Regardless of your stance on the border wall, is a President declaring a national emergency in order to implement policy that can’t pass through Congress a good precedent to set for the future?
From my perspective, yes. If it's upheld in court, that'll give us Dems carte blanche to use that same National Emergency tactic to get stuff we want, like Single-Payer healthcare.
'It's an emergency! People are dying because they don't have good enough healthcare!' Works for me.
If you are not on board with Trump using it as a National Emergency then you shouldn't be on board with your side using it for a National Emergency either.
I agree that it would set that precedence, and it will show how repugnantly hypocritical your political party is.
Fighting fire with fire is not hypocritical at all...if he opens that Pandora's Box, it would be stupid of us not to use it ourselves, and for far more impactful things than a stupid wall.
You should research what can be done with a national emergency declaration. The president can’t just do whatever he wants. Congress has regulated what can be done during one and it’s very specific. There is a specific section that applies to the wall. ( www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808 ). Basically it allows the DOD to use already allocated funds to work on construction projects. Destroying the greatest country on earth with socialism would not be permitted under a national emergency and goes against the constitution which would result in it being stuck down in court.
Seriously, I should.
I agree to the sentiment of fighting fire with fire, but that fact doesn't negate the situation as hypocritical.
Yes, if trump uses this as a national emergency - it very much opens the door for the Democrats to do the same.
However if your argument now is that illegal traffic across our border is not a national emergency, then you must look at yourself and as am I doing the same thing I disagreed with earlier.
Just because the motive is agreeable shouldn't be the reason you flip flop on the means.
Yes it’s Trump’s way of saying “Push, if ya can’t push then pull, if ya won’t pull, then get out of the way❗️” THE WALL IS GOING TO BE BUILT‼️
No, but in this case Yes.
Very excited for the national emergencies on climate change, gun violence and healthcare
Would you be just as excited about those “emergencies” creating the possibility of a civil war?
Example, suppose the Dems used emergency powers to declare that because of gun violence, the possession of firearms by private citizens is illegal, further stating that the 2nd Amendment has been historically misinterpreted. That would undoubtedly ignite a civil war.
Ahh I see what you’re saying. I’m just pointing out how blown out of proportion this whole situation is.
Cower ... prepare yourself for the national emergency on the murder of unborn children!
Fuck the border, he needs to declare a national emergency for the absolute brutal rape that Disney is doing to Star Wars
HA! Now that’s a policy I could get behind
He didn’t even MENTION it in the state of the union. Something must be done
The policy of a spoiled brat
ID, waa 😭waa😰 waa😤, don’t like it go pack sand up your😳wazoo‼️
So this tells me that
A) you know and don’t care that he is a spoiled brat 😫, and
B) you think about my wazoo a lot.😳
Lol i just hope shippy stays okay with this if somebody else invokes it for climate change or medicare for all in the future
Maybe wazoos are his thing. I don’t know.
But we are accepting here at SOH.
ID, A)I don’t care if Orange Donnie is a spoiled anything, just his results❗️
B) Also I think of most of Lefties as anal apertures, aholes or as Wazoos so yours is nothing unique or of any interest too me‼️
Right, I get it: you’re a whore, you will do anything to get what you want. And you have an anal fetish. I’m not judging.
ID, OH YEAH, you never presuppose or prejudge anyone, but I’m a whore with a anal fetish, you are both repugnant & sick in your head🤪❗️Really❓I’m a 75yr old heterosexual happily married 56yrs parent & grandparent, so thanks for validating my statement about most DemLeftists‼️
Just think about it, you were the one who started talking about wazoos.🤔
And you were the one who said you didn’t care how things were done as long as you got what you wanted.
This whole other preoccupation with using the word “leftist “every other sentence is something else entirely. Political brainwashing from too much hate radio?
Let’s hope that MrT also declares a national emergency on the murder of unborn children.
ID, you entered this thread like most “Leftists” by whining about Trump “acting like a spoiled brat” on which I told you to pack sand up your wazoo an old slang saying❗️So “you” not me then make it sexual thing, as for my frequently using “Leftest” I’m just identifying who & what you are, OWN IT❗️Feel free to call me a Independent Conservative “Rightest”. Just go back & read your own words, I did & they are what they are, I speak the truth, I don’t spin it as you do🤥‼️
Think, good idea on a “save the unborn National Emergency”👍🏻
ID# PS, I don’t listen to any radio Talking heads re; Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow or any others & haven’t for years. I don’t like propagandists I prefer to reasearch & find my own facts, how about you❓
The precedent has already been set during the Obama era... You can’t put it on Trump before educating yourself on how past democratic presidents used their executive power to implement programs and policies without congressional approval... cough cough DACA..
So your entire question is falsely represented...
Personally, Democrats need to calm down and because less radical.. We aren’t going to get anything done and that’s what it feels like the left wants so during 2020 election, Trump won’t have any achievements... It’s ridiculous... Like instead of being so rebellious how about get back in the game and campaign on legit and rational democratic policies instead of saying trump this and trump that... Yes a lot of people don’t like Trump, but your opinion doesn’t do anything beneficial for the country.. He wants a barrier on our southern border, which is rational. Stats show it’s an issue.. It isn’t racist... It’s standing up and setting a standard. It won’t screw Americans either.
started long before Obama - you should educate yourself.
A national emergency hasn’t been used to bypass congress regarding domestic policy. You should educate yourself.
1. I’m a Republican (libertarian conservative), not a Democrat.
2. What you’re referring to is an executive order, which Trump has used, though certainly less than Obama, to attempt to implement policy. We’re talking about declaring a national emergency to sidestep Congress, which has never been done.
3. I’d be fine with a wall if it actually helped decrease illegal immigration and I don’t think it’s racist nor did I ever say it was. When I’m sure as hell opposed to is creating a precedent where the next Democratic president declares a national emergency in response to a mass shooting and starts confiscating firearms. That possibility doesn’t worry you?
Fmm, President Obama took it to. A new level.
It’s a bad idea no matter who is President.
The whole issue of a wall has become more of an end in itself that a means to stop illegal immigration anyways. There are plenty of other options that could’ve mitigated it for as much or less of what a border wall would cost. Democrats would be more likely to compromise on another method anyways. This is become ridiculous.
Yes I was just stating a recent example of using executive power for one-sided political policies that made the illegal immigration crisis much worse. I know a national emergency is much more intense than an executive order, but both are caused by a use of executive power... The president has the right to call a national emergency for a threat to the public backed up by statistics and the concept that we shouldn’t be condoning illegal immigration. Using it for something such as banning abortion I would say is unconstitutional however I’m greatly against late term abortions... Like what’s the point of calling out Trump for securing the border? Will it really change your lives if you are a legal citizen? No.. So what’s the issue? Morals don’t have any say since the barriers will be strategically placed and we are still letting immigrants in LEGALLY. It’s just an irrational way of thinking. Instead of complaining about the wall, how about you push for an easier path to citizenship...
Much to his credit, Trump as POTUS is a Executive Businessman, not Executive Politician, so get over by the whiners & geter done Orange😡Donnie‼️
Obama issued fewer executive orders than W. look it up. and Trump has issued 95 so far - Obama issued 276 in 8 years so he’s on a pace to exceed that if he continues at current rate.
I’m a republican - it helps to know the facts.
Didn’t your teachers tell you not to use Wikipedia as a source
Didn’t your parents tell you not to lie🤥❓
What did I lie about?
If you want to propagate the truth instead of a lie, then bring your own facts to the discussion, instead of only casting dispersion on someone else’s🤨❗️
Individual-1 suffers from Border wall Personality Disorder.
Everyone saying it’s already been done in the passed.... does that somehow make it acceptable now? This is classic if 10 people jumped off of a bridge would you? Lol
The precedent was set many presidents ago.
By who? In what instance did a president declare a national emergency to sidestep Congress and implement policy in the absence of an imminent security threat?
To directly answer your question, no. However that precedent has already been set. It’s been enacted 50+ times. Trump is just continuing it. If he were to not do it, future presidents would anyway.
What other instance was there when a president declared a national emergency simply to pass legislation when there was no imminent security threat? Genuinely curious
The phrase “when there was no imminent security threat” is the core of the debate. This administration will argue that there is a threat just as others have. It will wind up in the SC to decide.
As far as a list of other national emergencies, I can dig one up if you like, but the Act was passed in 1976 and used by all presidents since. Clinton used 17 and Obama used 12. Trump has already used it twice.
Here’s a list.
If you read the list you’ll see that none of them have to do with domestic policy.
Irrelevant. The National Emergency Act of 1976 doesn’t limit it to only other countries.
I would argue that while there is a security threat, it’s very much long term and far from an imminent one. It can be solved through the Legislature without an Executive power grab. Imminent security threats (I assume) are more akin to a hostile miltary threat or a natural disaster where people’s lives will be in imminent danger if immediate action is not taken. This doesn’t qualify as that at all.
None of what I see on that list was created to solve a controversial domestic issue that first couldn’t pass through Congress. Imagine what a far-left President will do following Trump’s footsteps if/when one is elected. That doesn’t worry you?
It’s not irrelevant at all. A President could theoretically use national emergencies to rule by decree if they whip the people up into a sufficient state of fear.
It does worry me, but the precedent has already been set.
“A President could theoretically use national emergencies to rule by decree...”
True. He already can. That’s why Trump is able to.
It’s not irrelevant as there is no precedent for use to bypass congress regarding domestic policy.
Once again, The National Emergency Act of 1976 doesn’t limit it to only foreign countries. If you’re arguing that it’s a bad law, I agree, but my opinion doesn’t matter.
I don’t know why your arguing against a point I’m not making.
Your point is, “If you read the list you’ll see that none of them have to do with domestic policy.”
My point is that doesn’t matter. The law is still applicable.
Just because a can rule by decree does not mean he should. The precedent is not there as @thatguy2 has said, it has not been used for domestic policy. We’re gonna regret this when President whoever the hell bans guns in response to a mass shooting one day.
“We’re gonna regret this when President whoever the hell bans guns in response to a mass shooting one day.”
I agree. But they already can, precedent or not.
Btw, the Sept 23, 2001 national emergency (The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11) already applies to US citizens.
I don’t agree with the curtailing of constitutional rights inherent in that, but it’s obvious that that only applies is cases with an imminent threat to the public. This isn’t the same thing.
Illegal immigration is a problem, but it’s not a military invasion.
I’m sure people will be debating that point for months.
My only argument is that it’s been done before and will be done in the future regardless of whether it’s done now or not.
So you don’t think 20+ million foreign INVADERS aren’t a threat to our safety and economy. Get back on your meds.
You didn’t read what I said. It’s a big problem, but it’s not an IMMINENT (key word) threat. It can be solves through legislation without a presidential power grab.
They can’t ban guns because we have a second amendment right to bear arms. There is no right to cross our borders whenever you want. Declaring a national emergency to protect our country is not equivalent to contradicting an established right.
Legislation doesn’t stop foreign invaders crossing our borders anymore than laws against murder stop those from happening. Only a physical barrier can greatly reduce the border crossings.
Then that physical barrier should by legislated in Congress. It’s not the role of the Executive to legislate.
And if our 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment protections against being searched without a warrant and detained without a trial of suspected of terrorism via the institution of a national emergency, our 2nd amendment rights certainly aren’t safe from it either.
It has been legislated by Congress a few times and never came to fruition. If they won’t protect our country then he will.
It’s not an actual emergency if you are dangling the threat of a national emergency for months.
: an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for IMMEDIATE action
It’s not hard to see a Democratic President in the very near future declaring a national emergency to institute national firearm bans, remove abortion restrictions, or pass the Green New Deal. If you think that’s not inevitable if Trump does it, you’re kidding yourself. The Executive should not have the ability to legislate policy, and this sets an incredibly dangerous Constitutional precedent.
The link you posted argues against the validity of declaring a national emergency at the southern border. I guess you didn’t read the last sentence.
...or the title 😂