Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

National Emergency my arse hole.


22 replies to this topic

#1
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,196 posts
Nuff said.

Go.

#2
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,035 posts
Trump: We need to reach across the aisles and work together.

Congress: Here is a bi-partisan spending bill!

Trump: Look, okay, that is great. Really. Great. It is. You all should know I have plenty of gay friends. They would all tell you, well, many of them would. Some of them are still, you know, in secret. You know the thing. They probably would not tell you this because of that, publicly at least, but even they would take a moment in private to tell you how gay they are and how much they are my friends. And they are really gay and really, really good friends. Great friends. Some of them are even lesbian and not the ugly kind, gorgeous bodies. If they were not gay they would be all over this, they would tell you that. They would tell you that. Maybe not you, Jim, because you are fake news. You know that, I did not need to say it. Really. So we all know that I am a friend to the gays and their little community. You all know I am a friend to the minorities. They turned out big in the election, did you know that? Big. More than for Obama. Many of them, they told me that. But I wanted funding for my wall not for them. Oh they will have their time, and they know that, they do. They told me. But we need a wall right now. More wall. Because you all know it is built... a lot of it is being built right now. I have built more walls since I have become President than any other president, but the Democrats are still obstructing our progress as a nation.
  • Iceheart, Kyrian and Odine +1 this

#3
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,058 posts

Nuff said.

Go.

This is nothing new, as Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama all used National Emergency Acts (a number of times for each), with many from the Clinton era-forward still in effect. Further, several recent history presidents have added to border fencing during their time in office, yet it was not enough for all of the Leftie histrionics and offensive, misapplied references to Nazis.

 

The only issue here is that a gang of Democratic / liberal ideologues resent the idea that Trump is acting on a serious concern--one that has been a rarely addressed problem since the 1980s (especially for anyone who lived in California--my home state). Its beyond a joke for the Left to pretend that they don't see the wall and associated acts as a threat to their hope for a Left-leaning voter base as the generations pass.



#4
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,035 posts
Lets play for someone as smart as you, you should know!

The Power of the Purse is controlled by what government body?
(the House of Representatives)

Have prior presidents been called out over attempts to circumvent the Power of the Purse?
(yes)

Did the GOP control both houses of Congress during the Trump administrations first years?
(yes)

When did President Trump and the GOP choose to focus on this crisis on the southern boarder of the United States?
(during the election season)

When did President Trump choose to demand funding for the wall or else he would shut down the government?
(when the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives)

Did President Trump implore both houses of Congress to work together to solve the spending issues that resulted in the longest government shutdown in American history?
(yes, bipartisanship was a point in his SotU)

Did both houses of Congress pass a bipartisan spending bill in an attempt to avoid another shutdown of the government?
(yes)

Did this bipartisan bill allocate funds for border security?
(yes)

Did President Trump sign this bipartisan bill?
(yes)

Why did President Trump declare a National Emergency?
(he was not granted the amount of funds he wanted)

Who does President Trump and his supporters deem at fault for this funding debacle?
(Democrats)
  • Iceheart and Odine +1 this

#5
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 18,793 posts
Trump declaring an emergency is bipartisan. Democrats want to run against it, and Republicans don’t want to have to vote against the wall. Of course Trump’s own insistence that it doesn’t need to be done now hurts the emergency status. I should go to the ER now because I eat badly and will probably have a heart attack.
  • Odine +1 this

#6
Iceheart

Iceheart

    No.

  • Moderators
  • 20,476 posts

I read an opinion piece about how this opens it up for a future Democratic president to declare a national emergency to fund something like Medicare for All, or student loan debt forgiveness, or climate initiatives. And I laughed. And laughed. And laughed.



#7
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 18,793 posts
Only if it stands.

#8
Iceheart

Iceheart

    No.

  • Moderators
  • 20,476 posts

True.

 

Something tells me it will.



#9
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,414 posts
It won't. Trump pretty much admitted it the other day. He knows it's going to bounce around in court for a long time.

#10
Iceheart

Iceheart

    No.

  • Moderators
  • 20,476 posts

Everyone says that, and yet with the exception of the Muslim Ban (which I believe is still in partial effect?), everything people say will never happen has so far happened.

 

I believe things when I see it at this point.



#11
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 18,793 posts
My guess is that the Supreme Court upholds it, or Roberts is the deciding factor against. The real question isn't so much whether Trump can do it, but whether Congress has the authority to abdicate their authority over spending. A Trump veto would certainly support the argument that they aren't giving up their Constitutional duties, and would be the best legal reasoning to overturn his order.

The best possible solution would be for Trump to lose reelection and for this to be held up in the courts for a couple of years.

#12
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts

It won't. Trump pretty much admitted it the other day. He knows it's going to bounce around in court for a long time.

Well, this is not a frivolous declaration by Trump. The federal statute he has invoked to declare an emergency, the NEA (National Emergency Act) does not define emergency. The plain text of the statute vests to the President wide latitude, practically absolute discretion, to determine when an emergency exists. There is simply no statutory language to guide the President or the courts as to what facts, circumstances, do or do not constitute as an emergency.

 

However, declaring a national emergency is necessary to make accessible to Trump several federal statutes in which he is potentially given extraordinary powers. One such statute permits the use of DOD funds and the military. Ostensibly, Trump intends to invoke this statute. However, unlike the vast breadth of discretion to determine when an emergency exists, the statute pertaining to use of DOD funds and the military expresses specific conditions must exist, must be applicable, for the use of DOD funds and the military. Those conditions, arguably, do not exist.


  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#13
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    wearing out welcome since 2009

  • Supporters
  • 8,630 posts

 

It won't. Trump pretty much admitted it the other day. He knows it's going to bounce around in court for a long time.

Well, this is not a frivolous declaration by Trump. The federal statute he has invoked to declare an emergency, the NEA (National Emergency Act) does not define emergency. The plain text of the statute vests to the President wide latitude, practically absolute discretion, to determine when an emergency exists. There is simply no statutory language to guide the President or the courts as to what facts, circumstances, do or do not constitute as an emergency.

 

However, declaring a national emergency is necessary to make accessible to Trump several federal statutes in which he is potentially given extraordinary powers. One such statute permits the use of DOD funds and the military. Ostensibly, Trump intends to invoke this statute. However, unlike the vast breadth of discretion to determine when an emergency exists, the statute pertaining to use of DOD funds and the military expresses specific conditions must exist, must be applicable, for the use of DOD funds and the military. Those conditions, arguably, do not exist.

 

Here's a question for you (or anyone who an answer) because I am curious.  My understanding is that Posse Comitatus was enacted to prevent the federal government from using the US Army and Air Force to carry out law enforcement, and the Navy (and Marine Corps, which falls under the Navy) have internal regulations that respect Posse Comitatus.  But Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard and Air National Guard when under control of the governor of their respective states, and the Coast Guard isn't under DOD, but the DHS, so PC doesn't apply to them, either.

 

Trump has indicated he wants to use the military to help out at the border, whatever that means.  However, depending on the branch, he may not be able to, because border enforcement is considered a law enforcement activity.  However, if Trump federalized the National Guard, Air National Guard and Coast Guard in border states and states along the Gulf of Mexico, would Posse Comitatus apply?  When nationalized, those become under the control of the President, and it's my understanding different rules kick in.  If that is the case, how can he legally use the military for border enforcement?  In fact, I think during the Bush, and  Obama eras, the National Guard was activated and sent to the SW border states, but they were not allowed to enforce laws, capture border crossers, or even carry loaded weapons.  All they were allowed to do was watch, observe, and report to the Border Patrol, which usually was understaffed.  And if memory serves, there was debate on whether even just doing that was a violation of Posse Comitatus. 

 

Does Trump declaring a national emergency nullify or suspend Posse Comitatus? If so, that is a scary precedent to set.  I think Bush suspended it during a natural disaster in 2006-7-ish, and there was an uproar about that.



#14
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,389 posts

Interesting take. I will be reading! HA! remember the ruckus this caused during Bush and Obama's administrations in Tucson and parts of Texas. 



#15
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    wearing out welcome since 2009

  • Supporters
  • 8,630 posts

Ruckus over what? Militia people hanging out at the border? The two presidencies locking the border down and increasing patrols?Evidence that there was massive drug smuggler activity and resulting violence? SB1070 ?



#16
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,389 posts

Ruckus over what? Militia people hanging out at the border? The two presidencies locking the border down and increasing patrols?Evidence that there was massive drug smuggler activity and resulting violence? SB1070 ?

Yup. All of the above. I don't mind cracking down on drug smuggling. I think what hit the DEA hard when this was happening was when guns ended up in drug smugglers possession that were trafficked by us, the US Government. The biggest change for me is I drive back and forth to Tucson a lot and they have built up a huge Border Patrol checkpoint station in Texas near Sierra Blanca that I get stopped at coming back from Tucson and one just outside of Las  Cruces NM that I have to go through on my way out there. They always ask me if I'm a US citizen and wave me through but depending on the time of day it can take up to an hour to move along and hustle down the road.

 

My parents moved us to 5 acres that has a corner of the property in NM and it ran along the border of Mexico. The bulk of the property was Texas though. This was in the early 70s and no one ever came across the Rio Grande across our property to get to the US.  My Mom used to ride her horses across the river and down into Mexico with no fear. She'd leave us to play on the edge of the river as kids. So much of this stuff is manufactured fear now. While crossing illegally is breaking the law, most were men just trying to get a better job to send money home back then. 



#17
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    wearing out welcome since 2009

  • Supporters
  • 8,630 posts

The security argument from a drug smuggling, organized crime, or potential terrorist threat is legit and I think it is not an exaggeration, at least when presented by law enforcement agencies.  There are corridors (In AZ and other border states) that are to this day travelled by drug smugglers and legitimately pose a threat to US citizens.  Also, the human trafficking does adversely affect people who live along the border, ranging from simple trespassing and  littering, to violent crime activity.  Those who live in those areas are entitled to be safe, like the rest of US citizenry, and they do often get lost in the immigration debate.   So I do support vigilant borders and law enforcement should not be ham-stringed from doing their jobs to keep the public safe.  I support using technology, including UAVs and surveillance to help catch or prevent criminal activity.  SO I am very much opposed to those who are either for open borders or think what is happening is no big deal.  That said, I don't agree with a coast to coast wall , and I don't like how Trump has largely approached border enforcement, in either tone or practice. 



#18
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,389 posts

Right now they're freaking out because the government is using eminent domain to start confiscating land to build the fence in the valley which means some farm land is being taken away. A lot of fruits and veggies are grown in the Valley and losing that land is a loss to those farmers closest to the Rio Grande. The scariest parts are actually on Lake Amistad in Del Rio because boats get shot at in skirmishes. As Mexico becomes more stable and richer I think we'll see some changes as we already have through NAFTA as many factories are being built along the US border in Mexico which provide jobs and opportunity. E-verify has also led to a decline in illegals. Mostly now it's women and children and they have family here already that will help them. It costs the government a lot less to just admit the asylum seekers come and stay with relatives. It's a hoax that they'll get on welfare and take from us.

 

Honestly if we want to combat terrorism we have to work on how we approach that part of the danger. Securing the border will not stop terrorism and most terrorist plots are actually done through people who came legally to the US or on a plane. Not crossing the desert border. 



#19
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    wearing out welcome since 2009

  • Supporters
  • 8,630 posts

I completely oppose using eminent domain for this ridiculous wall. All I am saying is I support border protection, and there is need for it, but this is getting way out of hand.   The way Bush handled it in his second term and Obama handled it during his presidency was sufficient, and in fact, it was working.  



#20
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts


 


It won't. Trump pretty much admitted it the other day. He knows it's going to bounce around in court for a long time.

Well, this is not a frivolous declaration by Trump. The federal statute he has invoked to declare an emergency, the NEA (National Emergency Act) does not define emergency. The plain text of the statute vests to the President wide latitude, practically absolute discretion, to determine when an emergency exists. There is simply no statutory language to guide the President or the courts as to what facts, circumstances, do or do not constitute as an emergency.
 
However, declaring a national emergency is necessary to make accessible to Trump several federal statutes in which he is potentially given extraordinary powers. One such statute permits the use of DOD funds and the military. Ostensibly, Trump intends to invoke this statute. However, unlike the vast breadth of discretion to determine when an emergency exists, the statute pertaining to use of DOD funds and the military expresses specific conditions must exist, must be applicable, for the use of DOD funds and the military. Those conditions, arguably, do not exist.
 
Here's a question for you (or anyone who an answer) because I am curious.  My understanding is that Posse Comitatus was enacted to prevent the federal government from using the US Army and Air Force to carry out law enforcement, and the Navy (and Marine Corps, which falls under the Navy) have internal regulations that respect Posse Comitatus.  But Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard and Air National Guard when under control of the governor of their respective states, and the Coast Guard isn't under DOD, but the DHS, so PC doesn't apply to them, either.
 
Trump has indicated he wants to use the military to help out at the border, whatever that means.  However, depending on the branch, he may not be able to, because border enforcement is considered a law enforcement activity.  However, if Trump federalized the National Guard, Air National Guard and Coast Guard in border states and states along the Gulf of Mexico, would Posse Comitatus apply?  When nationalized, those become under the control of the President, and it's my understanding different rules kick in.  If that is the case, how can he legally use the military for border enforcement?  In fact, I think during the Bush, and  Obama eras, the National Guard was activated and sent to the SW border states, but they were not allowed to enforce laws, capture border crossers, or even carry loaded weapons.  All they were allowed to do was watch, observe, and report to the Border Patrol, which usually was understaffed.  And if memory serves, there was debate on whether even just doing that was a violation of Posse Comitatus. 
 
Does Trump declaring a national emergency nullify or suspend Posse Comitatus? If so, that is a scary precedent to set.  I think Bush suspended it during a natural disaster in 2006-7-ish, and there was an uproar about that.

Posse Comitatus prohibits the federal governments use of the armed forces to enforce domestic laws. Posse Comitatus is to be read and understood in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the federal governments use of armed forces to enforce domestic laws when there is an insurrection or domestic violence that hinders in some significant or substantial way law and order with a state(s). The use of the national guard under state authority is not discussed or regulated under Posse Comitatus.

Trump is likely to, or has, invoke 10 U.S. Code 2808, which says: (a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.

In my view, building a border wall does not require use of the armed forces and neither is the construction of a border wall necessary to such use of the armed forces.
  • Ms. Spam and El Chalupacabra +1 this

#21
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts
My hope, perhaps perpetually optimistic, is Congress passes legislation ending the emergency, and then has enough votes for a veto. Trump needs a strong rebuke from the peoples house.

#22
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 18,793 posts
My guess is that they can't override a veto, they take it to court, and eventually the Supreme Court decides is 5-4 in favor of Trump with the primary question being whether Congress can surrender its Constitutional responsibility to "control the purse"

#23
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts
Emergencies happen when people fail to prepare.

We spend hundreds of billions in cost OVERRUNS for the F-35 project, but a few billion that might actually protect the taxpayers who make it possible costs too much.



Reply to this topic