Trump: I could declare a national emergency to get border wall

[Jarod]

If you would like to study the issue further read the Opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court telling Abraham Lincoln he did not have the power to suspend Habeas Corpus.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...arte-merryman/

[Jarod]

and that's the kicker, we are getting a wall, Democrats have to know that.

So political posturing it is in the meantime, they are so done

At best, and I doubt you will get it, you are might get a small 5-10 mile section of steel fence.

[Getin the ring]

slowly but surely the entire border will have a barrier nearly impossible to breech, and a lot of that will be a wall.

take your medicine quickly, or the slow death that Queen Nancy is asking you to submit to.

[Jarod]

Chief Justice Taney...

"These great and fundamental laws, which Congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the Constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."

[Getin the ring]

Trump can do just about anything he wants to do on the issue of National Security, and certainly can divert monies to secure our borders without asking anyone if it is ok.

It's absurd to assert otherwise

[USFREEDOM911]

Since you refuse to identify any particular language that you claim gives the President "Emergency Powers", I will use some portions of your link.

First I will point out that you link is simply someone's article and opinion and that the FACTS presented in your link do not support your claim, only the opinion.

The First Paragraph:

"The President of the United States possesses certain powers to act in emergency situations." (opinion) "Though such “emergency power” is not specifically expressed in the Constitution," (FACT) the Executive Branch is designed to be able to act quickly in times of war or national emergency. Because emergency power is not specifically stated in the Constitution," (FACT) its scope is somewhat limited, typically extending only to situations that compromise or threaten the safety or well-being of the public." (OPINION) "To explore this concept, consider the following emergency power definition."


You see, Damocles has used an age old trick of combining fact with opinion to try to trick the reader into believing the opinion is fact. A true strict constructionist would see that those who have the opinion that the president has special "emergency powers" if he declares an emergency, are STRETCHING the Constitution beyond where the founders intended. Though history despots have used a hyped emergency to claim "emergency powers" and anoint themselves King. The founders knew this and protected us from that by refusing to grant the President of the United States the Constitutional power to grant himself additional authority by declaring an emergency.

I find it funny that, out of love for President Rump, people who consider themselves Strict Constructionists are willing to undermine this philosophy to extend this ideology to the despot Don Trump.

Yes, presidents have usurped "emergency powers" in the past, to do patiently unconstitutional things, like when Roosevelt imprisoned Asian Americans in prison camps. Promoting the idea that the President has this authority is dangerous and WRONG.

He argues that because Congress passed a bill limiting "emergency powers" is evidence that these powers exist, that is putting the cart before the horse. Congress can limit my power to cut myself a huge slice of cheese from the moon, it does not change that I never had that power in the first place.

Now, say I am wrong, for political reasons all you want, I am not wrong here.

The FACT remains that DAMOCLES cannot point to any portion of the CONSTITUTION that grants these mythical powers to the President. This was the intent of the founders for a very specific reason. To pretend otherwise is simply wrong.

Isn't odd that Jarod has completely ignored information that was provided in post #7:

The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress.

[Jarod]

It was Congress that gave the President the authority.

The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress.

I am happy to discuss this, and to make it clear, this is not what I was discussing with Damocles, this is Congress REMOVING certain powers they had allowed the President to take, not a Constitutional power to declare an emergency.

I found the entire Act, let me read it then I will discuss.

[USFREEDOM911]

I am happy to discuss this, and to make it clear, this is not what I was discussing with Damocles, this is Congress REMOVING certain powers they had allowed the President to take, not a Constitutional power to declare an emergency.

I found the entire Act, let me read it then I will discuss.

Your chance was back, closer to Post #7; because your continual ignoring of it, has predicated anyone believing you even know what you're talking about.

Now; add that to Damo continually trying to educate you and it makes your ignorance even more noticeable and pronounced.

[Jarod]

I am happy to discuss this, and to make it clear, this is not what I was discussing with Damocles, this is Congress REMOVING certain powers they had allowed the President to take, not a Constitutional power to declare an emergency.

I found the entire Act, let me read it then I will discuss.

SO, what you have here is Congress giving its powers to the President if he declares a National Emergency. This law has not been tested in the Courts. IS it Constitutionally permissible for Congress to delegate its Constitutional powers to the President?

This still does not give the President any more powers than the Congress is willing to give him, if it is Constitutional.

[Jarod]

Your chance was back, closer to Post #7; because your continual ignoring of it, has predicated anyone believing you even know what you're talking about.

Now; add that to Damo continually trying to educate you and it makes your ignorance even more noticeable and pronounced.

You are free to pretend that, or you can engage in an educated discussion of the issue.

[Jarod]

There is no such thing as emergency powers of the president.

I admit I was wrong here, in that Congress has created something called "emergency powers of the president", and in limited circumstances has attempted cede certain powers to the President. If the Supreme Court were to agree that such action is Constitutional, then the president would have Emergency Powers limited to acts that would be Constitutional but only if Congress were to have had the Constitutional power to have done them itself.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

This is uninformed. The polls were in each state where an election was held, including the ones where Trump gained the electoral votes, and those were wrong. Simply saying that because in California so many people voted for Hillary it means the polls were right just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the other 49 elections that were held that day and how polls are conducted.

Actually, it seems to be you that is showing a misunderstanding of polls. The majority of polls published by media outlets are not per state but are based on national polling.
The state polls occur less often and have a higher margin of error.

That being said let's look at the polling in the battleground states:
The final Pennsylvania poll shows Trump with a 1 point lead. He won by .7
The conglomerate of final Florida polls show Trump with a .2 point lead. He won by 1.2
The final poll in Michigan shows Trump with a 2 point lead. He won by .3
The final poll in Ohio shows Trump with a 7 point lead. He won by 8.1
Wisconsin didn't have any polling in the final week of the election. Earlier polling showed Clinton with a 5 point lead. She lost by .7
The last Iowa poll shows Trump leading by 7. He won by 9.5

The state polls weren't any more wrong than the national polling. What the state polls show is a swing to Trump in the last week. It wasn't that state polls were wrong. It's that no one paid attention to them because the national polling still showed Clinton with a lead.

[Jarod]

Actually, it seems to be you that is showing a misunderstanding of polls. The majority of polls published by media outlets are not per state but are based on national polling.
The state polls occur less often and have a higher margin of error.

That being said let's look at the polling in the battleground states:
The final Pennsylvania poll shows Trump with a 1 point lead. He won by .7
The conglomerate of final Florida polls show Trump with a .2 point lead. He won by 1.2
The final poll in Michigan shows Trump with a 2 point lead. He won by .3
The final poll in Ohio shows Trump with a 7 point lead. He won by 8.1
Wisconsin didn't have any polling in the final week of the election. Earlier polling showed Clinton with a 5 point lead. She lost by .7
The last Iowa poll shows Trump leading by 7. He won by 9.5

The state polls weren't any more wrong than the national polling. What the state polls show is a swing to Trump in the last week. It wasn't that state polls were wrong. It's that no one paid attention to them because the national polling still showed Clinton with a lead.

This is absolutely true. The polling was actually VERY accurate, but three things happened. Commentators and public opinion did not keep up with the rapid shift after the Comey "re-opening" of the investigation into HRC's emails during the final week. The Media made assumptions that were not supported based on the Margin of Error in the polls and finally Trump pulled out a 1 out of 10 chance. Just because a 1 out of ten happens, does not mean it was wrong that it was a 1 out of 10.

[Oneuli]

https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/trump-...t-border-wall/


Heads are exploding everywhere in Washington today. Good times.

Even Republicans would be wise to oppose such an unprecedented take on presidential emergency powers. Once you allow the president to pretend a non-emergency is an emergency, in order to embezzle funds from our defense budget for personal pet projects, the precedent has been set that gives us a much more dictatorial presidency, which Republicans aren't going to like when it's a Democrat. For example, what's to prevent, say, President Elizabeth Warren from getting frustrated by a refusal of Republican senators to allow appropriations for a green energy project, and so she just declares Global Warming a national emergency and sets the military to work building solar farms, acting as mass transit services in our cities, sorting recyclables, building high speed rail, and so on? Or maybe it's our growing wealth inequality that's a national emergency, and so she orders the military to provide various welfare services to the poor, like childcare. Or healthcare is the national emergency, and since Congress won't appropriate funding for the new health services she'd like to see, she orders VA facilities and military-base clinics to open their doors to the indigent.

Do conservatives really want to go down this path?

[Bourbon]