Author Topic: The US Presidency 2019  (Read 18429 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 99,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,135
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #125 on: January 24, 2019, 18:00:57 »
I peruse the Fox News and cnn websites daily among others and I try to get my info from different sources. 

I like Chris Wallace on Fox.  I try to avoid Hannity, Carlson and Fox and friends.  Well i do read their stuff at times but i end up rolling my eyes.  But in fairness, i also roll my eyes when Don lemon come so on CNN, I can only take so much of him.  But I like King and Como.  Como is upfront about his positions but he normally backs up what he says and brings on people with opposing views and give some them their air time to defend or criticise.  king is a numbers and facts guy.

I also enjoy the panels on CBC and CTV.  The debates open up various points of view to consider.

Side note Fox News site has great coverage of historical discoveries and anything shark related.
Optio

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5240.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 270,127
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,428
    • Army.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #126 on: January 24, 2019, 18:47:49 »
I like the panels on TVO. I do like how Steve Pakin runs them. Plus the Agenda. Sometimes I get absolutely infuriated with some of the guests, but there's normally a good cross section of debaters and Pakin is a good umpire.
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,550
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #127 on: January 31, 2019, 16:04:17 »
Quote
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that while Democrats are adamantly opposed to extending the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, they're open to new fencing and other barriers as part of ongoing talks to prevent another government shutdown.

“There's not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” Pelosi said during her weekly press briefing in the Capitol.

Quote
Wall comes from Latin vallum meaning "...an earthen wall or rampart set with palisades, a row or line of stakes, a wall, a rampart, fortification..." while the Latin word murus means a defensive stone wall.[1] English uses the same word to mean an external wall and the internal sides of a room, but this is not universal. Many languages distinguish between the two. In German, some of this distinction can be seen between Wand and Mauer, in Spanish between pared and muro.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall

Quote
A fence is a structure that encloses an area, typically outdoors, and is usually constructed from posts that are connected by boards, wire, rails or netting.[1] A fence differs from a wall in not having a solid foundation along its whole length.[2]

Alternatives to fencing include a ditch (sometimes filled with water, forming a moat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence

Quote
A barrier is something such as a fence or wall that is put in place to prevent people from moving easily from one area to another.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/barrier

Here's another one for free

Quote
A palisade—sometimes called a stakewall or a paling—is typically a fence or wall made from iron or wooden stakes, or tree trunks and used as a defensive structure or enclosure.

And then there is this

Quote
dyke in British 1
or dike (daɪk  )
noun
1.
an embankment constructed to prevent flooding, keep out the sea, etc
2.
a ditch or watercourse
3.
a bank made of earth excavated for and placed alongside a ditch
4. Scottish
a wall, esp a dry-stone wall
5.
a barrier or obstruction

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dyke

Here's Offa's Dyke.



And here, the Danes just called their barrier - The Works.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danevirke

In defence of the country - a 2000 mile long linear fortification comprising ditch, berm, (sheuch and dyke gin ye prefer) vallum, palisades and ports constructed of rammed earth, steel and barbed wire.  You decide if that is fence or a wall.  It is certainly a barrier.

Words and splitting redhead, blonde and brunette.








"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 317
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #128 on: January 31, 2019, 16:30:25 »
I'd vote for a moat. 

Offline cavalryman

    Done with the demented bureaucracy.

  • You can't put a pricetag on patriotism
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 34,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 413
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #129 on: January 31, 2019, 16:53:42 »
I'd vote for a moat.
Patrolled by sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads

 :D

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,111
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #130 on: January 31, 2019, 17:01:06 »
Denmark's building a newer wall, mainly to keep German pigs out.

There's a message in there somewhere, I think :)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/29/denmark-building-border-wall-stop-spread-african-swine-fever/2715792002/
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,550
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #131 on: January 31, 2019, 17:30:33 »
Denmark's building a newer wall, mainly to keep German pigs out.

There's a message in there somewhere, I think :)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/29/denmark-building-border-wall-stop-spread-african-swine-fever/2715792002/

The Germans over-ran the last one in 1864.  The result of poor maintenance.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 492,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,035
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #132 on: January 31, 2019, 17:55:58 »
From the OP,
Quote
"There's not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” Pelosi said during her weekly press briefing in the Capitol.

Before the election,
Quote
Mexico will pay for the wall!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/771294347501461504


In today's news,

Quote
CBS
January 31, 2019
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-daily-caller-interview-paul-ryan-border-wall-mueller-investigation-2019-01-31/
President Trump said in an interview published Wednesday night that former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., reneged on a deal to fund the border wall while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.


« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 20:04:13 by mariomike »

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5240.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 270,127
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,428
    • Army.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #133 on: February 16, 2019, 15:25:13 »
It's nice to see the NEA used for domestic purposes.

Quote
President Trump declared a national emergency to free up funds to build a wall without congressional approval on Friday, adding that other presidents have called national emergencies on other topics "many times before." The National Emergencies Act of 1975 allows the president to declare a national emergency, but he must outline the specific emergency powers he is using under existing statutes.

According to the Brennan Center, there have been 58 national emergencies called by presidents since 1979. Thirty-one of those national emergencies are still in effect.

Here is a list of when national emergencies have been used, and what their purpose was:
President Jimmy Carter

    Nov. 14, 1979 (still in effect): A national emergency in response to the Iran hostage crisis, which froze Iran's assets in the United States;
    April 17, 1980: Further Prohibitions on Transactions with Iran, never terminated or continued.

President Ronald Reagan

More at Link - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 198,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,413
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #134 on: February 16, 2019, 15:40:21 »
It's nice to see the NEA used for domestic purposes.

More at Link - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/

So first he promised Mexico would pay for the wall. That failure was as obvious as it was inevitable. Then he tried to push congress to pay for a wall, and he failed at that too. Then he let the government shut down to hold congress hostage. That failed too, and he caved and allowed a bill to pass to restore funding. Then congress brought forward a border security bill that offered even less than he had previously been offered, and which places considerable checks and balances on the construction of any physical barriers. That bill passed and comes way short of anything he asked for.

So now after his repeated failures to achieve one of his marquee campaign pledges - including when his party controlled both houses of congress, albeit without a supermajority - he has decided to use use arbitrary executive authorities not intended for circumstances like this to circumvent the will of congress including his own party's controlled senate. He's going to attempt to purloin billions of dollars from other purposes under the guise of a fictitious national emergency, despite illegal immigration being lower than in any of the past several presidencies, despite his own admission that he literally doesn't 'need' to do this, and despite the concerns of his own party about the precedent this sets for a potential future Democrat president to declare similar 'emergencies' over gun violence, health care, etc. His own party doesn't want him doing this because of the Pandora's box it opens in terms of executive overreach.

I don't see how this is laudable or a win. He's trying to grab more power for the executive branch in defiance of the legislative... And he's probably going to end up getting stopped by the judicial- another inevitable and likely embarrassing failure as he approaches the next presidential election. Simply put he tried to demand what he wanted, and Pelosi beat him. He failed and now he's thrashing about looking for another way even though Congress has firmly told him 'no'.

His petulance is not serving himself nor his party well.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2019, 15:45:53 by Brihard »
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,698
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #135 on: February 16, 2019, 15:49:42 »
He's not really grabbing more power; that ship sailed long ago.  This article is worth reading to understand, as it is titled "What Is and Isn’t a Big Deal".  The interesting part is the author's case that the "big deal" isn't the reach of executive authority; it's the openness and candour.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 198,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,413
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #136 on: February 16, 2019, 15:56:27 »
He's not really grabbing more power; that ship sailed long ago.  This article is worth reading to understand, as it is titled "What Is and Isn’t a Big Deal".  The interesting part is the author's case that the "big deal" isn't the reach of executive authority; it's the openness and candour.

An excellent read, thank you- well worth reading and digesting in its entirety for why this matters.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 99,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,135
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #137 on: February 16, 2019, 17:03:56 »

If the democrats ever win the house it will be interesting when they declare climate change a “national emergency”.  They will certainly try given the precedent set here.
Optio

Online Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 215,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,751
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #138 on: February 16, 2019, 17:28:12 »
Here is a somewhat surprising development. Ann Coulter, a right wing commentator who can take vitriolic attacks to a new height, claims the only emergency is that Trump is an idiot. The president responded in kind.

Ann Coulter slams back at Trump: The only emergency is our 'idiot' president
 HuffPost US
MARY PAPENFUSS
Feb 16th 2019 12:20PM

Ann Coulter cranked up her battle with Donald Trump again Friday with another broadside about his border wall tactics. The conservative commentator declared that the “only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”

Trump scrambled earlier Friday to distance himself from her and her vitriolic comments about him, claiming in a Rose Garden address Friday, to everyone’s surprise: “Ann Coulter, I don’t know her. I hardly know her. I haven’t spoken to her in way over a year.”

In the announcement of his national emergency declaration to divert funding for the wall, he added that Coulter had “gone off the reservation” in her increasingly harsh criticism of him.

“Thank God [Trump has] relieved me of any responsibility for what he’s been doing,” Coulter said on KABC-AM’s “Morning Drive” program in Los Angeles on Friday, just minutes after Trump’s comments. “That was the biggest favor anyone could do me today.”

The Mexican border wall was “the promise he made every single day at every single speech. Forget the fact that he’s digging his own grave,” she added. “The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”

Coulter, a onetime major Trump backer who wrote the book In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome, is convinced the president’s declaration of a national emergency is a “scam,” and that he’ll never build the cement wall he vowed to erect.

Trump also tried to distance himself from Fox News host Sean Hannity and from criticism that he is Trump’s shadow president. Hannity had been urging Trump to declare a national emergency to begin building the border wall.

“Sean Hannity has been a terrific, terrific supporter of what I do,” Trump said, but he insisted that right-wing pundits “don’t decide policy.”

As for Coulter’s apparently former influence, MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle said just last month that Trump wouldn’t budge on his commitment to the border wall because right-wing pundits like Coulter would rile up his base.

He doesn’t want to be called a “fraud and a weenie” by Coulter, Ruhle declared.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 492,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,035
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #139 on: February 16, 2019, 17:37:10 »
He failed and now he's thrashing about looking for another way even though Congress has firmly told him 'no'.

There is always a Tweet,
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/535441553079431168


Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5240.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 270,127
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,428
    • Army.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #140 on: February 16, 2019, 23:29:04 »
Wow, crazy train or what?

Given the times the Act was used previously and what it was used for, especially by Obama, Trump didn't even get his toe wet. This is so much posturing by his opponents it's near laughable

We'll see how the SCOTUS handles it. Maybe RBG will even make an appearance for the vote. If anyone can find her.

I'll leave it until it goes through all it's liberal incantations in the 9th Circuit (probably) and ends up in the Supreme Court. More astute minds than ours are at work on it.

He can still get to work with what he's got, until the decision comes in. Matter of fact, they're building right now and have been, under the existing funding.

Talking promises? Pelosi promised him, not $1.00. He got over a billion and avoided a shutdown. People that talk cement over steel, walls over barriers, or pelosi's robot dogs, are blowing hot air and trying to make a point out of nothing. Grasping at straws, well, because Trump, right? Let's not forget, almost every democrat voted to put up 350 miles of wall, under Obama. Trump is asking for less than 300. What has changed? Well, Trump put a massive crimp in their plans when he won and they are just petty and vindictive. That's all there really is to all of it. He's upsetting their carefully planned, decades old applecart and they don't like it.

The wall is already being extended and that is all that matters right now. Let the politicians move on to the next manufactured crisis, while work continues.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2019, 10:33:10 by Fishbone Jones »
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 492,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,035
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #141 on: February 17, 2019, 08:05:10 »
For reference to the discussion,

Quote
Feb 15, 2019

AP fact check: Trump makes faulty claims in declaring emergency

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the southern border while acknowledging that rapid construction of a wall is not a necessity, but rather his preference. In justifying the extraordinary step, he brushed aside his administration’s conclusions that drugs come into the country primarily at official points of entry, not over remote territory that a barrier could seal off.

There’s nothing common about a president taking command of billions of dollars without the approval of Congress to pay for a campaign promise.

“It’s extremely rare for a president to declare a national emergency in a bid to fund domestic construction projects, particularly one that Congress has explicitly refused to fund,” said Andrew Boyle, an attorney in the national security program at the center. “The ones that former presidents declared are of a different sort.”

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” Trump said, raising questions about why he sees an emergency unfolding today. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

Trump also claimed progress on wall construction that hasn’t occurred.

He’s built no new miles of wall. His new construction to date has replaced existing barriers.

But past declarations did not involve the unilateral spending of substantial sums of money that Congress — which holds the power of the purse — did not approve.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says illicit drugs come into the country mainly at entry ports. The agency said in a 2018 report that the most common trafficking technique by transnational criminal organizations is to hide drugs in passenger vehicles or tractor-trailers as they drive into the U.S. at official crossings. They also use buses, cargo trains and tunnels, the report says, citing smuggling methods that would not be choked off by a border wall.

That's the condensed version. Full article here,
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-makes-faulty-claims-in-declaring-emergency

+150

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 137,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,566
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #142 on: February 17, 2019, 08:39:51 »
Here is a somewhat surprising development. Ann Coulter, a right wing commentator who can take vitriolic attacks to a new height, claims the only emergency is that Trump is an idiot. The president responded in kind.

And this time, he'd be right.  ;D

I once bought a book by Coulter (Yes, I admit my sin freely - It was "Godless, The Church of Liberalism") just to see what all the fuss about her was. I found it the worse of low, dirty, ignorant speech from trash-talk shows on US radio. She can't even write properly, it was devoid of any rational thought, there were no premises of any kind demonstrated, only the unilateral statement, by fiat, that her view was right and everybody not thinking the same way was an imbecile (or much worse insult).

Truly, she is a very, very dispensable part of any attempt at useful discussion of issues in the US. Why she attracts so much attention is beyond me.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 198,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,413
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #143 on: February 17, 2019, 10:52:17 »
Given the times the Act was used previously and what it was used for, especially by Obama, Trump didn't even get his toe wet. This is so much posturing by his opponents it's near laughable

The facts do not support that. Other than your well known dislike for Obama and all things Democrat, what do you feel stands out about his use of the National Emergencies Act? How is Trump's use of it in this current situation not immediately apparent to you as the significant exceptionality that it is? It's immediately apparent you didn't do your homework here. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/

The NEA was passed in 1975. There have been 58 national emergencies declared by presidents. 31 are still in effect. Nearly all are what we would generally refer to as 'sanctions', with a number also used to extend certain arms export control regulations that expired.

Jimmy Carter: 2. Both to do with Iran; both essentially sanctions/assets freezes.
Ronald Reagan:  6. All to do with export controls or sanctions, e.g. South Africa, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama.
George H W Bush: 5. Export control or sanctions x 4 (Haiti, FRY, Iraq), and one to do with biological and chemical weapons proliferation.
Bill Clinton: 17. Nearly all were economic sanctions against governments, parties or persons, and a couple were export control related.
George Bush: 13. Nearly all are the familiar sanctions or exports controls. One of course is the national emergency following 9/11, and one created legal protections for the Development Fund for Iraq which was created the same day.
Barack Obama: 12. 11 were sanctions targeted at individuals involved in conflicts or arms proliferation (e.g., Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Russia, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Burundi) or posing other threats the to U.S. (one against transnational criminal actors, one against actors involved in malicious cyber activities), and finally there was one early in his term that was declaring a national state of emergency in response to the H1N1 flu pandemic. That one simply allowed hospitals to be granted waivers to move patients around to accommodate H1N1 fly patients.
Donald Trump: 4 so far. Two are normal targeted sanctions (Nicaragua and Myanmar), and one is pre-emptive, allowing for economic sanctions against identified actors involved in attacking the integrity of America's elections. And then, last but certianly not least, we have the border wall declaration.

So- Obama's use of the NEA was consistent with the presidents prior to him, and he declared fewer than his immediate predecessors. With one exception all were conventional use of the NEA for economic sanctions, a use that Trump has since continued. Of the 11 Obama executive orders invoking the NEA for sanctions, ten are still in effect. One he rescinded himself due to material changes in the Enriched Uranium controls agreement with Russia. His use of the NEA for the swine flu pandemic is something I think we'd probably all find reasonable under the circumstances and given the very limited scope of the actions permitted by the executive order. I certainly see nothing here that would give any validity to your quip about 'especially by Obama'.

Trump has been in office for just under 25 months, and has issued 4 executive orders invoking the NEA, so it appears he is on track for a similar if not greater number of NEAs to Obama, but in either case the current pace would be roughly consistent with Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

Notably, none of the National Emergencies declared by any prior presidents under the legislation had anything remotely resembling the massive spending component of Trump's border wall fake emergency. Not once has it been utilized to accomplish such an end run around congress in the face of the president's failure to achieve a legislative objective. The only one that had a significant domestic impact was the emergency declared after 9/11, which allowed for call-ups of retirees or the National Guard, apportioning of some military funding, and appointing senior officers. But it certainly was nothing like what Trump is doing here.

Trump's use of the NEA here is exceptional and unprecedented. It has not been used for anything close to this before. He himself has admitted he doesn't need to do that and that it's merely an expediency. What he is using it to try to do is something he has already tried to accomplish and failed through the legitimate mechanisms of Congress, which must be involved in approving major government spending.

At this point he's desperately trying to crack open Pandora's box, against the wishes of many in his own party who don't want to see this precedent set lest it be used against them in future. Hopefully the courts will sit on the lid of the box with enough weight to keep it shut.
+1,800
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,698
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #144 on: February 17, 2019, 13:26:28 »
Jonathan Turley writing at The Hill takes a different view - that Trump is likely to win.

Note also that the NEA is being used only to acquire part of the funding - less than $2B.  If Trump has access to up to $8B (per Turley), then the $5.7B target is achievable without the NEA invocation (if it is overturned or overridden by Congress).

The problem with trying to argue from past uses of the NEA is that it is the National Emergencies Act, not the National Sanction Act.  What presidents chose to use it for in the past does not set limits, and is pretty much irrelevant.  Congress has a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in its use of funds, and the courts have a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in the exercise of executive power and of not wanting to get involved in extent-of-authority squabbles between the president and Congress.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 167,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,145
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #145 on: February 17, 2019, 13:33:02 »
The facts do not support that. Other than your well known dislike for Obama and all things Democrat, what do you feel stands out about his use of the National Emergencies Act? How is Trump's use of it in this current situation not immediately apparent to you as the significant exceptionality that it is? It's immediately apparent you didn't do your homework here.

To add to idea that President Trump's use of the NEA is unprecedented, and not just a wet toe, there is also the fact that the he claimed that such actions were unconstitutional and impeachable.  He took to twitter to lambast his predecessor for subverting the constitution due to a failure to negotiate with Congress.

For a guy who claimed he was coming to drain the swamp, and campaigned against getting around checks and balances through executive overreach, the deeds sure don't match the previous words.  The irony of this is so rich that it is being noted by conservative organizations and has turned cheerleader Ann Coulter against him.
+900
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,815
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #146 on: February 17, 2019, 18:11:10 »
...Congress has a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in its use of funds, and the courts have a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in the exercise of executive power and of not wanting to get involved in extent-of-authority squabbles between the president and Congress.

The problem with trying to argue Congress’ past support of Presidents’ uses of NEA funds, and the USSC’s wide latitude to previous POTUS’ use of NEA-related executive powers in the past is that neither are bound to continue to do so, and is pretty much irrelevant.

Regards
G2G

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,698
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #147 on: February 17, 2019, 18:59:57 »
The point (from others - including lawyers - writing the articles) isn't that Congress will tend to be bound by its past (of course it won't; it changes direction radically with each transfer between parties).  The point is that the courts will look at Congress's record and the courts' own records.  And the (US) courts do tend to be conservative when it comes to changing direction or stepping in between the executive and legislative branches, and that is not irrelevant.

It's not coincidental that so many of the arguments against Trump's "emergency" are emphasizing customary practice, not statutory law.  A lot of the commentators have conceded that what he did is not likely to be found to be illegal.  To paraphrase, the law may not be on their side, which is why so many of them are pounding the tables.

Everyone is free to be as flippant as they choose.  Trump likely gets $6B (more than the $5.7B) even without the "emergency" declaration, and he may very well get that too.  I don't mean this as a good thing - I'm squarely with all the (conservative) commentators who aren't reflexive Trump supporters who believe this is just another unfortunate extension of executive power.  If the courts don't shut down the appeal-to-emergency, he "wins".  If the courts do shut it down, then - per the earlier article I cited - maybe he still "wins" (by circuitously bringing about a legal finding that restrains future executive overreach; certainly the libertarian/small government people would be happy with that).
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 492,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,035
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #148 on: February 17, 2019, 19:16:45 »
This timeline of the "emergency" may be of interest to the discussion,

Quote
First, he did not address the issue when the Republican Party held majorities in both the House and Senate, when, for example, he had the ability to push through measures on reconciliation.

Second, he rejected a deal for US$25 billion in border security in exchange for legalisation of "dreamers," which doesn't sound like the sort of thing you'd do in a real emergency.

Third, he signed a continuing resolution that kept the US government running until December 8, 2018. Again, you wouldn't agree to that in the face of a real emergency.

Fourth, Congress passed another continuing resolution to keep the government open until December 21, 2018.

Fifth, the president provoked a 35-day shutdown that ended with a three-week continuing resolution. Again, this doesn't give off an emergency "vibe."

Sixth, as appropriators negotiate, the president repeatedly threatens to use emergency powers until Congress gives him what he wants. The critical precondition for an emergency declaration is lack of congressional compliance.

Seventh, appropriators reach an agreement - and Trump signs it.

Eighth, there is no report or analysis demonstrating why Congress' response is inadequate. Instead, Trump declares an emergency on the same day as the signing, a transparent effort to eclipse his utter failure to deliver on a campaign promise.

Ninth, at a bizarre Rose Garden press conference on Friday, Trump declared, "I didn't need to do this. ... I just want to do it faster." It is difficult to imagine a more damaging confession that the emergency is figment of Trump's frail ego and thirst to avoid disappointing his base.

Tenth, Trump tells a set of ridiculous lies to justify his border wall. For example, he denies replete evidence from his own administration that the vast amount of illegal drugs come through ports of entry and claims that El Paso had an epidemic crime rate before barriers were built. (But now that the city has barriers and is so safe, why the need for the concrete wall?)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/110662798/how-donald-trump-screwed-up-his-emergency-declaration-in-10-easy-steps


Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,698
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #149 on: February 17, 2019, 20:38:20 »
Yes; except for the EverTrumpers, people have long concluded that no emergency exists in the conventional meaning of the word, and that Trump's own actions and words negate his claim that an emergent situation exists.

That's what worries many people: that presidential use of the NEA might in future be limited by explicit definitions of what are and are not emergencies.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.