- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Senate can’t veto Emergency Declaration but which R’s will oppose?
Posted on 2/16/19 at 12:53 pm to DallasTiger11
Posted on 2/16/19 at 12:53 pm to DallasTiger11
quote:
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.
Look. I agree with the Wall. I think as Commander in Chief, POTUS can order the military to build anything he wants. POTUS also has access to a budget and money for the military. So. I think (and hope) his authority (when affirmed by SCOTUS bc I think it will be) is interpreted narrowly and under those terms.
That said. The NEA seems to place no limitations on what a President declares as an emergency. A bad problem can be deemed an emergency and thus the POTUS can make rules instead of the legislature.
Terrifying examples from your examples:
1. Banning the sale of private health insurance to combat skyrocketing premiums endangering health.
2. Banning the manufacture of the combustion engine to combat global warming, our WWII.
3. Writing a set of rules covering buildings making sure that they are environmental, and if they aren’t, the EPA Police will go and tear them down, to combat global warming, which will end the world in 12 years.
fricking. Scary.
3
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:00 pm to Wednesday
quote:This is where tribalism MUST be set aside for the good of the country. Whether you WANT a Wall or not. Whether you WANT to outlaw internal combustion or not. Etcetera.
Look. I agree with the Wall. I think as Commander in Chief, POTUS can order the military to build anything he wants. POTUS also has access to a budget and money for the military. So. I think (and hope) his authority (when affirmed by SCOTUS bc I think it will be) is interpreted narrowly and under those terms.
That said. The NEA seems to place no limitations on what a President declares as an emergency. A bad problem can be deemed an emergency and thus the POTUS can make rules instead of the legislature.
...
fricking. Scary.
Handing to the executive a pragmatically-unfettered power to chant the magic word “emergency” and then do essentially anything he wants ... with the support of a mere 1/3 of Congress ... should scare the shite out of anyone with a brain. Without invoking Godwin, we have historical precedent to show us where that road can lead.
Sure, it happens that this POTUS is Trump, but it COULD have been Obama, and it MIGHT be Bernie (or a clone) in the future.
Congress needs to sack-up and override this thing as PART of a package to amend the NEA in such a way as to prevent this sort of action (from an Executive on either side) in the future.
This post was edited on 2/16/19 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:00 pm to Wednesday
quote:
I think as Commander in Chief, POTUS can order the military to build anything he wants. POTUS also has access to a budget and money for the military. So. I think (and hope) his authority (when affirmed by SCOTUS bc I think it will be) is interpreted narrowly and under those terms.
Posse comitatus. The wall is not needed for military reasons. No one is suggesting Mexican tanks will be rolling across the border anytime soon.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:02 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Handing to the executive a pragmatically-unfettered power to chant the magic word “emergency” and then do essentially anything he wants ... with the support of a mere 1/3 of Congress ... should scare the shite out of anyone with a brain. Without invoking Godwin, we have historical precedent to show us where that road can lead.
Well, he can’t just utter emergency and do whatever he wants. It has to be something enumerated in the act. I agree, though. Congress should work on fixing their past mistake of delegating authority.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:03 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Posse comitatus. The wall is not needed for military reasons. No one is suggesting Mexican tanks will be rolling across the border anytime soon.
I like the enthusiasm...but I don’t think it flies. You think that will be the argument to he court?
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:03 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Well, he can’t just utter emergency and do whatever he wants. It has to be something enumerated in the act.
You keep saying this but I don’t see anything enumerated in the NEA itself. You linked me to something else that referenced the NEA, but I do not see a definition of “national emergency” anywhere in the NEA.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:04 pm to boosiebadazz
To be fair, we are in this situation because democrat house members wouldn’t appropriate .01% of the budget to border security because they argued it wasn’t “fiscally responsible”.
That to me is the most hilarious thing about this entire ordeal
That to me is the most hilarious thing about this entire ordeal
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:04 pm to BBONDS25
If the argument of the Administration is that he is CoC and can order the military to do whatever he wants then I think that’s the counter.
I think separation of powers is where the real challenge is. Go back and read the thread. Good discussion so far
I think separation of powers is where the real challenge is. Go back and read the thread. Good discussion so far
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:04 pm to boosiebadazz
The NEA requires a separate code section which specifically invokes the act.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:05 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Posse comitatus. The wall is not needed for military reasons. No one is suggesting Mexican tanks will be rolling across the border anytime soon.
We definitely disagree on that point.
I see no difference btwn criminal cartels (that are probably using the lack of barrier to smuggle drugs and engage in human trafficking) and terrorist organizations.
Further, ensuring an orderly flow of foreigners into and out of our country is a national security issue.
Wall is a tool military can use to solve both problems.
If the army can Dredge a freaking ship channel to control the flow of international travel and commerce- I don’t see
how building a structure to funnel traffic to discrete points of entry - is any damn different.
This post was edited on 2/16/19 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:05 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:NEA does NOT define the term. A POTUS can thus assert that ANYTHING is an “emergency” and act accordingly.quote:You keep saying this but I don’t see anything enumerated in the NEA itself. You linked me to something else that referenced the NEA, but I do not see a definition of “national emergency” anywhere in the NEA.
Well, he can’t just utter emergency and do whatever he wants. It has to be something enumerated in the act.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
NEA does NOT define the term. A POTUS can thus assert that ANYTHING is an “emergency” and act accordingly.
Not true. They must cite another code section that specifically invoked the act.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:07 pm to BBONDS25
Link me to that. That may be important down the road
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
This is where tribalism MUST be set aside for the good of the country. Whether you WANT a Wall or not. Whether you WANT to outlaw internal combustion or not. Etcetera.
So true Hank. So freaking true.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:10 pm to BBONDS25
My post from an earlier thread:
quote:Differing opinions about “good policy” is NOT a farking EMERGENCY. Differing opinions about “good policy” is the reason the damned Congress EXISTS.quote:And about 90% of them do NOT deal with "emergencies" and should have been subject to the normal legislative process.
There are 31 presidential emergency declarations still in effect
Believe it or not, the National Emergencies Act of 1976 was an initial effort to CURTAIL presidential power to declare and maintain states of "emergency." There was near-consensus that Presidents had been abusing that power.
Congress needs to take a hard look at the NEA as it now exists and (IMHO) tighten the restrictions upon presidential power.
How?
For a start, the power to declare an "Emergency" might be limited to specific short-term scenarios (e.g. foreign attack) that CANNOT be addressed by Congressional action. As an example, the sale of "conflict" diamonds from Sierra Leone is NOT an "emergency," despite Bush-43's declaration to the contrary. If we have a problem with those sales, Congress can pass legislation.
Presidential declarations might be limited to VERY short term periods, absent legislative approval ... rather like a judicial Temporary Restraining Order (e.g. 14 day limit). If it is an ACTUAL "emergency," Congress can get the lead out. IF they do not do so, it probably was not ACTUALLY an "emergency."
Declarations might be subject to an absolute limit on length of time during which they can have effect (e.g. 60- or 90-day limits).
The very idea of using (definitionally short-term) "emergency" powers to implement PERMANENT solutions (whether a border wall or some equally-crazy gun control measure) is antithetical to the concept of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch.
This post was edited on 2/16/19 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:17 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:I too would like to see the authority for this assertion.quote:Link me to that. That may be important down the roadquote:Not true. They must cite another code section that specifically invoked the act.
NEA does NOT define the term. A POTUS can thus assert that ANYTHING is an “emergency” and act accordingly.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:27 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Boozy and Hank often have similar views. Barry and Wednesday often have similar views.
Go back and read the thread. Good discussion so far
And we have had a civil discussion on a substantive topic.
I like it.
Psssst. Barry, where as that link? I want to read-up on the topic.
This post was edited on 2/16/19 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:38 pm to Wednesday
quote:
fricking. Scary.
Agreed but I’m still saying all of that is a long ways away from border fencing.
I don’t think this SCOTUS is going to let that happen even if they let Trump pull this off. It will be a very narrow decision. I still think there’s a solid chance they strike Trump down but I admittedly don’t know enough to have a conclusion.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:38 pm to AggieHank86
I can look it up when I get home. But if you want to look, read trumps declaration. In it he cites 10 USC...something. That is the military construction code section. It specifically invokes the NEA.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 1:41 pm to TOKEN
47+9=56
11 short
If it needs to be Veto proof. I don’t know the procedure
11 short
If it needs to be Veto proof. I don’t know the procedure
This post was edited on 2/16/19 at 1:43 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News