re: Senate can’t veto Emergency Declaration but which R’s will oppose?

quote:

---

I think the only thing the Senate could do vis a vis any EO is to pass a resolution that says “Orange Man Bad”, impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, or repeal the NEA. (Don’t think repealing the NEA would do any good bc so long as POTUS has evidence that an emergency exists (which he does these people opposing it just disagree with his conclusion) the EO was issued in accordance with existing law and he can build the fricking wall with the funds he finds that he has discretion over

---

Climate change national emergency incoming with next dem president

I would have upvoted you but I was on the PoliBoard 3 years ago.

Yes. Time and subject matter limitations make sense to me.

I think we need a wall (I don’t think you agree with me). I actually do agree with POTUS that the situation with the border is an emergency (in that it causes danger, and we have to act now).

I cannot see how this order is struck down by a court. Congress granted him the authority to do what he did. I think It’s dangerous bc the Supreme Court could interpret the statutory language in that statute exactly as it’s written that could make Global Warming a national emergency. That’s why I wish Trump had not done it.

Agree or disagree with Trump’s order it was perfectly legal and will be upheld.

If the GOPe were smart (which they aren’t) or honest about their intentions (which they aren’t either), they would focus on modifying the NEA to prevent a future problem, not on running to the nearest microphone to out Orange Man Bad each other.

quote:

---

ou don't need a veto override

---

Yes you do. You need 67 to overide.

quote:

---

Giving the POTUS veto power to override a legislative veto (which is retarded enough concept in and of itself) is about the most bassakwards way to go about curtailing Executive Authority. But then again. This is Congress. The only thing they are good at is removing accountability for themselves for everything.

---

Agreed. A well-written NEA would have allowed Congress to “veto” an Executive declaration with a simple majority of both houses.

But remember the context. They were attempting to CURTAIL still-broader powers that the Executive had claimed for itself over the preceding 50 years or so (since Wilson). It is entirely possible that there was opposition in Congress to removing powers from the Executive and that this version is all that they could pass.

The original NEA required just both chambers to pass a resolution. It was amended after Chadha

quote:

---

The only difference is I don’t find that funny at all. I find it petrifying. We live in a free country. But if these environmental terrorists take over only they will be able to travel.

---

It will be the republicans fault -- they can set the precedent here and now and stop this dead. Failure to do so is basically giving permission to do so going forward.

quote:

---

I cannot see how this order is struck down by a court. Congress granted him the authority to do what he did. I think It’s dangerous bc the Supreme Court could interpret the statutory language in that statute exactly as it’s written that could make Global Warming a national emergency. That’s why I wish Trump had not done it.

Agree or disagree with Trump’s order it was perfectly legal and will be upheld.

If the GOPe were smart (which they aren’t) or honest about their intentions (which they aren’t either), they would focus on modifying the NEA to prevent a future problem, not on running to the nearest microphone to out Orange Man Bad each other.

---

You are probably correct.

Congress needs to give a near-unanimous mea culpa that this is really bad legislation ... and fix it. That will not happen.

Boozy has probably raised the only feasible Constitutional challenge to the existing NEA.

This legislation is one small step short of handing the Executive a throne, crown and orb. That should frighten ANY reasonable person from EITHER side of the spectrum.

quote:

---

What about a separation of powers issue that allows a unilateral grab of legislative power by the executive and requires a supermajority of the legislature to grab the power back?

I think that’s the grounds the NEA may be challenged on.

---

I do think that’s the basis it will be challenged on, but I don’t think it will win.

Congress passed the law. The SCOTUS has found that it can delegate its legislative authority by statute. I don’t know how congress could constitutionally remove POTUS’s veto power by statute, which is essentially what you’re saying they should
have done.

Just because Congress wrote a dumb law, doesn’t mean it wrote an unconstitutional one.

See Hank above. They should have listened to him. The law is constitutional. The EO is legal. Not saying any of it doesn’t scare the shite out of me (and I think we need a wall on an emergency basis), but the only way to fix any of this for future POTUSes is to change the NEA in a manner similar to what Hank
Suggests.

quote:

---

they can set the precedent here and now and stop this dead

---

The only way to stop it is to change the NEA. Them making some point about how Trump is bad, doesn’t fix the danger.

What Trump did was perfectly legal and constitutional. There’s no way to stop it with the Courts. I guess enjoy your wall BMY. We can put some solar panels on it when Kamala is running things.

What would a national emergency on climate change look like? Building some fence at the border is a looooooong ways away from implementing single payer, banning air travel, and ordering private commercial property updated.