Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

Trump vs Property Rights

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Fakenews said:
17 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

emergency.jpg

Yeah he just fucked himself there. National emergencies are either a national emergency or not. They are binary not conditional.


The thing about that is,

On 1/25/2019 at 7:33 AM, dogballs Tom said:

The Great Depression was an emergency sorta like our war with Mexico.
From the above article:

Quote

 

The seizures were made possible by a piece of paper called a Declaration of Taking.

The Taking Act was passed by Congress during the Great Depression to help stimulate the economy. It was designed as an alternative to traditional, slow-moving eminent domain lawsuits. The idea was to expedite land seizures, allowing the federal government to quickly build public works projects and generate new jobs.

By using a so-called quick-take, a federal agency gained title to a person’s property on the same day it filed a declaration of taking in court. The bulldozers could roll as soon as a judge approved an order to possess the land. The landowner was almost powerless to stop the process.

To balance this muscular exercise of sovereign power, the law required the government to immediately deposit a check with the court to pay the landholder. The amount was supposed to be the fair market value, the amount that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller. The landowner could take the money, but also could try to convince the government to pay more — a process that could take years.

 

Gee, I wonder why Justin Amash is the only congresscritter who thinks talking price should happen at the time of the taking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham Is Ready On The PANIC Button
 

Quote

 

...

“Come February the 15th, if the Democrats still say: ‘Go to hell on the wall, you get a dollar, that’s it.’ They basically tell Trump, ‘I’m not going to do with you what I did with Bush and Obama,’ then I hope he will go the emergency route,” he told Fox News.

...

"To my Democratic friends, you've voted for wall funding [in the past]," he pointed out....

 

It was fence funding back then, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 7:28 PM, Contumacious Tom said:
 
Quote

 

...According to options being considered, the administration could pull: $681 million from Treasury forfeiture funds, $3.6 billion in military construction, $3 billion in Pentagon civil works funds, and $200 million in Department of Homeland Security funds, the official said.
 
As lawmakers discussed a short-term measure to fund the government Thursday, Trump again raised the prospect of other ways to fund a border wall without congressional approval.
 
"I have other alternatives if I have to and I'll use those alternatives if I have to," he told reporters.
 
"A lot of people who wants this to happen. The military wants this to happen. This is a virtual invasion of our country," Trump said.
 
The Defense Department referred a request for comment from CNN to the White House.

 

That will get interesting. The military pork is one thing but grabby hands that go after the drug war loot are likely to get slapped and I think the DHS money he's contemplating grabbing is hurricane relief money. Not sure how they are in TX, but after a year or so without air conditioning, storm victims here get kinda crabby.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 7:33 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Opines NR's David French:


 

Quote

 

...even if you can credibly argue that a national emergency exists, and that the emergency may actually require the use of military assets, how do Trump’s defenders argue that the construction of his wall is actually already “authorized”? Easy, they say. Congress passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006, and it authorizes the construction of fencing on defined sections southern border.

But wait. That project is almost entirely complete. The original act required specific fencing, but when DHS complained that different parts of the border required different kinds of barriers, Congress amended the act to merely require DHS to erect fencing, physical barriers, or “roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors” in specific areas along the Mexican border. By 2011, DHS declared that it had finished 649 out of the planned 652 miles of fences and other barriers. In other words, the construction project — as defined by the statute — was more than 99 percent complete.

Some Trump defenders also point to 10 U.S.C. Section 284, an act that provides for limited Department of Defense support for counter-drug activities (in general, U.S. troops are barred from participating in domestic law enforcement). The act allows the Pentagon, upon the request of the appropriate public official, to support the “construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.” (Emphasis added.)

Critically, legal points of entry represent the primary drug-smuggling corridor into the United States. It would be curious indeed to deem “authorized” the construction of hundreds of miles of fence in the absence of proof that the specific construction site addresses a known drug corridor. Is the argument now that the entire border is a drug-smuggling corridor? Or that a president can simply declare that it is, and woe unto any court that dares second-guess his assertion?

Finally, the legal argument in support of the notion that constructing a border wall is “essential to the national defense” boils down primarily to the naked assertion that, well, courts won’t dare question the president. But words still have meaning. We are not in a state of declared war with Mexico. There is no invading army. Illegal-immigrant crime, as tragic as it is, isn’t an act of war. It would be strange indeed to argue that a border fence with an allied country is “essential to the national defense” when the border-security mission by statute isn’t even a military mission.

Can we be honest about these arguments? Vanishingly few people in good faith believe that any of the statutes above were intended to empower the construction of Trump’s promised new wall. It’s a strain to argue that they even encompass upgrades to existing walls. Not even the Trump administration believes they were intended to empower the president to build the wall. Has Trump previously sought appropriation from Congress as a mere matter of professional courtesy?

No, this is an attempted abuse of the constitutional order that is justified mainly by the existence of previous successful abuses of the constitutional order. Each abuse builds on the next; hypocrisy builds on hypocrisy. The only clear winner is the imperial presidency. The loser is our constitutional republic. And each Trump fan cheering his raw power grab will be a furious partisan when the next Democratic president builds on Trump’s abuse.

Congratulations, partisans. You claim you’re saving our country. In reality, you’re wrecking our constitution

 

I'm glad there are some who won't excuse or ignore every Trump power grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

WallO.jpg

Yep, a big ol' bipartisan thumbs up back then.

Americans are right to demand just compensation when private property is taken for public use.

And some are still in court demanding it from that land (oops, water too) grab over a decade ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 9:59 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

From another thread...

12 hours ago, d'ranger said:

The previous border work has been done by actual planning.

That's just the punchline that article needed! Hilarious! Thanks, D!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2019 at 6:38 AM, Contumacious Tom said:
On 1/10/2019 at 12:40 PM, Olsonist said:
On 1/10/2019 at 11:54 AM, Grrr... said:

Thanks for doing the legwork.  My initial reaction was "why are we talking about Obama?  It has nothing to do with what's going on...."  I thought it was probably just one more of those what-about-isms being thrown in to try and make Trump's actions look acceptable.

No, I read the wrong link. For some reason, I fat finger clicked on the first link in Tom's cite and thought that was the article. Similar, not same. My bad on that. But still, Dogballs is whatabouting to excuse his boy Shitstain.

Hey Grrr,

What do you think about the veracity of the bolded bit above?

Can he fool you twice?

I guess Grrr doesn't have an opinion.

Mine is that this was a thin excuse on January 6th but anyone who actually read the article would not be saying stuff like that on January 10th. Well, anyone honest at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 7:53 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Trump vs Property Rights

The article goes on to detail how Trump has been as bad for property owners as Obama was on a few eminent domain takings issues and is notably worse in two ways: this "military version" idea and restoring asset forfeiture abuses that had been curtailed by Obama.

(Sorry for the outburst of Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda once again.)

Uh oh. I'm starting to see the pattern that wiser people like Olsonist and Steam Flyer identified so easily.

From the same author:

The Ongoing Gratuitous Cruelty of Trump's Travel Ban

Wow. When will these Koch-$pon$ored propagandists finally STOP supporting Trump???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 5:06 AM, Contumacious Tom said:
On 1/9/2019 at 5:27 PM, Bent Sailor said:
On 1/9/2019 at 1:23 PM, Olsonist said:

Tom and our other Fakebertarians will be along shortly to beam about how resolute Shitstain is in addressing a clear and present danger. Jeff will remind us that at least we don't have Hillary who the Democrats shouldn't have nominated before running off to a gun thread. Guy will be concerned but cautiously optimistic.

OK, that's funny. :lol:


Why did you strike through my name in Olsonist's lie?

On 1/13/2019 at 8:22 AM, Bent Sailor said:

Because the only reason you're asking is to make a nuisance of yourself. I've found, during my life in a big family and raising one, that the only long-term way to stay sane with such behaviour is not to play the game the attention-seeking brat wishes to play. If you actually disagree with my correction, tough cookies.

I actually agree. If that bothers you, tough cookies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

 I actually agree. If that bothers you, tough cookies.

It doesn't. I don't tend to make posts that bother me. Nor do I hassle people about posts I agree with. Your compulsion to seek argument, no matter what is said, is what is what "bothers" people enough that they'll cheer on the special treatment of your catch-phrase. One day you'll be man enough to own that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Olsonist said:

The Greens and the Libertarians are small enough parties that a little bit of money spent in the right places can completely control the outcome. Hence you get a Jill Stein or a Bob Barr. Both parties have histories of vanity candidates. Cynthia McKinney, Ron Paul, David Koch, ...


You're the expert. In much the same way people should go to me to learn all about TeamD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the wall thread:

18 hours ago, Dog said:

"Unable to nudge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., any closer to approving funding for a border wall, President Trump can move on his own without declaring a national emergency, according to a nonpartisan congressional report".

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-trump-can-build-wall-without-declaring-emergency

Hmm...

Quote

One allows the Pentagon to fund a construction project not previously approved by Congress if national security is at stake. Another lets the Pentagon work with civilian authorities to fight drugs.


Gee, who might have thought that the drug war and the security state provide Unitary Executive authority to do most anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An article that Miscut posted in the Davos thread led me to this.

 

Quote

Xi‘s concern with culture, and further attempts to defend and strengthen national cultural unity through "revival" (fuxing), is significant, but it is not new (Rao, 2014; Lam, 2016). This article narrates the history of cultural securitization — that is, the elevation of culture, as a policy issue, to the status of a vital element of national security — starting in the mid-1990s...

Fuxing is a great word with lots of potential.

I wonder if Trump and Xi are so different?

"These immigrants are a threat to our culture to the point that it's a national emergency."

Likely Trump quote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This landed in the wrong thread to talk about my cheerleading for Trump.

7 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Tom will be along anytime now to tell us that at least we don't have Hillary.

On 11/19/2018 at 8:57 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Makes me wonder how he should be graded? For examples, he's been pretty effective at fucking with immigrants and foreign trade, things he campaigned with promises to do. Stupid things, IMO. So do I give him a B for effectiveness at campaign goals or an F for stupidity?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington Po$t on the brewing emergency

Quote

 

...

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a top McConnell confidant, said this week that he opposes an emergency declaration, in part because of what it might embolden a future Democratic president to do.

“We’ve certainly tried to communicate that to him,” said Cornyn, referring to Trump. “And so, he understands our concerns as we’ve expressed them. But I don’t know if he shares those same concerns.”

Other Republican senators took a different view. “President Trump proposed logical solutions,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). “If the Democrats won’t negotiate with him because their judgment is clouded by their pure hatred of him, then the president needs to move forward.”

Lawmakers of both parties expect that a national emergency declaration would be immediately challenged in court and would end up languishing in legal proceedings without producing quick action on the border wall that Trump long vowed Mexico would fund.

And a growing concern for Republicans — which McConnell voiced to Trump at the White House — is that they would be forced to vote on a disapproval resolution aimed at overturning the declaration, and that the resolution would pass.

That would take place under provisions of the National Emergencies Act, which provides that a presidential declaration can be terminated if lawmakers pass a joint resolution to do so. House Democrats would be likely to move swiftly to approve such a resolution, and the law provides that it would come to the Senate floor, where it would require only a majority vote to pass.

At least a half-dozen Republican senators are fiercely opposed to the idea of an emergency declaration, generating enough opposition that a disapproval resolution could pass the Senate with the support of the 47 Democrats and a handful of GOP senators — the scenario about which McConnell warned Trump. Republicans expect that Trump would veto the resolution, and that the House and Senate would not be likely to muster the supermajority vote needed to override his veto.

A disapproval resolution on a presidential emergency declaration is rare, so exactly how the process would play out is uncertain. But it could expose new rifts within the GOP on Trump’s signature issue of a border wall, creating a portrait of disunity that most Republicans would like to avoid.

...

 

Sounds like Sen Coryn might know the history of the Taking Act.

Sen Skeletor is just wrong. Nancy will negotiate with anyone, including those she hates, to advance her interests and those of her Team. She and her Team have no interest in a stupid wall. Active disinterest, actually, which I share.

The article says that disapproval of emergency powers is rare. I've never heard of it at all. I'd kind of like to see it happen just because "it's an emergency" always seems to be the magic key to more power. I'd like to see the key not work just once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Olsonist, in all that legwork, you missed some more Trump cheerleading in the thread where you got the quote above. Let me help:

On 11/19/2018 at 6:42 PM, Contumacious Tom said:
On 11/19/2018 at 3:00 PM, Bus Driver said:

The wall is going to be a boondoggle that will only add to our debt.  I would say that is a bad thing for our country.

...

I agree about the wall but it's really not a lot of money. We can and do waste that amount pretty routinely. Not that more waste is good, just that there are better reasons to oppose it.

1. Humans go over, under, and through unattended walls in remote areas, so it won't work.

2. Speaking of rain, water and critters do not do as well as humans at the above. The thing's an environmental catastrophe in places already where we have walls and fences and more would be worse.

3. Walls like that do repel some immigrants. The kind you want, in my view.


Definitely 3 things any Trumpista would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 4:48 AM, Contumacious Tom said:
On 1/6/2019 at 8:47 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Considering that before he was President, Trump had a long history of ripping off other people, I don't think I'd bet against him taking citizens' property when it occurs to him.

-DSK

Yeah, there was no way of predicting that result back in 2015. Almost. One could read the Kelo thread, but one probably wouldn't.

On 8/26/2015 at 3:02 AM, dogballs Tom said:

The Donald on Kelo vs New London

 

Quote
In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.

 


Amazing that the poster boy for crony capitalism is somehow seen as a person who won't use government to screw people.

 

Doing a little more legwork over in the Kelo thread in support of the Steam/Olsonist notion that I'm a Trump apologist. Because it's funny to me.

On 5/15/2016 at 6:15 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

CA Assembly Bill 2492 the "Donald Trump 'Wonderful' Land Grab Bill."

 

Quote

...

That's a reference to Trump's interview with Fox News last October, in which he said, "I think eminent domain is wonderful—if you're building a highway and you need to build, as an example, a highway and you're going to be blocked by a holdout... and you need a house in a certain location because you're going to build this massive development that's going to employ thousands of people."

 

Yes, the Constitution allows eminent domain for some limited and genuinely public uses, such as building a highway. But the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision in 2005 deemed it acceptable for government to take property not just for public "use," but for public "benefit," which is a disturbingly open-ended concept.

 

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process... As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."

 

Trump now has other things on his mind than seizing the property of little people who stand in the way of his developments. But the Democratic Legislature ought to think twice before passing something that empowers people like him.

 

 

Ought to, but won't. It's darn difficult to get a Democrat to admit that the conservative minority actually got this case right.


Wonderful. Just wonderful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The parts that were already funded have an excavator on site.
 

Quote

 

The U.S. government is preparing to begin construction of more border walls and fencing in South Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, likely on federally owned land set aside as wildlife refuge property.

...

Maps released by CBP show construction would cut through the butterfly center, a nearby state park, and a century-old Catholic chapel next to the river.

Many landowners oppose a border wall and have vowed to fight the U.S. government if it tries to seize their property through eminent domain. Court fights over condemning land could take weeks if not months.

 

That last part is not true. What takes weeks, months, years, or over a decade, is the fight over the price of the land that was seized.

That fight will not delay the actual taking of the property unless Justin Amash gets his way. With no cosponsors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting take on the big wall emergency from the Drip thread:

On 2/5/2019 at 4:24 PM, saxdog said:

The Shrunken State of Donald Trump’s Presidency

 One of the few areas where Trump has stood firm is in his demand for funding for a wall on the border with Mexico. But, with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats blocking his way despite a five-week partial government shutdown, his insistence on the wall has only highlighted his larger predicament. Yes, he could still try to go around Congress by declaring a national emergency. “But that would just show everyone in Washington how weak he is,” Glassman said. “He can’t persuade anyone in D.C. to go along with him, so he has to resort to these autocratic powers.” 

Perhaps, but a President who declared a crisis can also gain cheerleaders. Lindsey is trying on his uniform.

Also,

On 1/7/2019 at 7:00 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

The "military version" of eminent domain is the declaration of a National Emergency.

We have lots of them, the oldest one on that list has been ongoing since the 70's and many date to the 90's.

Maybe a wall emergency would be different but we seem to have a pretty high tolerance for sustained PANIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never noticed it before but a wise one pointed out that people who own land in Texas are a LOT like slave owners. And boat owners.

18 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Yeah, that's what the slave owners said around the civil war,  "but   ... But . . .but . . . they are my PROPERTY !!" 

And lots of them demanded compensation for the loss of the slaves, while refusing the compensate the former slaves for centuries of forced labor. 

...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bless his heart; LIndsay is fending off those savage primary challengers from the Tea Party .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emergency Couch Cushion Search
 

Quote

 

Mr. Mulvaney said Mr. Trump will wait for Congress’ offer and then figure out how to cobble together the funds he needs to build the wall he promised voters in 2016.

“This is going to get built with or without Congress,” said Mr. Mulvaney, who is serving in an interim capacity.

Mr. Trump has floated the idea of going it alone by declaring an emergency at the southern border to build the wall. Congressional Republicans are skittish about that idea, saying it would set a broad precedent for presidential powers.

Mr. Mulvaney said Mr. Trump also might also search the couch cushions for federal dollars and reprogram them toward the wall.

 

The bolded part would be more accurate this way:

Congressional Republicans are skittish about that idea, saying it would further reinforce the broad precedents for presidential powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019 at 5:10 PM, saxdog said:

Bless his heart; LIndsay is fending off those savage primary challengers from the Tea Party .

 

I bet he's a beast in a pillow fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inquiring minds want to know how Senator Graham stands without a backbone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saxdog said:

Inquiring minds want to know how Senator Graham stands without a backbone

I decided to see if Google knows. This was the top search result:

 

Quote

 

Nov 2, 2018 - Once a fierce critic of President Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham is his close ally. ... Senator Lindsey Graham took photos with fans after speaking at a .... But perhaps nothing has cemented Mr. Graham's standing in Mr.
Missing: backbone ‎| ‎Must include: ‎backbone

 

 
So they're apparently aware that the backbone is missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'm going to love a Democrat national emergency for climate change & gun control.


Duopoly types always love a new precedent that allows the abuse of power with just a "whatabout the other Team doing it" for an excuse.

Your reaction is exactly why a few sane people are opposing Trump's "military version of eminent domain."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, d'ranger said:

So Trump is going to declare a national emergency. Pelosi replies - just realize that the next Democratic President can declare guns, climate change and health care are national emergencies.  Don't fuck with Nancy

I was seeing warnings that this would happen from libertarians, including in articles linked in this thread.

Nice to see it out in the open now.

Yes, if one half of the Duopoly abuses power, the other half will jump right in to abuse it too instead of reining in the abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 3:41 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

The article says that disapproval of emergency powers is rare. I've never heard of it at all. I'd kind of like to see it happen just because "it's an emergency" always seems to be the magic key to more power. I'd like to see the key not work just once.

This article suggests I'll have to keep waiting.
 

Quote

 

does the situation at the border really require military intervention, and thus warrant a national emergency declaration allowing Trump to bypass Congress and build the wall? Short answer: no.

"There is absolutely and without question no crisis at our southern border," Kristie De Peña, director of immigration and senior counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Reason last month. Politicians should "stop framing this as if it's some sort of national security crisis," she added.

Peña also points to the fact that net migration flows to the U.S. are going down. As Reason's Shikha Dalmia explained in January, net migration flows between the U.S. and Mexico have actually reversed in recent years, meaning more Mexicans are attempting to leave the U.S. than are attempting to enter.

"The facts could not possibly justify a state of emergency declaration," said Bier, who noted that Border Patrol agents are actually apprehending less people now than they were in the early 2000s. "I cannot imagine what case the president could make that the challenges this administration faces are unique or unprecedented."

But just because Trump shouldn't declare a national emergency doesn't mean he's legally in the wrong. "It will probably hold up in court," Peña said of Trump's declaration. "There's a strong case to be made that presidents need to have the authority to declare a national emergency. And that's been upheld in court a number of times."

Bier expressed similar sentiments, predicting that just as the Supreme Court upheld Trump's travel ban on a handful of largely Muslim-majority countries, it will uphold his use of a national emergency declaration to secure border wall funds.

Bier put it bluntly: "My belief is that the president can get away with doing almost anything he wants in the name of national security."

 

And the reason each half of the Duopoly tolerates this kind of thing from the other half is laid out in the two previous posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nancy Threatens TeamD Abuse Of Emergency Powers

Quote

 

She also brandished the threat a future Democratic president could use the same tactic of Trump moves forward 

'I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say. Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,' she said.

'You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,' Pelosi said, referencing the one-year anniversary of the Parkland, Florida school shooting.

'That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that. [A] Democratic president can declare emergencies as well,' she threatened. 

 

 

My take is that the School Shootings That Weren't are as much of an imagined threat conjured to grab power as the "murderers and rapists" that Mexico "sends" our way.

Also that banning and confiscating my squirrel shooter will be about as effective as the stupid wall at stopping the imaginary threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Very interesting observation by a Republican about the Orange one declaring a state of emergency.

’ In a statement, Republican congressman Chris Stewart said the President was “making a mistake”, warning the national emergency would “set a dangerous precedent”.  “I think President Trump is making a mistake by declaring a national emergency in order to increase border funding. Whether the President has the authority or not, it sets a dangerous precedent and places America on a path that we will regret,” Mr Stewart said.  “It deeply worries me that a future Democratic president may consider gun violence or climate change a ‘national emergency’ and what actions they may then take.’

Yep. Fuck the wall if it could lead to loseing your guns. 


No, fuck both, and a whole lot of other big government stupidity too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
22 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

Did you shit yourself? I'll be angry too if I were you. :lol: 

Nope. I expected it. I also expected the silence from the  so-called small government folks that we've heard since. 


It's not all that often I agree with Bent Sailor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The original New Deal and the WPA did not break our democracy, and certainly did not jeopardize it the way Trump and his merry oligarchs are.


But they set a useful precedent for Trump, just as Trump is doing for future TeamD Presidents now. It was mentioned above:

On 1/25/2019 at 7:33 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

The Great Depression was an emergency sorta like our war with Mexico.
From the above article:

Quote

 

The seizures were made possible by a piece of paper called a Declaration of Taking.

The Taking Act was passed by Congress during the Great Depression to help stimulate the economy. It was designed as an alternative to traditional, slow-moving eminent domain lawsuits. The idea was to expedite land seizures, allowing the federal government to quickly build public works projects and generate new jobs.

Funny how people who want to grab land are attracted to alternatives to the traditional process, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We gave Trump power over everything electrical in 1934

It was a NEW DEAL!
 

Quote

 

But the communication between Early and Fly on December 11, 1941, remains significant in the history of American media regulation. It's the closest we came to the implementation of Section 606 and a government takeover of America's electronic communications system. Section 606 remains in effect today, because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 incorporated substantial sections of the original 1934 Communications Act.

Now that President Donald Trump is declaring yet another national emergency, it's important to reconsider Section 606. Most Americans have no idea that these emergency declarations permit such sweeping powers over our way of life. Upon declaration of a national emergency, Trump can commandeer every single television and radio station in the United States and demand that it perform as he directs.

That's bad enough. But wait: There's more!

The law permits the White House to take over any device that emits radiofrequency transmissions. In 2019, that's everything from your implanted heart device to the blow dryer for your hair. It includes your electric exercise equipment, any smart device (such as a digital washing machine), and your laptop—basically everything in your house that has electricity running through it.

We tend to think of the FCC as the policeman of the airwaves: issuing licenses, fining stations for airing indecent words, and otherwise regulating radio and TV broadcasters. But its mandate is far broader. The FCC regulates all devices that can transmit electricity. Even the light switches in your home are regulated by the FCC, as they transmit tiny amounts of electricity in the course of operation. Though the danger to the public is minimal, the FCC regulates basically everything using electricity in your house.

Household electric devices usually fall into one of two lightly regulated categories: "incidental radiators" or "unintentional radiators." Your cell phone, the transmission tower of a radio station, and even your Bluetooth device are intended to radiate electricity, so they therefore fall into a more regulated category: "intentional radiators."

 

Speaking of which, the "pre-FCC" intentional radiator of Sirius Satellite Radio in the Golf Cart of Doom has died.

They live a few years. I can't find any "New In Box" ones left over from 2006 any more. Only the wimpy later ones that don't broadcast the signal far enough for my purposes.

These were banned because people were unintentionally transmitting the Howard Stern Show into neighboring cars, some containing young kids. I can see the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 12:17 PM, Olsonist said:
On 1/6/2019 at 7:53 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Trump vs Property Rights

The article goes on to detail how Trump has been as bad for property owners as Obama was on a few eminent domain takings issues and is notably worse in two ways: this "military version" idea and restoring asset forfeiture abuses that had been curtailed by Obama.

(Sorry for the outburst of Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda once again.)

Actually, the article doesn't even mention Obama, even indirectly. That's just Dogballs imagination.

(Sorry for actually reading the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda but then someone had to.)

More Trump Cheerleading from the same author

Quote

 

This plan is illegal, and would set a dangerous precedent if it succeeds. Article I of the Constitution mandates that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Only Congress has the power to make such laws. This vital rule ensures no one person can seize control of the nation's public funds.

To get around Congress, Trump seeks to use emergency powers. Under the poorly structured National Emergencies Act of 1976, Trump may indeed be able to declare an emergency at the border, even though there is no genuine crisis there. But it does not follow that he can therefore appropriate money for the wall. The NEA does not give him unlimited authority, but only a specific set of powers. None of them are broad enough to justify spending money on a border wall....

Even if Trump can use an emergency declaration to get the money he wants, that is not enough to build the wall. He also needs the authority to use eminent domain to seize land from numerous unwilling owners. Such authority must be expressly authorized by the legislature; it cannot simply be inferred. And there is no such clear authorization here.

Trump's attempt to use emergency powers is virtually certain to be challenged in court. While he deserves to lose, it is possible he could prevail, in part because courts often give the president undue deference on immigration and national security issues.

Should he win, it would set a very dangerous precedent. Future presidents, too, could use it to appropriate money and seize private property without congressional authorization, especially if there is some national security pretext for doing so.....

 

Sorry for spreading more Koch-$pon$ored propaganda supporting Trump. Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 9:20 PM, AJ Oliver said:

Hate to say it, but there is a grain of truth here. 

There is a battle going on for the soul of the Dem Party - just like there was for the GOPPERS (which in the latter case was won by the Koch Bros.) 


Hmmm... that Koch $pon$or$hip does explain the incessant Trump cheerleading on the "military version of eminent domain."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who frequently sees the need in his life to make an emergency pie. We all have a cross to bear.

Emergency Cronyism

Quote

“If this is truly a national emergency, then the Federal Acquisition Regulation has a provision where they can sole source to companies for urgent and compelling reasons,” Anderson said.

Much like blueberry pie emergencies, the ones our politicians use are often less than urgent.

But try telling a Trump supporter that the TERRIBLE PROBLEM they MUST FIX was actually way worse in the 1990's.

You'll have as much luck as you would telling a grabber that the TERRIBLE PROBLEM they MUST FIX was actually way worse in the 1990's.

"Don't ruin a good PANIC when we're trying to grab power" is the universal response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damon Root called my attention to Schechter Poultry Corp vs United States, in which a unanimous Supreme Court said:

Quote

Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.

A nice notion, but they kinda do, especially the War Powers Act and National Emergencies Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

little dogballs sure worked himself into a lather this morning! big morning of shitposting for the liar.


Just like pretty much every morning. It's just more worthy of comment in some threads than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I was kinda thinking dogballs would have weighed in on this but it seems he’s still waiting for   Koch/Reason to tell him what to think.


You sure have lots of thoughts about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's that spring clearing up, Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

How's that spring clearing up, Tom?

Hah! That's certainly a random inquiry in this thread.

It returned to normal after a week or so and has been normal ever since.

The mangrove snappers have grown to 18 inches and are a real problem for all the other fish. Fuckers are so smart and suspicious that catching them on hook and line is nearly impossible. I didn't get around to spearing them last year when I should have and am now waiting for it to be warm enough that it sounds fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's Phony Yet Legal Emergency

This is where that Schechter Poultry case comes in...
 

Quote

 

A lawsuit filed by California and 15 other states on Monday argues that there is "no objective basis for President Trump's Emergency Declaration" and that "by the President's own admission, an emergency declaration is not necessary." Even while declaring a border-related national emergency on Friday, the complaint notes, Trump conceded that "I didn't need to do this," since "I could do the wall over a longer period of time." But he added that "I'd rather do it much faster."

Although an emergency that is not urgent may seem like a contradiction in terms, that does not mean it is illegal. Under the National Emergencies Act, a 1976 law that was supposed to constrain the president's exercise of extraordinary powers, an emergency is whatever the president says it is. It need not be sudden, pressing, harmful, or of limited duration.

The fact that the president can create an emergency by the stroke of a pen, without regard to objective circumstances, is rather alarming in light of all the legal provisions that give him or his appointees special powers once he has done that. The Brennan Center for Justice has cataloged 123 of them, including the power to freeze bank accounts, to take control of the internet, and to "suspend a law that prohibits the testing of chemical and biological weapons on unwitting human subjects."

 

Trump can gas us?
 

Quote

 

...

California et al. argue that Trump's end run around the legislative branch's exclusive authority to appropriate taxpayers' money "violates the separation of powers doctrine." But if so, it's a violation that Congress itself seems to have authorized.

Can Congress do that? The nondelegation doctrine, a long moribund principle that prohibits one branch of government from passing off its responsibilities to another, suggests Congress cannot.

The Supreme Court has not invalidated an act of Congress as a violation of the nondelegation doctrine since the New Deal. But the justices recently heard a case that invites them to put some teeth into the rule, which historically has been invoked far more often than it has been enforced.

Herman Gundy, who was convicted of sexual assault in 2005, is challenging retroactive application of a federal law that penalizes sex offenders who fail to comply with state registration requirements. He argues that Congress gave the attorney general too much discretion in deciding whether and which sex offenders convicted before the law was passed are covered by it.

While that dispute may seem far afield from Trump's money grab, both situations raise the question of how far Congress can go in delegating legislative powers to the executive branch. And since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled against Gundy, the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear his case suggests that at least four justices are open to reviving the nondelegation doctrine.

...

 

What then, I wonder? If SCOTUS tells Congress they can't just give the President the power to declare anything an emergency and then do whatever, up to and including gassing us, in response, then what?

I'm reminded of Andrew Jackson saying that Justice Marshall has made a decision, now let him enforce it.

Oh, and sorry for the Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading, as always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess the Republican Cosponsor Game

Quote

More than 200 members of the House of Representatives are co-sponsoring a joint resolution to block the national emergency that President Donald Trump declared last week to fund a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border. The vast majority of the resolution's sponsors are Democrats, with one exception—Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.).

Gee, what a shocker. Justin Amash again.
 

Quote

 

It's no surprise that Amash would break with his colleagues on this issue. After Trump declared the emergency, the Michigan representative tweeted that the president was "attempting to circumvent our constitutional system."

"Congress should (and I will) work to repeal laws that ostensibly grant legislative powers to the president," he wrote. "But even if Congress does no such thing, such laws are void under our Constitution, and any emergency declaration by the president for a non-emergency is likewise void."

 

The states may win the lawsuit mentioned in the previous post and that would be an even more true statement.

But the "Stonewall Jackson" problem remains.

Congress can enforce its will more directly than the court could back then, but only if a veto can be overridden. Meaning, it's going to take more than one TeamR Representative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Trump has falsely declared an emergency which necessitates ignoring the usual separation of powers of our government to allocate billions of dollars directly to a project he wants to get done faster. His emergency is known to be false by his own statements, those of governors of affected states, Senators and Representatives of both houses, and by governors of states supplying National Guard troops to man the border against hyped-up invasions which have been judged a waste of time.


The thing is, "known to be false" is trumped by "declared by the President."

See post 148.

If a President declared it, well, Congress said that's what it takes, so it's a real emergency for legal purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

The thing is, "known to be false" is trumped by "declared by the President."

Did you mean "drumphed"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Joker said:

On the same topic:

Quote

 

What is a national emergency?

There is no real definition. Under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, Congress simply allowed a president to declare an emergency and to assume extraordinary powers to combat it.

That is the reason why emergencies are so easy to declare and so difficult to end.

While Congress reserved the right to rescind a declaration, it has never done so.

 

Congress has also never put any objective measures of what is an emergency into the law.

They said it's whatever the President says. They've never changed that, nor have they ever said any President went too far.

On 2/3/2019 at 3:41 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

The article says that disapproval of emergency powers is rare. I've never heard of it at all. I'd kind of like to see it happen just because "it's an emergency" always seems to be the magic key to more power. I'd like to see the key not work just once.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Did you mean "trumped"?

I tried to think up another word but that one just worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

I tried to think up another word but that one just worked.

Yah, I've edited. Sorry.

To bed with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bed? It's just getting light enough to go outside.

Anyway, the author of the topic article just can't stop the Trump cheerleading
 

Quote

 

The strongest legal argument raised in the various lawsuits against President Trump's attempt to use emergency powers to build his border wall is that declaring an emergency does not authorize him to spend money and condemn private property to build the wall. That's the conventional wisdom among most legal scholars and commentators. But it is also important to recognize that it is illegal to for Trump to declare a "national emergency" over this issue in the first place. That point is important for reasons that go far beyond the the specific case of the border wall. If the president can declare an emergency and tap a vast range of special emergency powers anytime he wants for any reason he wants, that makes a hash of the whole concept of an emergency, raises serious constitutional problems, and creates a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a single person.

It makes much more sense to interpret the National Emergencies Act as only allowing an emergency declaration in a situation where an emergency actually exists - defined as some sudden crisis that cannot be addressed swiftly enough through ordinary political processes. By that interpretation, the situation at the border doesn't even come close to qualifying.

 

But we have "sudden crises" that last for years and years.
 

Quote

 

Some suggest we need not worry too much about setting a precedent, because there have already been numerous questionable emergency declarations, including some that have lasted for many years.

I won't try to go through all of the previous 58 emergency declarations issued since the NEA was enacted in 1976. But virtually all of them did in fact involve crises that emerged suddenly and at least plausibly required a swift response that did not leave time for ordinary political processes to react quickly enough. All or nearly all were also invoked to take measures to address the problem quickly, not ones like Trump's wall, that would take years to have any effect. And none involved the president appropriating and seizing private property for a project Congress had repeatedly refused to support on the scale the president wanted, as is the case with the wall.

It is admittedly problematic that many previous emergencies have lasted for years, without any additional congressional authorization. The NEA does not impose any time limit on an emergency declaration. So one can potentially go on indefinitely, if the president wants it to.

The NEA states that a declaration can be ended by Congress if it passes a resolution disapproving it, as congressional Democrats are now attempting to do. But any such resolution is subject to veto by the president. And he can almost always count on sufficient support from his own party to prevent his veto from being overridden by the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress.

But the failure of the NEA to effectively limit the duration of emergency declarations does not mean it also imposes no constraints on their initation. The difficulty of terminating an emergency once it has been declared makes it all the more important to enforce legal constraints on declaring one in the first place, to ensure these powers cannot be used unless there is an actual emergency.

It is certainly possible that some previous emergency declarations were legally dubious. Trump is far from the first president to abuse his authority. But the fact that some of his predecessors may have acted illegally is no reason to let Trump get away with it, too. To the contrary, it is all the more reason to crack down on such abuses of power, so they will not be repeated.

 

Hmmm... a call for judicial activism similar to the one I made above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 7:33 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

The Great Depression was an emergency sorta like our war with Mexico.
From the above article:

Gee, I wonder why Justin Amash is the only congresscritter who thinks talking price should happen at the time of the taking.

The map shows Interstate 40 as continuous. It's not. They tried to make it so and removed all the blighted people (you know, the black ones) in the eastern part of Memphis, TN, but then arrived at a place white people liked called Overton Park. And that was, and still is, the end of that. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe

Yeah, but they managed to get rid of the blighted people in Atlanta.  It only took merging three interstates (20, 75, and 85) in the blighted areas to get rid of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Yeah, but they managed to get rid of the blighted people in Atlanta.  It only took merging three interstates (20, 75, and 85) in the blighted areas to get rid of them.

They might have missed a few.

On 11/4/2018 at 6:52 PM, Contumacious Tom said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s Emergency Declaration May Be Legal, but It’s an Affront to the Constitution Anyway

Quote

A handful of Republican lawmakers have offered principled objections to Trump's emergency order, but Republican leaders in Congress have supported the president's move and attempted to quell dissent amongst GOP lawmakers. In doing so, they not only undermine the co-equal authority of their own branch of government, they signal their willingness to back an affront to America's constitutional order in service of cynical partisan gain.

 

House Votes to Terminate Trump's National Emergency
 

Quote

 

The resolution now goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it needs to secure at least four GOP votes in order to pass. So far only three GOP senators, Susan Collins (R–Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R–N.C.) have said they'd vote to terminate Trump's national emergency.

"There is no intellectual honesty in now turning around and arguing that there's an imaginary asterisk attached to executive overreach — that it's acceptable for my party but not thy party," said Tillis in a Monday night Washington Post op-ed.

That Tillis, Amash, and others are willing to buck their party to oppose Trump's national emergency declaration is a positive development. Less encouraging are the reactions of their fellow GOP lawmakers.

On Monday, Politico surveyed over a dozen Senate Republicans who still haven't decided if they'll vote to actually oppose Trump's emergency, despite criticizing it as unwise or even unconstitutional. At least ten GOP senators, including Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) and Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) have given unambiguous support for the president's declaration.

Equally worrying is the reaction from some Democrats, who seem less bothered by the constitutional or legal ramifications of Trump's emergency declaration, and more worried that it's not being invoked for progressive policy aims.

 

Wow. Could those evil Koch's love Trump any more?

The cheerleading is getting sickening but I'll continue to report on it as long as it's funny to me. Which could be a while...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phillysailor said:

And if team (R) were so worried about your Conservative argument, they could shut this false emergency down overnight.


This is really the more appropriate (or at least more funny) thread in which to discuss my endless TeamR cheerleading on the fake emergency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Few TeamR Senators Don't PANIC
 

Quote

 

...

But the House of Representatives voted last week to terminate the national emergency declaration. House Democrats voted unanimously for that resolution, and 13 House Republicans broke with the White House to support it.

It's been less certain whether that resolution can pass the Republican-controlled Senate, but Paul's stated opposition to Trump's emergency declaration likely means it will. Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski of (R-Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have already said they would vote to block Trump's declaration. With all 47 Senate Democrats expected to oppose it as well, four Republican votes would be enough to secure the resolution's passage. With a number of other senators on the fence, it seems likely the final tally will be higher than the 51 votes necessary for passage.

That likely will not be the end of the drama over the border wall funding, as Trump has promised to veto the disapproval resolution. Overriding that veto would require 290 votes in the House—45 more than the resolution received last month—and 20 Republican votes in the Senate to reach the 67-vote threshold.

Even so, congressional opposition to the emergency declaration is a welcome rebuke to the Trump administration's executive overreach in this instance. The emergency declaration is an obvious end-run around Congress and could set a precedent to be exploited by future presidents eager to spend money on projects not approved by Congress.

Leaving aside those broader issues, the emergency declaration is deeply flawed on its own. The president may have the authority to redirect spending due to the emergency declaration, but he does not have the authority to seize private lands or to use military funding for a civilian construction project—even under the vague and broad powers granted to the executive by the National Emergencies Act.

 

Sorry for spreading more Koch-$pon$ored propaganda supporting Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Wants Unity
 

Quote

 

...

The resolution now heads to the Senate, where it appears enough GOP senators have bucked their party to ensure it passes in the upper chamber as well. While the resolution challenges the constitutionality of Trump's actions, the president's tweet Wednesday suggest he believes constitutional questions are subordinate to his immigration preferences.

"Senate Republicans are not voting on constitutionality or precedent, they are voting on desperately needed Border Security & the Wall," the president wrote. "Our Country is being invaded with Drugs, Human Traffickers, & Criminals of all shapes and sizes. That's what this vote is all about. STAY UNITED!"

The four Senate Republicans who have said they'll vote to block the emergency declaration—Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine), and Thom Tillis (N.C.)—have each expressed concerns about Trump's action on constitutional grounds.

...

 

Trump has gone a long way in the wrong direction, from being the best of the TeamR bunch on prohibition policy as a candidate to appointing noted drug war dinosaur Jeff Sessions to absolutely NEEDING the stupid drug war as a justification for his stupid wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 7:03 AM, Dog said:

The reality is that that the crisis is real and it's the "manufactured crisis" that was manufactured.


Congress refusing to fund anything the President wants isn't a crisis. It's how our government works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 7:19 PM, Olsonist said:

image.png.f7252df1a3c58dfc58a149384c15fda2.png


Isn't there a fourth camp?

You know, the one that supports Trump by rebuking his stupid emergency for his stupid wall and noting that he's sometimes worse on property rights than Obama?

What cartoon animal do we get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Olsonist said:

image.png.ed3a62d25b1cca78ca8966f9363810ad.png


Pretty sure it also means unfavorably comparing Trump's record on property rights to Obama's and poking fun at his stupid emergency for his stupid wall too.

I heard it on the internet repeatedly, so it must be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sen Lee Not Helping
 

Quote

 

...

On Tuesday, the Utah senator introduced a new bill that would leave Trump's current emergency declaration intact, while placing restrictions on the future exercise of emergency powers.

Lee's bill—the awkwardly named Assuring that Robust, Thorough, and Informed Congressional Leadership is Exercised Over National Emergencies (ARTICLE ONE) Act—would automatically terminate an emergency declaration within 30 days.

Congress would have to pass a resolution explicitly endorsing an emergency declaration to prevent it from sunsetting. The bill would also give Congress the power to limit or amend the scope of any emergency declaration, and require the president to report how exactly his emergency powers are being put to use.

The idea, says Lee, is to claw back some of the powers Congress' has ceded to the executive branch over the years.

 

The other idea is to have this apply to future emergencies, not the current wall panic.

That's bad because...
 

Quote

 

Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.)—one of four Republicans who've said explicitly they would be voting in favor of terminating Trump's emergency declaration—is already wavering on that commitment following Lee's unveiling of his bill, according to The New York Times.

His defection alone could be enough to sink the House's resolution.

"If you would have asked me before…then I would have said, in the Senate, the president is going to lose," Sen. Joe Kennedy (R–La.) told the Times. Now, he's not so sure. "A lot of people are trying to think of a way to express their support for the president, but at the same time express their concern" about executive overreach, he said.

In addition to possibly preserving Trump's current wall-funding emergency declaration, it's also questionable how much Lee's legislation would limit the future ability of any president to declare national emergencies.

While the bill would automatically terminate these emergencies within 30 days, the president could still circumvent Congress by simply re-declaring a national emergency every month.

A spokesperson for Lee's office told Reason that while there's nothing in the senator's bill to prevent this kind of behavior, "such obvious shenanigans would be politically unsustainable."

 

But the shenanigans appear politically popular, the opposite of unsustainable.
 

Quote

 

"The history of these big framework statutes doesn't give you a lot of reason to hope that a new framework statute is going to solve the problem of lack of Congressional will to fight the executive branch on these things," says Gene Healy, Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute and an expert on presidential powers.

Healy points to the War Powers Act—which puts limits on the ability of the president to deploy into foreign conflicts without Congressional authorization—as an example of a well-meaning statute that presidents have nevertheless managed to ignore or skirt without repercussion.

Nevertheless, Healy says that Lee's bill is a good first step toward reigning in presidential emergency declarations.

"I think it's a start. It would be better if these things are time-limited," he tells Reason. Healy also praised the bill's requirement that Congress approve an emergency for it to continue. The current National Emergencies Act allows emergencies to continue unless Congress explicitly votes to terminate them.

A more comprehensive approach, says Healy, would be to pare back the powers a president can unlock with an emergency declaration.

 

Healy is right about the War Powers Act and the level of disinterest in Authorizing Unitary Military Forever, even if the Commander in Chief is Trump ferchrissakes, indicates Congress is representing the public well by letting Trump do what he wishes with the military.

My opinion is that, prior to taking the first cent as a paid journalist, reporters should have to sit their butts on a horse at least once and learn what "reining in" means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from the article above:

Quote

The New York Times reports that over a dozen Republican senators have said they'd support Lee's bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) today said that even if the ARTICLE ONE Act passed the senate, she would not bring it up for a vote in the House.

I think what Pelosi intends is called "Merrick Garlanding" now. That's as awkward as ESPLERP. Doesn't have the ring of "Borking."

We're going to need a new name, one with fewer syllables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Lee's gambit failed, thankfully, and he joined a few other TeamR types in voting to end the PANIC.
 

Quote

 

...

The resolution passed the House last month in a 245–182 vote. Just 13 House Republicans joined the entire Democratic caucus to vote in favor of the legislation; only one Republican congressman, Michigan's libertarian-leaning Justin Amash, co-sponsored it.

Trump's national emergency seeks to redirect $3.6 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget toward construction of the border wall. He may have the legal authority to do so under the 1976 National Emergencies Act, which gives the president extremely broad powers, even if his reasoning leaves much to be desired.

Still, his use of emergency powers has raised concerns from those who are worried about the precedent of a president bypassing Congress, which only agreed to allocate $1.375 billion in wall funding, in order to accomplish his agenda.

"I have concerns about it," Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.) told Reason last month, referring to Trump's national emergency declaration. "I frankly think it's unnecessary, but we'll see."

The Senate's vote to reject the emergency declaration was not surprising. In the days and weeks leading up to the vote, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, all said they would vote to block it, citing concerns about Trump's action on constitutional grounds. Tillis reversed his stance from the Senate floor Thursday, though at that point enough Republicans had said they would vote yes to ensure passage.

 

I wonder why Tillis backed down?

Trump seems to have expressed at least some willingness to curtail emergency powers "in the future." So I guess he's not planning on dying in office.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Koch-$pon$ored Trump Cheerleading

from the author of the article in the topic post.

Quote

In my view, the declaration is illegal for reasons that hold true regardless of what the Senate did today. The National Emergency Act does not allow the president to declare an emergency over an issue that is not a sudden crisis. Even if he can declare an emergency, the relevant statutes do not authorize him to reallocate funds and seize private property to build the wall. I also object to the wall on moral and policy grounds, and decry the great harm likely to be caused by using eminent domain to take property from unwilling owners. As GOP Rep. Will Hurd explains using eminent domain to build the wall is an affront to private property rights.

Go TeamR! Or something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What The Heck, Ben Sasse?
 

Quote

 

Instead, his statement makes it sound like Sasse is in favor of checks and balances for partisan reasons only. That's a shame, because a vote in favor of the resolution would also fit with the concerns Sasse has (repeatedly) expressed about executive overreach and congressional complacency.

Here's Sasse last month in National Review talking about the emergency declaration:

"If we get used to presidents just declaring an emergency any time they can't get what they want from Congress, it will be almost impossible to go back to a Constitutional system of checks and balances. Over the past decades, the legislative branch has given away too much power and the executive branch has taken too much power."

And back in August, Sasse went on a lengthy stem-winder during the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, prompting me to praise him for calling out how Congress has abdicated its responsibility to be the nation's law-making authority by handing over power to the executive branch.

"Government is about power. Government is not just another word for things we do together," said Sasse. "Almost all the power right now happens off-stage, and that leaves people wondering 'Who is looking out for me?'"

On Thursday, Sasse had a chance put his vote where his mouth is. He didn't do it.

 

Sees the problem, votes to continue having it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump vetoed the bill suspending his wall PANIC, as he said he would.

I decided to check Free Republic to see how TeamR partisans reacted. Yugely supportive and this was the closest anyone came to defending the "dirty dozen" defectors.

Quote

They (repub voters) keep electing them because they are probably most electable choice in the state. A candidate like Roy Moore feels good to the base, but the result was we get Doug Jones the democrat who will NEVER support Trump ever. A RINO is likely support Trump 50%+. So it is either 0 or 50-50.

So they reacted pretty much exactly like libertarians, as one would expect. If one were a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this