Yup. Hence the reason I stated they passed the act. To gain some control and to set an expiration. At the time one of the emergency acts from Roosevelt in 1933 was still in effect, there was no expiration, until 1976.
Trump: I could declare a national emergency to get border wall
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
Yup. Hence the reason I stated they passed the act. To gain some control and to set an expiration. At the time one of the emergency acts from Roosevelt in 1933 was still in effect, there was no expiration, until 1976.
evince
Truthmatters
The article is hyperbolic fear mongering. Congress can shut down a national emergency declaration in a matter of a few hours by passing a joint resolution. A president facing electoral defeat or impeachment is not going to have a compliant Congress that supports his actions.
A concurrent resolution. Congress really could not do much and certainly not end it quickly.
Concurrent resolution - A legislative measure, designated "S. Con. Res." and numbered consecutively upon introduction, generally employed to address the sentiments of both chambers, to deal with issues or matters affecting both houses, such as a concurrent budget resolution, or to create a temporary joint committee. Concurrent resolutions are not submitted to the president and thus do not have the force of law.
Jade Dragon
And I'm the one that jaded you.
Trump seems eager to bury the Republicans.
So you are clearly not a strict constructionist?
So you don’t believe he has that power? You are agreeing with me now?
LOL. As if you can make that claim! I haven't actually laughed out loud at a post for a long time.
As I stated, read the frickin' rulings and you will see why the SCOTUS recognizes this power. At this point you are the black knight with no legs and arms trying to tell me we'll call it a draw...
Despite the fact that presidents have claimed emergency powers in the past such action was not constitutional or lawful. Damocles is claiming presidential power is broader than what is granted the president by the constitution. A dangerous and bad path to go down. That creates a king not a limited constitutional officer.
No. You made a false blanket statement and I have shown it to be false. You are now the Black Knight saying, "It's just a flesh wound!"
BAM!
And here King Arthur is walking away from the Black Knight who has no legs and arms and he's shouting, "You yellow bastards! Come back here, I'll bite your legs off!"
So you are now agreeing with me? Your blanket statement was false, and such powers are the reason the National Emergency Powers Act was passed in 1976?
The president simply has no powers unless given to him by the Constitution. His powers are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, gaining in granted powers by declaring an emergency does not make such a thing Constitutional.
Congress could pass a law prohibiting pink elephants from flying on Tuesdays.... it does not change the fact that elephants can’t fly!
Congress can pass acts limiting the Presidents power to declare himself King, but it won’t change the fact that presidents don’t have that power.
Yet my exact argument got a "BAM!" from you when stated by Desh. Reality does not reflect your opinion on this matter, nor does current law. Your blanket statement was false. Simply, truly, factually, false. And for somebody like you who sees a "right to privacy" that allows for abortion in the Constitution your sudden strict constructionist argument has no value.