The US Presidency 2019

[Fishbone Jones]

Wow, crazy train or what?

Given the times the Act was used previously and what it was used for, especially by Obama, Trump didn't even get his toe wet. This is so much posturing by his opponents it's near laughable

We'll see how the SCOTUS handles it. Maybe RBG will even make an appearance for the vote. If anyone can find her.

I'll leave it until it goes through all it's liberal incantations in the 9th Circuit (probably) and ends up in the Supreme Court. More astute minds than ours are at work on it.

He can still get to work with what he's got, until the decision comes in. Matter of fact, they're building right now and have been, under the existing funding.

Talking promises? Pelosi promised him, not $1.00. He got over a billion and avoided a shutdown. People that talk cement over steel, walls over barriers, or pelosi's robot dogs, are blowing hot air and trying to make a point out of nothing. Grasping at straws, well, because Trump, right? Let's not forget, almost every democrat voted to put up 350 miles of wall, under Obama. Trump is asking for less than 300. What has changed? Well, Trump put a massive crimp in their plans when he won and they are just petty and vindictive. That's all there really is to all of it. He's upsetting their carefully planned, decades old applecart and they don't like it.

The wall is already being extended and that is all that matters right now. Let the politicians move on to the next manufactured crisis, while work continues.

 

[mariomike]

For reference to the discussion,

Feb 15, 2019

AP fact check: Trump makes faulty claims in declaring emergency

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the southern border while acknowledging that rapid construction of a wall is not a necessity, but rather his preference. In justifying the extraordinary step, he brushed aside his administration’s conclusions that drugs come into the country primarily at official points of entry, not over remote territory that a barrier could seal off.

There’s nothing common about a president taking command of billions of dollars without the approval of Congress to pay for a campaign promise.

“It’s extremely rare for a president to declare a national emergency in a bid to fund domestic construction projects, particularly one that Congress has explicitly refused to fund,” said Andrew Boyle, an attorney in the national security program at the center. “The ones that former presidents declared are of a different sort.”

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” Trump said, raising questions about why he sees an emergency unfolding today. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

Trump also claimed progress on wall construction that hasn’t occurred.

He’s built no new miles of wall. His new construction to date has replaced existing barriers.

But past declarations did not involve the unilateral spending of substantial sums of money that Congress — which holds the power of the purse — did not approve.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says illicit drugs come into the country mainly at entry ports. The agency said in a 2018 report that the most common trafficking technique by transnational criminal organizations is to hide drugs in passenger vehicles or tractor-trailers as they drive into the U.S. at official crossings. They also use buses, cargo trains and tunnels, the report says, citing smuggling methods that would not be choked off by a border wall.

That's the condensed version. Full article here,
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-makes-faulty-claims-in-declaring-emergency

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Here is a somewhat surprising development. Ann Coulter, a right wing commentator who can take vitriolic attacks to a new height, claims the only emergency is that Trump is an idiot. The president responded in kind.

And this time, he'd be right.  ;D

I once bought a book by Coulter (Yes, I admit my sin freely - It was "Godless, The Church of Liberalism") just to see what all the fuss about her was. I found it the worse of low, dirty, ignorant speech from trash-talk shows on US radio. She can't even write properly, it was devoid of any rational thought, there were no premises of any kind demonstrated, only the unilateral statement, by fiat, that her view was right and everybody not thinking the same way was an imbecile (or much worse insult).

Truly, she is a very, very dispensable part of any attempt at useful discussion of issues in the US. Why she attracts so much attention is beyond me.

 

[brihard]

Given the times the Act was used previously and what it was used for, especially by Obama, Trump didn't even get his toe wet. This is so much posturing by his opponents it's near laughable

The facts do not support that. Other than your well known dislike for Obama and all things Democrat, what do you feel stands out about his use of the National Emergencies Act? How is Trump's use of it in this current situation not immediately apparent to you as the significant exceptionality that it is? It's immediately apparent you didn't do your homework here. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/

The NEA was passed in 1975. There have been 58 national emergencies declared by presidents. 31 are still in effect. Nearly all are what we would generally refer to as 'sanctions', with a number also used to extend certain arms export control regulations that expired.

Jimmy Carter: 2. Both to do with Iran; both essentially sanctions/assets freezes.
Ronald Reagan:  6. All to do with export controls or sanctions, e.g. South Africa, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama.
George H W Bush: 5. Export control or sanctions x 4 (Haiti, FRY, Iraq), and one to do with biological and chemical weapons proliferation.
Bill Clinton: 17. Nearly all were economic sanctions against governments, parties or persons, and a couple were export control related.
George Bush: 13. Nearly all are the familiar sanctions or exports controls. One of course is the national emergency following 9/11, and one created legal protections for the Development Fund for Iraq which was created the same day.
Barack Obama: 12. 11 were sanctions targeted at individuals involved in conflicts or arms proliferation (e.g., Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Russia, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Burundi) or posing other threats the to U.S. (one against transnational criminal actors, one against actors involved in malicious cyber activities), and finally there was one early in his term that was declaring a national state of emergency in response to the H1N1 flu pandemic. That one simply allowed hospitals to be granted waivers to move patients around to accommodate H1N1 fly patients.
Donald Trump: 4 so far. Two are normal targeted sanctions (Nicaragua and Myanmar), and one is pre-emptive, allowing for economic sanctions against identified actors involved in attacking the integrity of America's elections. And then, last but certianly not least, we have the border wall declaration.

So- Obama's use of the NEA was consistent with the presidents prior to him, and he declared fewer than his immediate predecessors. With one exception all were conventional use of the NEA for economic sanctions, a use that Trump has since continued. Of the 11 Obama executive orders invoking the NEA for sanctions, ten are still in effect. One he rescinded himself due to material changes in the Enriched Uranium controls agreement with Russia. His use of the NEA for the swine flu pandemic is something I think we'd probably all find reasonable under the circumstances and given the very limited scope of the actions permitted by the executive order. I certainly see nothing here that would give any validity to your quip about 'especially by Obama'.

Trump has been in office for just under 25 months, and has issued 4 executive orders invoking the NEA, so it appears he is on track for a similar if not greater number of NEAs to Obama, but in either case the current pace would be roughly consistent with Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

Notably, none of the National Emergencies declared by any prior presidents under the legislation had anything remotely resembling the massive spending component of Trump's border wall fake emergency. Not once has it been utilized to accomplish such an end run around congress in the face of the president's failure to achieve a legislative objective. The only one that had a significant domestic impact was the emergency declared after 9/11, which allowed for call-ups of retirees or the National Guard, apportioning of some military funding, and appointing senior officers. But it certainly was nothing like what Trump is doing here.

Trump's use of the NEA here is exceptional and unprecedented. It has not been used for anything close to this before. He himself has admitted he doesn't need to do that and that it's merely an expediency. What he is using it to try to do is something he has already tried to accomplish and failed through the legitimate mechanisms of Congress, which must be involved in approving major government spending.

At this point he's desperately trying to crack open Pandora's box, against the wishes of many in his own party who don't want to see this precedent set lest it be used against them in future. Hopefully the courts will sit on the lid of the box with enough weight to keep it shut.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Jonathan Turley writing at The Hill takes a different view - that Trump is likely to win.

Note also that the NEA is being used only to acquire part of the funding - less than $2B.  If Trump has access to up to $8B (per Turley), then the $5.7B target is achievable without the NEA invocation (if it is overturned or overridden by Congress).

The problem with trying to argue from past uses of the NEA is that it is the National Emergencies Act, not the National Sanction Act.  What presidents chose to use it for in the past does not set limits, and is pretty much irrelevant.  Congress has a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in its use of funds, and the courts have a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in the exercise of executive power and of not wanting to get involved in extent-of-authority squabbles between the president and Congress.

 

[Infanteer]

The facts do not support that. Other than your well known dislike for Obama and all things Democrat, what do you feel stands out about his use of the National Emergencies Act? How is Trump's use of it in this current situation not immediately apparent to you as the significant exceptionality that it is? It's immediately apparent you didn't do your homework here.

To add to idea that President Trump's use of the NEA is unprecedented, and not just a wet toe, there is also the fact that the he claimed that such actions were unconstitutional and impeachable.  He took to twitter to lambast his predecessor for subverting the constitution due to a failure to negotiate with Congress.

For a guy who claimed he was coming to drain the swamp, and campaigned against getting around checks and balances through executive overreach, the deeds sure don't match the previous words.  The irony of this is so rich that it is being noted by conservative organizations and has turned cheerleader Ann Coulter against him.

 

[Good2Golf]

...Congress has a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in its use of funds, and the courts have a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in the exercise of executive power and of not wanting to get involved in extent-of-authority squabbles between the president and Congress.

The problem with trying to argue Congress’ past support of Presidents’ uses of NEA funds, and the USSC’s wide latitude to previous POTUS’ use of NEA-related executive powers in the past is that neither are bound to continue to do so, and is pretty much irrelevant.

Regards
G2G

 

[Brad Sallows]

The point (from others - including lawyers - writing the articles) isn't that Congress will tend to be bound by its past (of course it won't; it changes direction radically with each transfer between parties).  The point is that the courts will look at Congress's record and the courts' own records.  And the (US) courts do tend to be conservative when it comes to changing direction or stepping in between the executive and legislative branches, and that is not irrelevant.

It's not coincidental that so many of the arguments against Trump's "emergency" are emphasizing customary practice, not statutory law.  A lot of the commentators have conceded that what he did is not likely to be found to be illegal.  To paraphrase, the law may not be on their side, which is why so many of them are pounding the tables.

Everyone is free to be as flippant as they choose.  Trump likely gets $6B (more than the $5.7B) even without the "emergency" declaration, and he may very well get that too.  I don't mean this as a good thing - I'm squarely with all the (conservative) commentators who aren't reflexive Trump supporters who believe this is just another unfortunate extension of executive power.  If the courts don't shut down the appeal-to-emergency, he "wins".  If the courts do shut it down, then - per the earlier article I cited - maybe he still "wins" (by circuitously bringing about a legal finding that restrains future executive overreach; certainly the libertarian/small government people would be happy with that).

 

[mariomike]

This timeline of the "emergency" may be of interest to the discussion,

First, he did not address the issue when the Republican Party held majorities in both the House and Senate, when, for example, he had the ability to push through measures on reconciliation.

Second, he rejected a deal for US$25 billion in border security in exchange for legalisation of "dreamers," which doesn't sound like the sort of thing you'd do in a real emergency.

Third, he signed a continuing resolution that kept the US government running until December 8, 2018. Again, you wouldn't agree to that in the face of a real emergency.

Fourth, Congress passed another continuing resolution to keep the government open until December 21, 2018.

Fifth, the president provoked a 35-day shutdown that ended with a three-week continuing resolution. Again, this doesn't give off an emergency "vibe."

Sixth, as appropriators negotiate, the president repeatedly threatens to use emergency powers until Congress gives him what he wants. The critical precondition for an emergency declaration is lack of congressional compliance.

Seventh, appropriators reach an agreement - and Trump signs it.

Eighth, there is no report or analysis demonstrating why Congress' response is inadequate. Instead, Trump declares an emergency on the same day as the signing, a transparent effort to eclipse his utter failure to deliver on a campaign promise.

Ninth, at a bizarre Rose Garden press conference on Friday, Trump declared, "I didn't need to do this. ... I just want to do it faster." It is difficult to imagine a more damaging confession that the emergency is figment of Trump's frail ego and thirst to avoid disappointing his base.

Tenth, Trump tells a set of ridiculous lies to justify his border wall. For example, he denies replete evidence from his own administration that the vast amount of illegal drugs come through ports of entry and claims that El Paso had an epidemic crime rate before barriers were built. (But now that the city has barriers and is so safe, why the need for the concrete wall?)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/110662798/how-donald-trump-screwed-up-his-emergency-declaration-in-10-easy-steps

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes; except for the EverTrumpers, people have long concluded that no emergency exists in the conventional meaning of the word, and that Trump's own actions and words negate his claim that an emergent situation exists.

That's what worries many people: that presidential use of the NEA might in future be limited by explicit definitions of what are and are not emergencies.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency? Trying to fix immigration while leaving the border porous, is a bit like replacing the drywall before repairing the leaky roof. Reduce the leaks, then you can deal with some of the internal issues. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

With the abundance of politicians and lawyers in the US, there is always the Vlad method.

 

[OldSolduer]

With the abundance of politicians and lawyers in the US, there is always the Vlad method.

Don’t tempt us....

 

[mariomike]

He had this to say,

AP: Obviously, that’s going to come in a week where you’re going to be running up against the deadline for keeping the government open. If you get a bill on your desk that does not include funding for the wall, will you sign it?

TRUMP: I don’t know yet. People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the electoral college. Big, big, big advantage. I’ve always said the popular vote would be a lot easier than the electoral college. The electoral college — but it’s a whole different campaign (unintelligible). The electoral college is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall, they want to see security. Now, it just came out that they’re 73 percent down. ... That’s a tremendous achievement. ... Look at this, in 100 days, that down to the lowest in 17 years and it’s going lower. Now, people aren’t coming because they know they’re not going to get through, and there isn’t crime. You know the migration up to the border is horrible for women, you know that? (Unintelligible.) Now, much of that’s stopped because they can’t get through.

Transcript of AP interview with President Trump.

The Associated Press April 23, 2017.
https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

 

[Brad Sallows]

>11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency?

A conventional understanding of "emergency" will generally touch on at least these two points: something that has occurred suddenly, and that requires immediate action.  What to do with illegals, refugees, immigration policy, and border enforcement is decidedly a problem, but it's hard to fit it to any reasonable definition of "emergency".

 

[FJAG]

11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency? Trying to fix immigration while leaving the border porous, is a bit like replacing the drywall before repairing the leaky roof. Reduce the leaks, then you can deal with some of the internal issues.

Emergency - A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emergency

Those 11 million and 700,000 are there now and have been for decades. The wall won't make them go away.

The numbers coming in now are the lowest in a long, long time and the wall will have questionable effect. If you want to study walls study Hadrian's, Berlin's and China's (now that was a wall) and see just how well those turned out.

I don't begrudge any country the right to control it's borders but for two years now the GOP House and Senate didn't see enough of an issue with illegals to fund the wall (To be more particular, the Republicans had a majority in both the House and Senate from 1995-2007 & 2015-last November). They saw no "emergency" worth putting seven or eight billion dollars into especially when their presidential candidate in 2016 promised his base vehemently hundreds of times that Mexico would pay for it.

That's the disconnect between a real emergency - one that everyone can see clearly and unite behind - and a phony emergency which demands money from the state just to semi-fulfil an electoral promise that everyone (except maybe his base) could clearly see could never be kept in the first place. Mexico could never be made to pay.

The fact of the matter is that Trump's base should be up in arms about the fact that they had been blatantly duped by their champion who is now reaching into their pockets to try to build a legacy that he can put another Trump logo onto.

:cheers:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Do the democrats have an actual good reason to oppose raising a wall or are they against it because Trump wants it?

What's the actual problem with walls?

 

[Remius]

Do the democrats have an actual good reason to oppose raising a wall or are they against it because Trump wants it?

What's the actual problem with walls?

Well depending on where you stand it is for a variety of reasons. 

Walls aren't the be all end all that Trump thinks it is.  So some would prefer something more comprehensive and are not opposed to wall per se, just Donald Trumps version of it. Trump used the wall as a populist campaign promise that his base could easily identify and see and understand despite evidence that shows that wall will be largely ineffective at stopping whatever it is they perceive.  A few months ago a horde of immigrants made their way ready to invade.  Or so it was claimed. But they were stopped.  No wall but hey they got lucky I guess.

The democrats don't trust the POTUS and why should they?  He's lied quite a bit and changed his mind when Sean Hannity says so.

Is it politics?  Of course but it is much more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/opinion/democrats-border-security-wall.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18177566/democrats-trump-wall-shutdown

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/424242-feehery-why-democrats-oppose-the-wall

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-were-for-a-wall-before-they-were-against-it/2019/01/10/9d114048-14f1-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.cd3baadcd603

The links above show a few of the views as to why the democrats sort of oppose the wall.

As to what the problem with walls are well...there is a whole list as to why the wall Trump wants won't change much except perception that he actually did something. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

>11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency?

A conventional understanding of "emergency" will generally touch on at least these two points: something that has occurred suddenly, and that requires immediate action.  What to do with illegals, refugees, immigration policy, and border enforcement is decidedly a problem, but it's hard to fit it to any reasonable definition of "emergency".

I have seen "emergencies" result from decades of neglect in a variety of areas. There is a substantial lobby that does not want a change in immigration status for a number of reasons, including votes, illegals creating a downward pressure on wages, easily exploited workforce. The immigration problem in the US is a crisis, slow moving as it may be, but it is still a crisis. making the border harder to cross is needed, along with several other things including some form of amnesty for long term illegals who are otherwise exemplary citizens and better guest worker program.     

 

[mariomike]

I have seen "emergencies" result from decades of neglect in a variety of areas.

I have seen "emergencies" too. But, it's pretty hard to take them seriously when the originator tells you, "I didn't need to do this."

In case anyone missed it,

Fox News Sunday presenter Chris Wallace forced Stephen Miller to acknowledge that the US President’s declaration was unprecedented, as the senior aide repeatedly attempted to avoid the issue.

“Answer my question, can you name one case where a president has asked Congress for money, Congress has refused, and the President has then invoked national powers to get the money anyway?” asked Wallace.

“Well, this current situation —” Mr Miller began.

“Just yes or no, sir,” Wallace interrupted.

“No,” answered Mr Miller,
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/i-didnt-need-to-do-this-how-trump-may-have-sabotaged-himself-over-national-emergency/news-story/16a3be0f04963521dd0041de52d7b524