whatever this humanitarian crisis is, I don't think a wall has much to do with it. First of all, it's not a humanitarian crisis to American Citizens, but rather only to the migrant caravans.
The wall can't help them. Obviously, it does not afford them the humanitarian aid of the United States, but rather refuses it. Even if the supposed deterrent aspect of the wall magically stopped the migrant caravans, the people that would have made the journey are now stuck in unlivable situations in their home countries. Their humanitarian crisis hasn't changed at all.
For example, it would make it harder for the human traffickers to entice people to hand over their life savings only to be dropped off in the Arizona desert with no water, after their daughters were raped.
As far as a crisis for American citizens, it could be argued that: (1) every person coming across takes away a job from an American citizen, putting them and their family at risk, (2) every person coming across is likely to collect some sort of government benefit (and the Dems are very worried about deficit spending right now), (3) every person coming across without being vetted is a security risk (why wouldn't terror groups send people over via Mexico to do what that guy in NZ did?). I'm sure other reasons could be offered.
I'm not trying to argue the substance as much as I am pointing out that these issues are judgment calls. Granted, an activist court could decide to substitute their judgment for the judgment of elected officials in Congress and of the president, but they are not supposed to do that. We have elected officials to make these types of non-courtroom judgment calls. Congress gave an ambiguous power to the president, which means the president can use his discretion to flesh out that ambiguity. Count your blessings: the next Dem president is going to have a field day with this.
Personally, I would rather that any president, whether D or R, did not have this power. My best scenario would have been a unanimous Congress shutting Trump (and all future presidents) down for good by rescinding this law. Do you agree?
I think the intent should be that if an emergency situation arises, the president can act right away, but then Congress can move in to stop it (assuming they have the right amount of votes). This would encourage quick, sensible reactions to emergencies. In theory, the congressional oversight provisions would prevent foolish and/or authoritarian political uses.
The philosophy is that things take so long to get through the swamp of Congress (including all pork barrel tribute). Sometimes, in an emergency, it is better just to the let the President do it and let Congress undo it if it is that controversial. The problem here is that Congress currently needs a veto-proof majority. That part makes it problematic. If this is for convenience on relatively uncontroversial emergency matters, then requiring a veto-proof majority defeats the purpose of limiting it to non-controversial matters.
(no message)
(no message)
I'm not sure that his override is unconstitutional.
(no message)