The US Presidency 2019

[Brad Sallows]

>invoked national powers

What are "national powers"?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

>invoked national powers

What are "national powers"?

Made up, biased journalistic bafflegab? :dunno: Kinda like the phrase 'islamaphobia'.

 

[Remius]

>invoked national powers

What are "national powers"?

Apparently there are three types.

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3a.asp

Also see this link for a more political science definition of national power.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/india-2/national-power-meaning-nature-dimensions-and-methods/48477

Chris Wallace didn’t just invent the word or the concept and aptly used it in context.

 

[Remius]

Made up, biased journalistic bafflegab? :dunno: Kinda like the phrase 'islamaphobia'.

Nope. It’s a real term. See post above this one.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's a real term, but neither of the two definitions cited above fits very well, as something that can be "invoked".  I can only assume it was intended to mean "powers under the NEA".

 

[brihard]

“National powers” in the US context refers to those powers that constitutionally reside at the National or federal level, versus delegates to or reserved for the states. Declaration of a national emergency is an example of such a national power. It’s an inherent concept in US federalism where the constitutional devolution of authority leaves a lot to the states, where federal or national power being an exception rather than the rule.

In this case, he’s simply highlighting how a national or federal level power, and in this case one held by the executive branch, is being used in an unprecedented manner to do an end run around Congress, which constitutionally is supposed to hold the purse strings.

 

[Kirkhill]

From RealClearPolitics

How Congress Could Rein In the Supreme Court Ian Millhiser, American Prospect

Congress actually has a lot of mostly unused power to rein in the Roberts Court by clarifying the intent of the law.

https://prospect.org/article/not-so-supreme

Most remarkable!

Apparently, in the absence of judges making up the law and, instead, adhering to the law as it is written, laws may have to be made by Congress instead.  Who da thunk it?

 

[FJAG]

Trade Chief Dumbs Down Contract Term After Donald Trump Doesn’t Get It

Robert Lighthizer says exact same document will now be called a “trade agreement” because president isn’t tracking “memorandum of understanding.”

By Mary Papenfuss

America’s lead trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, had an awkward encounter with Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday as he tried to calmly school the president on legal terminology in front of reporters and a chuckling representative from China.

Lighthizer finally stopped trying, and instead deftly switched the term for the same document when he realized he wasn’t making any headway with the president.

It started when Trump was asked by a reporter what period of time “memorandums of understanding” being worked out on trade with China would last.

Trump shot back: “I don’t like MOUs because they don’t mean anything.”

Lighthizer calmly corrected the president, and turned to explain to reporters in the room: “An MOU is a contract. It’s the way trade agreements are generally [established]. It’s an actual contract between the two parties. A memo of understanding is a binding agreement.” He added: “It’s detailed, it covers everything. ... It’s a legal term; it’s a contract.”

“I disagree,” said a scowling Trump, causing top Chinese negotiator Vice Premier Liu He to laugh. “A memorandum of understanding is exactly that: It’s a memorandum of what our understanding is,” he added, circling his hands in the air. “How long will that take to put into a ... contract?”

In a flash, Lighthizer switched gears without breaking a sweat: “From now on we’re not using ‘memorandum of understanding’ anymore (causing several people  in the room to laugh). We’re going to use the term ‘trade agreement.’ We’ll have the same document; it’s going to be called a trade agreement. We’re never going to have an MOU again.”

“Good,” said Trump.

Nuff said. Check it out in the video above.

See here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/robert-lighthizer-trump-trade-terminology-memo_n_5c724378e4b03cfdaa55f93d

Just as an aside there is a difference to some extent between MOUs in private industry and those in government and intergovernment relations.

In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty collection.[6] In practice and in spite of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs' insistence that registration be done to avoid 'secret diplomacy', MoUs are sometimes kept confidential. As a matter of law, the title of MoU does not necessarily mean the document is binding or not binding under international law. To determine whether a particular MoU is meant to be a legally binding document (i.e., a treaty), one needs to examine the parties’ intent as well as the signatories' position (e.g., Minister of Foreign Affairs vs. Minister of Environment). A careful analysis of the wording will also clarify the exact nature of the document. The International Court of Justice has provided some insight into the determination of the legal status of a document in the landmark case of Qatar v. Bahrain, 1 July 1994.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding

The problem here is that the President has not read the agreement to determine the language and intent while Lightizer clearly has. The fact that the two disagree publicly over interpretation, meaning and legal intent of a critical trade document is very telling and potentially disastrous. Hat's off to Lightizer - my guess is things were thrown around in his office after he got back and that much Bourbon was consumed.

:cheers:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

How can you make any deal with someone like that, who doesn't get basic, bonehead, low level contract/international agreements terminology?

I wonder, for instance, if the understands that, as of right now (even though he has completely moved on from the topic for months), his USMCA is not in force at all and that we are all still operating under NAFTA. 

Edit to remove ad hominem comment.

 

[brihard]

How can you make any deal with someone like that, who doesn't get basic, bonehead, low level contract/international agreements terminology?

I wonder, for instance, if the understands that, as of right now (even though he has completely moved on from the topic for months), his USMCA is not in force at all and that we are all still operating under NAFTA. 

I suspect he may not truly grasp that. He stated i early December that they're now beginning the process of ratifying USMCA and withdrawing from NAFTA in the U.S. Not much heard on that since. He's going to have to get it through Congress, and Congress is a whole lot less friendly now. He may face significant struggles there.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

How can you make any deal with someone like that, who doesn't get basic, bonehead, low level contract/international agreements terminology?

Still smarter then what we got.....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Still smarter then what we got.....

Not from what I have seen, read, or for that matter heard from those in the room occasionally with either of the parties.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And obviously, ours is the sharpest dresser ... 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Likely the misunderstanding is peoples frames of reference, for the Trade Chief, an MOU is a legal contract, for DT it's an non-binding agreement to act in a certain way. Likely as DT life has been all business, a contract is something he understands clearly. In my world MoU's are often not worth the paper they are written on, the ones between departments don't seem particularly effective, so I am generally biased against them myself. 

 

[Remius]

Sure. 

But when his trade rep tried to clear it up he doubled down and made himself look like buffoon.

He could have just deferred to him and let it be and question him after or seek clarification. 

He's his own worst enemy.

 

[Navy_Pete]

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?

I've seen a few cogent arguments against it.  The most obvious one is the cost and scope; it's $25-30B dollars, and would somehow need to extend over 2000 miles, through deserts, mountains, and canyons (including the grand canyon).  Even if you build it, there are areas where you just can't put a wall, so it will be full of gaps.  This is a massive project that will likely spiral way above the cost estimates and will consume a huge amount of steel, concrete and other resources. Most of it is very remote, so the logistics of getting the materials in place and building it is pretty staggering.

There is also the effectiveness of building a wall with no patrols. Unless you actively monitor the entire length, there is nothing stopping anyone from going over/under/through the wall. If you are actively monitoring the wall, why not just actively monitor the border?  I think one of the Democrat proposals had an increase into the budget for the border patrol for that reason, and there is no reason you couldn't put in remote sensors, UAV drones etc at a fraction of the price.

There is also the environmental impacts.  You would cut a lot of territory in half messing with animal migration, cause big erosion problems, and mess up the drainage patterns. Concrete releases a whack of CO2 during production, and they may need to have some kind of on site production for final assembly, so you will crap up huge swaths of the local area when you are building it. So you hit on a whole whack of environmental concerns there, including global warming.

The last big one is that to get this done, there is a lot of privately owned land that needs to be appropriated.  Aside from the wall itself, there is some kind of standoff distance, so there are a number of citizens living in the middle of nowhere that will suddenly have their house seized by the government.

That's aside from the fact that the US Gov own stats show most drugs come in via ports, illegal migration has been dropping for years, and that they know where they have walls, they are still being bypassed by the cartels smuggling operations.  Stories about the tunnels etc pop up once in a while, and those busts happen because they invest in a bunch of other technologies and do a lot of intelligence work.

TLR; walls cost a lot of money and will have big impact on environment and people. Technology to get same effect much cheaper and works better. This is unnecessary project with dubious value.

 

[mariomike]

This is unnecessary project with dubious value.

For reference to the discussion,

February 25, 2019

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 60 former senior U.S. national security officials on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, saying there was “no factual basis” to circumvent Congress to build his long-promised border wall.
https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1QE242

 

[Navy_Pete]

Had a hard time finding a reasonably non partisan article, but the NG article below highlights the topic (most stuff is hyperpartisan).

Another article pointed out that climate change is a national security issue (see California on fire, flooding, hurricanes etc), but takes a bit more vision than what the 15 second news clips allow for.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/how-trump-us-mexico-border-wall-could-impact-environment-wildlife-water/

Personally think that the economic stratification of the US is starting to reach pre-French revolutionary levels, so they'd be better off addressing poverty in a more meaningful way with that money before a civil war breaks out. But I guess if you are looking for bread and circuses to distract the public from the fact that your entire administration has a higher turnover than McD's, and multiple federal/state level criminal investigations on the go, this is a pretty good distraction tool that can be used to fire up your base and otherwise get the opposition to look elsewhere.

 

[FJAG]

So how's your trade deficit program working out for you, Mr President? Not so well I guess:

The US trade deficit has hit a 10-year high, it was revealed on Wednesday in a government announcement, as Donald Trump’s trade wars appeared to be backfiring.

The deficit jumped nearly 19% in December, pushing the trade imbalance for all of 2018 to widen to a decade-long high of $621bn.

The commerce department said the gap between what the US sells and what it buys from other countries rose to $59.8bn in December from $50.3bn in November.

Donald Trump imposed tariffs last year on foreign steel, aluminum and Chinese products in the belief that these import taxes would ultimately reduce the trade imbalance.

But the trade gap on goods surged to record highs last year with China ($419.2bn), Mexico ($81.5bn) and the European Union ($169.3bn).
December’s trade imbalance worsened because US imports rose 2.1%, while exports to other countries fell 1.9%.

The president has previously called the trade gap “unsustainable”. Trump is trying to reach a new trade deal with China and hopes to strike an agreement with President Xi Jinping in the coming weeks, but the stakes could not be higher. Trump asked China to abolish tariffs on US agricultural products earlier this month. He said trade talks were “moving along nicely”.

The US trade deficit in 2018 widened to its highest level since 2008, at $621bn. The imbalance with China widened to a record gap. And the US registered the largest trade deficit in goods in its history, growing by 10% to more than $891bn last year.

Early comments by economists and other observers on social media included remarks such as this one by commenter Catherine Rampell, who tweeted: “Trump is obsessed with trade deficits, (incorrectly) believing them a measure of who’s winning and who’s losing. Well, by his own measure, we must be ‘losing’ more: U.S. just posted its biggest merchandise trade deficit ever, $891.2 billion.”

She added that it was unusual for deficits to be so high when unemployment in the US is so low.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/06/us-trade-deficit-hits-10-year-high-as-trump-trade-wars-backfire

op:

 

[Navy_Pete]

So people are buying less from America, but America is importing more than ever (at a higher price, because of all the tariffs).

Wonder how much their exports are being impacted by the counter-tariffs; it will have a big impact on their competitiveness, but also because the US made it an 'us vs them', I think a lot of consumers have deliberately started to avoid 'made in the US' products. Not sure if that same mentality trickles up to corporations, but I suspect when you are a govt controlled corporation in China, that probably is relevant.  Not that they have that kind of granularity, but guessing the lag between this spike and the tariffs starting may be related to the normal lag in the time taken to find alternate suppliers for your supply chains, so only likely to grow as the longer lead industries switch over.

Winning bigly!