Setting An Awful Precedent

[Ponca Dan]

Wait till the other side uses the same logic on something your side opposes. And presidential power just keeps growing, and growing, and growing ..,


http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2...-to-build-the-wall-is-an-awful-precedent.html

 

[aix_xpert]

Wait till the other side uses the same logic on something your side opposes. And presidential power just keeps growing, and growing, and growing ..,


http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2...-to-build-the-wall-is-an-awful-precedent.html

Was this precedent not already set when Congress shutdown for a couple weeks over ObamaCare? As long as Congress can't get its budget house in order to manage the purse strings, it will continue to give the president in power this kind to leverage government operations in order to pass party line items. Isn't the first time, and won't be the last. At this point, if I'm Trump, I give in sort of. I ask McConnell to pass a Senate bill that funds the government for 30 days without wall funding and be clear that this is the negotiating time that the Dems have asked for. Then if the wall isn't funded after that (or if the house chooses to not pass a reconcilatory bill) then suddenly the Dems own the shutdown. But then again, as I've said, if I was the Dems, I would have offered the wall funding, but tied it to a major Dem win, that way the President either backs down or both sides get a win. That said, this may not work because all I think the Dems want is for Trump to not win.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Was this precedent not already set when Congress shutdown for a couple weeks over ObamaCare? As long as Congress can't get its budget house in order to manage the purse strings, it will continue to give the president in power this kind to leverage government operations in order to pass party line items. Isn't the first time, and won't be the last. At this point, if I'm Trump, I give in sort of. I ask McConnell to pass a Senate bill that funds the government for 30 days without wall funding and be clear that this is the negotiating time that the Dems have asked for. Then if the wall isn't funded after that (or if the house chooses to not pass a reconcilatory bill) then suddenly the Dems own the shutdown. But then again, as I've said, if I was the Dems, I would have offered the wall funding, but tied it to a major Dem win, that way the President either backs down or both sides get a win. That said, this may not work because all I think the Dems want is for Trump to not win.

I don’t pay close enough attention to the day-to-day machinations of the government to remember, but I believe ObamaCare was duly psssed by the legislative branch and upheld by the Supreme Court. Obama did not declare a national emergency to institute ObamaCare by his personal fiat.

Trump, on the other hand, is threatening to declare a national emergency in order to grant himself power to build his wall without congressional authorization. While it’s not the first time a president has tried to pull this stunt (Truman attempted to initiate a government takeover of the steel industry during the Korean War, but got slapped down by the Supremes), if Trump is successful it will set a dangerous precedent that most certainly will be used by future presidents of both parties. It is a blatant power grab that, if it succeeds will be one step closer to giving the presidency “dictatorial” powers contrary to the will of the Constitution.

 

[knoblock]

I don’t pay close enough attention to the day-to-day machinations of the government to remember, but I believe ObamaCare was duly psssed by the legislative branch and upheld by the Supreme Court. Obama did not declare a national emergency to institute ObamaCare by his personal fiat.

Trump, on the other hand, is threatening to declare a national emergency in order to grant himself power to build his wall without congressional authorization. While it’s not the first time a president has tried to pull this stunt (Truman attempted to initiate a government takeover of the steel industry during the Korean War, but got slapped down by the Suoremes), if Trump is successful it will set a dangerous precedent that most certainly will be used by future presidents of both parties. It is a blatant power grab that, if it succeeds will be one step closer to giving the presidency “dictatorial” powers contrary to the will of the Constitution.

He will not be successful with that approach. National emergency my ass. Trump = narcissistic dummy.

 

[Syskatine]

But Mexico is paying for it.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[Rdcldad]

That said, this may not work because all I think the Dems want is for Trump to not win.

astute and fits the

cant believe cank lost
we don’t have policy
america’s doing great
orange man bad
platform

demtards run on now

 

[imprimis]

Here's an article explaining how the President does have the authority to build the wall without Congressional approval since they may have already given their approval.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/yes-the-president-has-the-authority-to-build-the-wall/

 

[Ponca Dan]

Here's an article explaining how the President does have the authority to build the wall without Congressional approval since they may have already given their approval.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/yes-the-president-has-the-authority-to-build-the-wall/

Interesting article. Here’s one that says he can’t. If he goes this route it will obviously wind up in the Supreme Court. My fingers are crossed that he doesn’t pull that trigger, but if he does I hope the Supremes rebuke him. We are ceding too much power into the hands of one man. It will eventually bite us in the ass.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/01/andrew-p-napolitano/can-the-president-alone-build-a-border-wall/

 

[Ostatedchi]

I don’t pay close enough attention to the day-to-day machinations of the government to remember, but I believe ObamaCare was duly psssed by the legislative branch and upheld by the Supreme Court. Obama did not declare a national emergency to institute ObamaCare by his personal fiat.

Trump, on the other hand, is threatening to declare a national emergency in order to grant himself power to build his wall without congressional authorization. While it’s not the first time a president has tried to pull this stunt (Truman attempted to initiate a government takeover of the steel industry during the Korean War, but got slapped down by the Supremes), if Trump is successful it will set a dangerous precedent that most certainly will be used by future presidents of both parties. It is a blatant power grab that, if it succeeds will be one step closer to giving the presidency “dictatorial” powers contrary to the will of the Constitution.

I guess I'm not understanding your point. Is it that the president doesn't have the power to do that under the constitution or that it is simply a unilateral decision but based in constitutional authority.
If the constitution allows for it, then is is democratic since we collectively adopted the constitution. If the legislature abdicated the power to the president via legislation,then it is part of the democratic process.

I guess I don't see your angst. IF Trump does this and is successful - by definition it was legal and a constitutionally authorized power of the executive.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I guess I'm not understanding your point. Is it that the president doesn't have the power to do that under the constitution or that it is simply a unilateral decision but based in constitutional authority.
If the constitution allows for it, then is is democratic since we collectively adopted the constitution. If the legislature abdicated the power to the president via legislation,then it is part of the democratic process.

I guess I don't see your angst. IF Trump does this and is successful - by definition it was legal and a constitutionally authorized power of the executive.

I believe there is sharp disagreement between legal scholars over whether a president has such authority. If Trump attempts to use this tactic it will ultimately end with a Supreme Court decision. It is my hope that he does not try it, but if he does I hope he is denied by the SC. Whether it is part of the democratic process is immaterial to me. (Remind me some day and we can discuss the merits and demerits of democracy. I think a case can be made that pure democracy as properly understood bears a striking political resemblance to economic socialism.) I do not want one person having such power over the fate of 300 million people.

The point of the article, as the author made clear, is those people who are cheering Trump and wishing he would declare a national emergency may come to rue the day they supported such a precedent. Today the Republicans (the Trump wing of the Republican Party) have all the hole cards. It is pretty clear that about half the population wants a wall and doesn't much care what tactic is used in getting it. The other half of the country either does not want a wall or are very concerned that Trump may "pull a slick one" to get his way. If Trump succeeds in claiming national security the precedent is set that the next Democrat president can use the same claim to ram through a random policy the Trumpistas will revile. But there is nothing they can do about it. Trump will have established a policy that eventually will be used for the most trivial things. That's the cause of my angst.

 

[OSUClint1024]

Here's an article explaining how the President does have the authority to build the wall without Congressional approval since they may have already given their approval.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/yes-the-president-has-the-authority-to-build-the-wall/

“Obviously, absent congressional authorization to expend funds, the president lacks any inherent authority to spend money. Article I, Section 9 unambiguously states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

Weird...almost as if...his authority is checked and balanced.

 

[imprimis]

“Obviously, absent congressional authorization to expend funds, the president lacks any inherent authority to spend money. Article I, Section 9 unambiguously states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

Weird...almost as if...his authority is checked and balanced.

It's obvious you didn't read the article I posted. Here's the part you missed:

A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

The money would not come from the Treasury but from already appropriated funds within the Dept of Defense.

The DoD gets around $100 billion/yr to use on construction projects. Diverting $5 billion of unspent funds is easy.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I believe there is sharp disagreement between legal scholars over whether a president has such authority. If Trump attempts to use this tactic it will ultimately end with a Supreme Court decision. It is my hope that he does not try it, but if he does I hope he is denied by the SC. Whether it is part of the democratic process is immaterial to me. (Remind me some day and we can discuss the merits and demerits of democracy. I think a case can be made that pure democracy as properly understood bears a striking political resemblance to economic socialism.) I do not want one person having such power over the fate of 300 million people.

The point of the article, as the author made clear, is those people who are cheering Trump and wishing he would declare a national emergency may come to rue the day they supported such a precedent. Today the Republicans (the Trump wing of the Republican Party) have all the hole cards. It is pretty clear that about half the population wants a wall and doesn't much care what tactic is used in getting it. The other half of the country either does not want a wall or are very concerned that Trump may "pull a slick one" to get his way. If Trump succeeds in claiming national security the precedent is set that the next Democrat president can use the same claim to ram through a random policy the Trumpistas will revile. But there is nothing they can do about it. Trump will have established a policy that eventually will be used for the most trivial things. That's the cause of my angst.

I see your point. However, I totally disagree with it. Even if Trump doesn't use this method, I'd fully expect a future democrat president to take this tact if it got them what they wanted over an obstructionist Republican legislature. So there is no long term benefit to taking this option off the table by Trump.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I see your point. However, I totally disagree with it. Even if Trump doesn't use this method, I'd fully expect a future democrat president to take this tact if it got them what they wanted over an obstructionist Republican legislature. So there is no long term benefit to taking this option off the table by Trump.

If a Democrat president attempted the same thing I would be just as opposed to it as I am with Trump's attempt. I would pray the Supreme Court would deny a Democrat as much as I pray they will do so to Trump if he tries it. There is a subtle difference between Obama ignoring the legislative branch with his executive orders (which the Republicans should have fought tooth and nail, but didn't) and a ploy to name something a national emergency when it clearly is not.

 

[Ostatedchi]

If a Democrat president attempted the same thing I would be just as opposed to it as I am with Trump's attempt. I would pray the Supreme Court would deny a Democrat as much as I pray they will do so to Trump if he tries it. There is a subtle difference between Obama ignoring the legislative branch with his executive orders (which the Republicans should have fought tooth and nail, but didn't) and a ploy to name something a national emergency when it clearly is not.

I understand that. My point stands however. Just because Trump may or may not decide to declare an emergency in no way binds future democrats from doing that exact thing. Therefore that shouldn't be part of his consideration for either doing it or not.

 

[Ponca Dan]

It's obvious you didn't read the article I posted. Here's the part you missed:

A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

The money would not come from the Treasury but from already appropriated funds within the Dept of Defense.

The DoD gets around $100 billion/yr to use on construction projects. Diverting $5 billion of unspent funds is easy.

No, I read it. I just pointed out there are legal scholars who say that argument is not valid. I'll say for the third (or fourth?) time I am against Trump declaring this a national emergency just so he can get his way. First, it will be the start of a "boy crying wolf" scenario until the day comes when there really is a national emergency and no one will realize it. Second, a Democrat will use this precedent to force through a truly hideous policy even if a majority if voters don't want it. I can envision a future Obama ramming through an ObamaCare type socialist policy, and he'll declare it a national emergency and point to the Trump precedent as his validation.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I understand that. My point stands however. Just because Trump may or may not decide to declare an emergency in no way binds future democrats from doing that exact thing. Therefore that shouldn't be part of his consideration for either doing it or not.

Oh, I totally get the point you are making, but I doubt Trump calculates anything about the future when or if he decides to do it. He won't care a whit what a future Democrat (or Republican) might do. It's just that he will have set the precedent, done all the heavy lifting if you will, which will make it easy for future presidents to follow his course. I am pretty sure - certain, in fact - that it will wind up in the Supreme Court if he does it. Then it will be nail-biting time.

 

[Ostatedchi]

No, I read it. I just pointed out there are legal scholars who say that argument is not valid. I'll say for the third (or fourth?) time I am against Trump declaring this a national emergency just so he can get his way. First, it will be the start of a "boy crying wolf" scenario until the day comes when there really is a national emergency and no one will realize it. Second, a Democrat will use this precedent to force through a truly hideous policy even if a majority if voters don't want it. I can envision a future Obama ramming through an ObamaCare type socialist policy, and he'll declare it a national emergency and point to the Trump precedent as his validation.

Hard for me to imagine a way the Army civil works department could implement an Obamacare type solution. It would be limited to building projects.

Say that a giant earthquake cripples California's rail and highway systems that effectively render our military bases impotent. They'd be correct in declaring an emergency to rebuild the infrastructure. It is very similar to the president declaring a region a disaster in order to release FEMA funds. I'm guessing you have no heartburn over that.

Again, we elected a president. That sure seems to be within his executive powers. If he chooses to go that route, I just don't see the constitutional crisis you are making it out to be.

 

[Medic007]

I can envision a future Obama ramming through an ObamaCare type socialist policy, and he'll declare it a national emergency and point to the Trump precedent as his validation.

Dan, you're reaching way out there with this one. Creating national healthcare policy isn't in the same universe as building a fence/wall/barrier/levee/dam, etc. A national emergency can allow for civil use of DoD funds, not to write legislation. If you used building a wall to keep taxpayers in California, I can agree.

 

[imprimis]

No, I read it. I just pointed out there are legal scholars who say that argument is not valid. I'll say for the third (or fourth?) time I am against Trump declaring this a national emergency just so he can get his way. First, it will be the start of a "boy crying wolf" scenario until the day comes when there really is a national emergency and no one will realize it. Second, a Democrat will use this precedent to force through a truly hideous policy even if a majority if voters don't want it. I can envision a future Obama ramming through an ObamaCare type socialist policy, and he'll declare it a national emergency and point to the Trump precedent as his validation.

You do realize the National Emergencies Act of 1976 has been used 58 times by Presidents extending back to Carter. Among the uses are the Swine Flu epidemic, various nuclear orders, a prohibition on Iranian property entering the US, and diamonds imported from Sierra Leone. 30 uses of the law are still in effect. Obama invoked the law 12 times.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Dan, you're reaching way out there with this one. Creating national healthcare policy isn't in the same universe as building a fence/wall/barrier/levee/dam, etc. A national emergency can allow for civil use of DoD funds, not to write legislation. If you used building a wall to keep taxpayers in California, I can agree.

That may be a wall I could be for! It was a hare-brained example I readily admit. But the principle remains the same. The author in the OP used wind mills as an example. Suppose Cory Booker gets elected fifteen years from now, declares global warming to be a national emergency and sets the military to building wind mills all over the place. You good with that? Why not? There's precedent for it.

 

[Medic007]

That may be a wall I could be for! It was a hare-brained example I readily admit. But the principle remains the same. The author in the OP used wind mills as an example. Suppose Cory Booker gets elected fifteen years from now, declares global warming to be a national emergency and sets the military to building wind mills all over the place. You good with that? Why not? There's precedent for it.

I don't disagree with you at all. The question is whether Trump has the authority to do it or not. I don't know the answer. If he does, then he does. I suspect we'll find out quickly if he goes that route.

The reality is that Trump shouldn't be in a position to even threaten doing it. Our incompetent Congress has had years to do something about our immigration system and border and has chosen childish partisan antics over doing actual work. If Trump has the authority and uses it, Congress has nobody to blame but themselves and we have nobody to blame but Congress.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I don't disagree with you at all. The question is whether Trump has the authority to do it or not. I don't know the answer. If he does, then he does. I suspect we'll find out quickly if he goes that route.

The reality is that Trump shouldn't be in a position to even threaten doing it. Our incompetent Congress has had years to do something about our immigration system and border and has chosen childish partisan antics over doing actual work. If Trump has the authority and uses it, Congress has nobody to blame but themselves and we have nobody to blame but Congress.

We are on the same page in this instance. I was thinking earlier today how the Republicans had two years to give Trump his wall and they fiddled around and didn’t do it. They always found some excuse to put it off. They hardly talked about it at all. Now they’re in the minority in the House where they are relatively certain there is no way the Democrats will provide the funds and suddenly they’re all ablaze with indignation.

Why do you suppose that is? Why did the Republicans in the House wait until it was too late to start talking about it? I wonder if you agree with me that in reality the House Republicans are not all that enamored about building a wall, and now the Democrats are giving them cover to demand the funds because they know it won’t happen.

If I’m right why do you suppose the Republicans are being that way? Is it possible they know the wall is nothing more than an expensive and fruitless adventure that is not wanted by most of the people? But they have to look tough to the Trumpian base in order to keep their jobs? Lose the Trump voters and they’ll lose reelection? So they spout the rhetoric, get all red in the face with ire, and do everything they can to run out the clock until Trump is gone? I suspect that is what is going on. What do you think?

 

[Medic007]

If I’m right why do you suppose the Republicans are being that way? Is it possible they know the wall is nothing more than an expensive and fruitless adventure that is not wanted by most of the people? But they have to look tough to the Trumpian base in order to keep their jobs? Lose the Trump voters and they’ll lose reelection? So they spout the rhetoric, get all red in the face with ire, and do everything they can to run out the clock until Trump is gone? I suspect that is what is going on. What do you think?

Maybe. But we'll have to agree to disagree on the utility of physical barriers.

They're basic common sense in many security applications around the nation and around the world. Does that mean a concrete structure that's 2,000 miles long, 50 feet high, and capable of withstanding 100 megatons of TNT per square inch? No, but barriers in locations where they make sense is just common sense.

We lock our houses for a reason. None of us believe that it will keep every thief out, but it will deter some and make it more difficult to enter than not having it locked. We use security systems on our homes. Those don't keep everyone out either but they do deter and allow detection where needed. Some people even use video in the security of their homes. Again, it's a deterrent and possibly provides evidence of who the thieves were. People live in gated neighborhoods to control who is able to enter. When you combine these things, you end up with a system that gives a better chance of deterring, detecting, and stopping a thief from entering than without having those things.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Hard for me to imagine a way the Army civil works department could implement an Obamacare type solution. It would be limited to building projects.

Say that a giant earthquake cripples California's rail and highway systems that effectively render our military bases impotent. They'd be correct in declaring an emergency to rebuild the infrastructure. It is very similar to the president declaring a region a disaster in order to release FEMA funds. I'm guessing you have no heartburn over that.

Again, we elected a president. That sure seems to be within his executive powers. If he chooses to go that route, I just don't see the constitutional crisis you are making it out to be.

Sorry, I read this earlier but forgot to respond. I agree that your scenarios would be valid reasons to declare a national emergency. Illegal border crossings that today are 1/4th what they were in the year 2000 do not meet the standard, IMO.

This whole thing seems to me to be a ginned up crisis Trump is using to keep his supporters riled up. He’s going to need every last one of them - even the really kooky ones - if he’s going to get reelected.

It is standard operating procedure for governments to create enemies with which to frighten their people. That’s one way they can keep them in line. Look at that foreign danger! Don’t be afraid, we’ll protect you. All you have to do is relinquish a little of your independence, and do what we tell you to do. It’s a shell game to keep you distracted.

Trump is hardly the first politician to play it. The Democrats, for instance, are doing it with Russia, Russia, Russia.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Maybe. But we'll have to agree to disagree on the utility of physical barriers.

They're basic common sense in many security applications around the nation and around the world. Does that mean a concrete structure that's 2,000 miles long, 50 feet high, and capable of withstanding 100 megatons of TNT per square inch? No, but barriers in locations where they make sense is just common sense.

We lock our houses for a reason. None of us believe that it will keep every thief out, but it will deter some and make it more difficult to enter than not having it locked. We use security systems on our homes. Those don't keep everyone out either but they do deter and allow detection where needed. Some people even use video in the security of their homes. Again, it's a deterrent and possibly provides evidence of who the thieves were. People live in gated neighborhoods to control who is able to enter. When you combine these things, you end up with a system that gives a better chance of deterring, detecting, and stopping a thief from entering than without having those things.

I don’t disagree with you about the efficacy of walls. Hell, I live in a gated community, and I set the alarm at night and I lock the doors.

Don Boudreaux says what I think about it a hundred times better than I can say it.


https://cafehayek.com/2019/01/my-problem-with-the-wall.html


I don’t expect you to agree with me. We’ll just have to have differing opinions.

 

[Medic007]

I don’t disagree with you about the efficacy of walls. Hell, I live in a gated community, and I set the alarm at night and I lock the doors.

Don Boudreaux says what I think about it a hundred times better than I can say it.


https://cafehayek.com/2019/01/my-problem-with-the-wall.html


I don’t expect you to agree with me. We’ll just have to have differing opinions.

Yeah, that article wasn't worth reading after the second paragraph. That's probably the most narrow minded and ignorant commentary I've seen to date regarding the motivations of people who support the wall. I guess that's to be expected from the ivory tower types who don't have a clue what life is like outside the frilly academic and corporate worlds they blissfully live in.