The "National Emergency" Thread

[Koko78]

49 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Because I challenge your eating habits?  Absolutely brilliant retort.  

 

<lowers the cone of silence.

 

C'mon man, the patented "double dumbass pork chop on you" retort is a staple of his repertoire.

 

47 minutes ago, row_33 said:

to liberal thinking, if a conservative idea isn't guaranteed 100% perfect, then it's useless, and it's never going to be seen as positive anyways

 

and for their own liberal ideas they accept anything they can dream up, never bothering to foresee the obvious negatives that show up 100% guaranteed

 

 

 

Liberals see liberal ideas that aren't more than10% guaranteed to work as being necessary to pass anyhow (so that we can know what those ideas are), then fixed over the next few decades through subsequent legislation. Think of the children! People are actually literally going to die!!!!111

 

Conservative ideas are evil, immoral, unworthy of mention, and must be opposed at all costs.

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

 

Liberals see liberal ideas that aren't more than10% guaranteed to work as being necessary to pass anyhow (so that we can know what those ideas are), then fixed over the next few decades through subsequent legislation. Think of the children! People are actually literally going to die!!!!111

 

Conservative ideas are evil, immoral, unworthy of mention, and must be opposed at all costs.

 

for war liberals and their media toadies demand you present perfect details on how many will die and how long it will take, and start complaining right at that moment that the whole thing is a fiasco

 

 

[Foxx]

52 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Spending money appropriated for something else 

please excuse my ignorance here. can you kindly quote me which part of the Constitution expressly prohibits this? 

 

TYIA

 

50 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Please Foxx........................just don't ...

lol. sorry.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, Foxx said:

please excuse my ignorance here. can you kindly quote me which part of the Constitution expressly prohibits this? 

 

TYIA

 

lol. sorry.

 

you can't even get Tibs to realize you are calling his bluff

 

 

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

you can't even get Tibs to realize you are calling his bluff

 

 

shush you.

[BeginnersMind]

Trump opened his national emergency press conference talking about China. Then North Korea. Japan. UK. Opioid crisis and China’s role. Also the Dow and jobs. And threw in a few words about the wall. 

 

Nice “emergency.”

 

Imagine if George Bush had opened his 9-11 press conference talking about inflation. 

 

Congress could have passed this but didn’t. The presidential overreach continues. I’ll be curious if the Senate has the cajones to close off the purse strings for this grab. Some Rs will oppose this recognizing this as POTUS overreach. 

[boyst]

3 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Id wager a weeks salary that Tasker is an incel who’s never smashed. 

I'd wager youre right.   Tasker is a little B word. I own that slob.

[Numark3]

I'm more upset about some of these burger preferences I have read than anything else discussed in this thread

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

Trump opened his national emergency press conference talking about China. Then North Korea. Japan. UK. Opioid crisis and China’s role. Also the Dow and jobs. And threw in a few words about the wall. 

 

Nice “emergency.”

 

Imagine if George Bush had opened his 9-11 press conference talking about inflation. 

 

Congress could have passed this but didn’t. The presidential overreach continues. I’ll be curious if the Senate has the cajones to close off the purse strings for this grab. Some Rs will oppose this recognizing this as POTUS overreach. 

 

On the one hand...presidential overreach.

 

On the other hand...Trump has a pen.  And a phone.  Suck it, Democrats.

[BeginnersMind]

22 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

On the one hand...presidential overreach.

 

On the other hand...Trump has a pen.  And a phone.  Suck it, Democrats.

 

Both hands America loses. 

[grinreaper]

Many people here are claiming that the majority of drugs and trafficked humans are found at the ports of entry rather than unprotected border areas. Thank you for making the case for border fences. Border fences are designed to force the people involved in drug/human smuggling to ply their trade at ports of entry. Just because more contraband is found at ports of entry does not mean that less contraband is coming across the border in unprotected areas. It means that it is easier to find drugs at ports of entry than in unprotected areas. So, who can argue the importance of forcing evil doers to come through out ports of entry?

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Both hands America loses. 

 

Just remember: no matter how bad it gets, Hillary's still not president.

[grinreaper]

4 hours ago, Foxx said:

 

did he issue a NE to do so?

Where was the appropriation?

[B-Man]

I didn’t want Obamacare underwritten by Obama alone. He did it anyway. . . . . .Trump undid it.

 

I didn’t want Iran to get a pallet of cash, but Obama did it anyway. . . . . . Trump reversed that.

 

Obama’s already done what Trump’s discussing.

 

“What if a D wins” is moot.

 

They’ve already done it.

 

 

.

THAT’S DIFFERENT BECAUSE SHUT UP: I’m Old Enough to Remember When Democrats Loved Unilateral Executive Actions on Immigration.

 

 

 

.

Edited February 16, 2019 by B-Man

[row_33]

31 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Just remember: no matter how bad it gets, Hillary's still not president.

 

Suck it Dems

[HamSandwhich]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Call me when that happens because it won't. Immigrants make us better, create jobs and help businesses thrive and make goods and services cheaper. 

 

You guys acting like you you want to save lives is funny. Gun control, expanded health care and expanded public health campaigns would save a whole lot more lives, but the GOP is lock stock and barrel against any of that, so I think you are being a hypocrite and no one believes you. Hence, the 40 seat drubbing you guys took in the last election 

You're a complete moron.  Go ahead and become socialist and we will become Venezuela.  It will seem so sweet at first, everyone gets everything free!  Tax the 1%, then when they become the 20% then the 20% will be the richest and they'll get taxed to heck, then when they become the 40%...well you get the picture, everyone becomes equally poor.  Then we'll have to print money to try and make ends meet, and boom, we are in inflation hell, lines out the door, and not enough food to go around.  Uprising by the people, then the big communist hand comes down to squash the rebellion with an iron clenched fist.  That is always how it ends.  You're witnessing it in Venezuela, wait for the crack down, you'll see.  You idiots who want to ruin the country. 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by HamSandwhich

[RaoulDuke79]

9 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Chamber of Commerce chimes in on this authoritarian power grab: 

 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/430184-us-chamber-says-trump-emergency-declaration-erodes-system-of

Hahaha.....He signed the budget. Dems cant accuse him of holding government hostage. What a bunch of do nothing haters.

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by RaoulDuke79

[B-Man]

PERSPECTIVE:

 

 

 

.

 

 

Quote

 

Mark Meadows‏Verified account @RepMarkMeadows 2h2 hours ago

POTUS' declaration is legal + well founded.

To my Democrat colleagues complaining about executive authority: welcome aboard! Good to have you.

If you're ready to permanently rein in executive branch power and give it back to Congress, once and for all--I'll work with you. Today.

 

 

 

.

 

 

[RaoulDuke79]

7 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

I do have to laugh at all of those nincompoops who seem to think that Trump is on "Next Level Thinking"

 

Pelosi and Schumer have his number here. It takes a Joint Resolution to undo the emergency declaration, and if it passes the House on a simple majority (Which the Democrats easily can bring to the floor and win a majority on) the Senate MUST vote on it. McConnell can't hide it like he did all of those other bills to end the shutdown. 

 

You've already had a bunch of Republican senators say that they are against the national emergency. You have a bunch, including McConnell, who are facing elections in 2020. There are legitimate worries that being forced on this will cause infighting in the party over an unpopular issue. And you only need four to flip.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/state-of-the-union-republicans-warn-trump-against-national-emergency-boder-wall-2019-2

 

 

In short, you have Trump picking a deeply unpopular and infeasible project as his hill to die on, and he gets to drag down the rest of his party down with him.

We'll see how it turns out in 2020. Which one of the morons that the left is turning out will oppose him? The wanna be Native American? The Jussie Smallete opportunist? Each one is more outrageous than the next.

[BeginnersMind]

22 minutes ago, B-Man said:

PERSPECTIVE:

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

Cute. I wonder how many of those were funding Acts for items that Congress refused to pass the day before. 

[Q-baby!]

Stay safe my Merican friends during this devastating national emergency! #MericaStrong! 

[IDBillzFan]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Just remember: no matter how bad it gets, Hillary's still not president.

 

Seriously. 

 

Though in fairness, while Hillary wouldn't try to build a wall, she WOULD  figure out a way for the Clinton Foundation to launder funds from coyotes bringing in illegals, and get her cut of the sex trafficking.

[TakeYouToTasker]

27 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Seriously. 

 

Though in fairness, while Hillary wouldn't try to build a wall, she WOULD  figure out a way for the Clinton Foundation to launder funds from coyotes bringing in illegals, and get her cut of the sex trafficking.

 

What do you mean “would”?

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Cute. I wonder how many of those were funding Acts for items that Congress refused to pass the day before. 

 

None of them.

 

I mean...there's a discussion that can be had about whether or not the situation at the border constitutes a "national emergency," or whether it's a greater national emergency than this.  And there's at least one other instance where a national emergency was declared because the President disagreed with Congress (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13222-continuation-export-control-regulations.)

 

But this seems to be the first time it's been used to dodge Congress' refusal to fund the President's pet project.

40 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

What do you mean “would”?

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/health/haiti-orphanages/index.html

[TakeYouToTasker]

23 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/health/haiti-orphanages/index.html

 

No, I get that.  What I meant was that the Clinton Foundation is likely already getting money from trafficking along our border.

 

 

[Turk71]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

None of them.

 

I mean...there's a discussion that can be had about whether or not the situation at the border constitutes a "national emergency," or whether it's a greater national emergency than this.  And there's at least one other instance where a national emergency was declared because the President disagreed with Congress (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13222-continuation-export-control-regulations.)

 

But this seems to be the first time it's been used to dodge Congress' refusal to fund the President's pet project.

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/health/haiti-orphanages/index.html

The discussion about whether there really is a 'national emergency' at the border should be a short one. Trump admitted that "he didn't need to do this" "wanted the wall faster than the legislative process would allow". He said this because he has no control over what comes out of his mouth. You know whoever wrote the speech would not be dumb enough to say that.

 Just for the record I have no affiliation with political parties so the usual mature and intelligent responses like 'suck it dems' etc. don't apply. I like to think for myself and think that money and influence peddling have corrupted the current system. Lobbying of Congress and corporate influence through super pacs undermine democracy imo. 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Turk71

[Paulus]

I love this Flipping timeline. This lifetime might get a bit more exciting. May we all be so fortunate

 

. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Turk71 said:

The discussion about whether there really is a 'national emergency' at the border should be a short one. Trump admitted that "he didn't need to do this" "wanted the wall faster than the legislative process would allow". He said this because he has no control over what comes out of his mouth. You know whoever wrote the speech would not be dumb enough to say that.

Yup.  He's often his own worst enemy (the Lester Holt interview after firing Comey is the perfect example).  I don't recall a president proclaiming a national emergency because Congress (who has the power of the purse) refused to fund one of his policy goals.  If he declared a national emergency his first week on the job to build a border wall citing serious problems like human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc... it would make his case stronger.  However, signing multiple spending bills without wall funding when Republicans had the majority in both Houses makes his case for a national emergency at this time dubious.

 

It's worth pointing out that we'd never be at this juncture if both parties over the years kept kicking the can down the road when it came to the problem of illegal immigration.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

43 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

 

It's worth pointing out that we'd never be at this juncture if both parties over the years kept kicking the can down the road when it came to the problem of illegal immigration.

 

And that's the true national emergency. Mental patients have taken over the house.

 

[BeginnersMind]

A bunch of folks who have said Trump has the authority to do this and his case is legally strong may be in for their great awakening. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/presidents-and-guardrails-11550274328?mod=mhp

 

And of course the blatherer in chief only hurt his case even more yesterday. 

Edited February 16, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[HamSandwhich]

7 hours ago, Turk71 said:

The discussion about whether there really is a 'national emergency' at the border should be a short one. Trump admitted that "he didn't need to do this" "wanted the wall faster than the legislative process would allow". He said this because he has no control over what comes out of his mouth. You know whoever wrote the speech would not be dumb enough to say that.

 Just for the record I have no affiliation with political parties so the usual mature and intelligent responses like 'suck it dems' etc. don't apply. I like to think for myself and think that money and influence peddling have corrupted the current system. Lobbying of Congress and corporate influence through super pacs undermine democracy imo. 

Won't be as simple as that, calling national emergency gives very broad powers to the president.  All he has to do is point towards a provision under a law and he can declare it.  It actually does not indicate that there needs to be an actual national emergency (that can be subjective as we're seeing today).  I don't particularly like that this is what the state of the law on this matter is as it can lead to abuse down the line also.  It is what it is.  As far as saying "he didn't need to do this", that's easily explained as saying something along the lines of he "did not need to do this [had we been able to get the funding through congress but now he has to becuase it is an emergency].  You must know that this stuff can be spun any way that people want to make it seem.  Not as slam dunk as you think.  Your personal feelings on the issue do not matter.

 

http://www.astho.org/Programs/Preparedness/Public-Health-Emergency-Law/Emergency-Authority-and-Immunity-Toolkit/National-Emergencies-Act,-Sections-201-and-301-Fact-Sheet/

 

Declaration

NEA Section 201 authorizes the president to declare a national emergency. The proclamation of a national emergency must be immediately transmitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register.^1,2 Under NEA Section 301, statutory emergency authorities enabled by the national emergency declaration cannot be exercised until the president specifies the provisions of law under which the president or other officials will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration or in subsequent Executive Orders published in theFederal Register and transmitted to Congress.

 

 

[Nanker]

17 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Agreed, but worries that it is unconstitutional seem to be more than orange man bad.  Seems like a fair argument to make   

 

 

I fully get your position on this, and it’s just really complicated.  Even if a wall helps in some respects, it could hurt on a logicial level.  There are plenty of people here illegally that would almost assuredly been a victim of a crime, whether it’s violent or sexual, if they didn’t get the ***** out of Central America.  I have spoken to people seeking asylum where their family members back home have since been murdered, raped, or recruited (by force) to gangs.  So that’s an example of someone coming here illegally that avoided that.  And I get your point about some people here illegally are sex trafficking victims.  

 

So we have examples of people suffering because of illegal immigration (though perhaps they would still face that if there weren’t able to cross the border?), and examples of people avoiding suffering because illegal immigration.

 

 

Edit: my only point is good and bad comes through the border.  It’s tough to see the net effect tbh.  My opinions always been that it’s worth it to help the good that come over the border.  

 

And with respect to human trafficking, even with a perfect wall that stops the US from being a consumer of sex trafficking victims, it’s tough to say what that has on the impact of sex trafficking on the whole.  

Why do they want to come to America when they don’t speak the language? Wouldn’t they be safe in Mexico? 

[boyst]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Yup.  He's often his own worst enemy (the Lester Holt interview after firing Comey is the perfect example).  I don't recall a president proclaiming a national emergency because Congress (who has the power of the purse) refused to fund one of his policy goals.  If he declared a national emergency his first week on the job to build a border wall citing serious problems like human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc... it would make his case stronger.  However, signing multiple spending bills without wall funding when Republicans had the majority in both Houses makes his case for a national emergency at this time dubious.

 

It's worth pointing out that we'd never be at this juncture if both parties over the years kept kicking the can down the road when it came to the problem of illegal immigration.

In a counter point I can easily believe that his first few years we're surrounded by less than experienced politicians and many idiots who did not see the end game that was coming Re the wall.

 

When both sides said they'd continue to work with him finding the wall going forward if he consented to their needs and reneged he started to get doses of the reality.  

 

I can easily believe that it's 2 years in and he's just now catching stride but this gif sums up every other day of his stride when he does something stupid or the media makes him look sloppy and I just can't find the words.

[BeginnersMind]

24 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Won't be as simple as that, calling national emergency gives very broad powers to the president.  All he has to do is point towards a provision under a law and he can declare it.  It actually does not indicate that there needs to be an actual national emergency (that can be subjective as we're seeing today).  I don't particularly like that this is what the state of the law on this matter is as it can lead to abuse down the line also.  It is what it is.  As far as saying "he didn't need to do this", that's easily explained as saying something along the lines of he "did not need to do this [had we been able to get the funding through congress but now he has to becuase it is an emergency].  You must know that this stuff can be spun any way that people want to make it seem.  Not as slam dunk as you think.  Your personal feelings on the issue do not matter.

 

http://www.astho.org/Programs/Preparedness/Public-Health-Emergency-Law/Emergency-Authority-and-Immunity-Toolkit/National-Emergencies-Act,-Sections-201-and-301-Fact-Sheet/

 

Declaration

NEA Section 201 authorizes the president to declare a national emergency. The proclamation of a national emergency must be immediately transmitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register.^1,2 Under NEA Section 301, statutory emergency authorities enabled by the national emergency declaration cannot be exercised until the president specifies the provisions of law under which the president or other officials will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration or in subsequent Executive Orders published in theFederal Register and transmitted to Congress.

 

 

 

From that WSJ piece above. A Pres­i­dent’s au­thor­ity is at its peak when he acts with the sup­port of Con­gress. It is some­what weaker if he acts on his own but Con­gress hasn’t spo­ken. But a Pres­i­dent’s power is “at its low­est ebb,” [quoting Justice Jackson from SCOTUS],when “the Pres­i­dent takes mea­sures in­com­pat­i­ble with the ex­pressed or im­plied will of Con­gress.”

 

Such is the clear case here. 

[Nanker]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Yup.  He's often his own worst enemy (the Lester Holt interview after firing Comey is the perfect example).  I don't recall a president proclaiming a national emergency because Congress (who has the power of the purse) refused to fund one of his policy goals.  If he declared a national emergency his first week on the job to build a border wall citing serious problems like human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc... it would make his case stronger.  However, signing multiple spending bills without wall funding when Republicans had the majority in both Houses makes his case for a national emergency at this time dubious.

 

It's worth pointing out that we'd never be at this juncture if both parties over the years kept kicking the can down the road when it came to the problem of illegal immigration.

Congress has abdicated their responsibility for decades to craft and pass a budget to fund the running of the government. 

Instead we get these horseshit string of contuing resolutions that fund sectors of the government. 

 

No POTUS can sign a bill or budget that isn’t presented to them. None of the CR’s he previously signed had anything to do with the DHS which is where the wall funding item resides. 

 

Most of our representatives in Washington believe their Job One is to get re-elected. They don’t want to be held accountable by getting skin in the game on controversial, thorny, and tough issues like immigration reform, Social Security, and Medicare reform. 

The last politician with the intelligence and gravitas to tackle a thorn bush like this was Senator Moynihan’s reform of Social Security. There are no players on the stage now that come close to being his peer. 

[The_Dude]

I support the wall and Trumps immigration policies. But on the other hand I’m also wondering what’s gonna happen to my dry wall crews. 

[grinreaper]

14 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

I support the wall and Trumps immigration policies. But on the other hand I’m also wondering what’s gonna happen to my dry wall crews. 

How are they on steel walls?

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

A bunch of folks who have said Trump has the authority to do this and his case is legally strong may be in for their great awakening. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/presidents-and-guardrails-11550274328?mod=mhp

 

And of course the blatherer in chief only hurt his case even more yesterday. 

The Commander in Chief... which means the President has an obligation to secure our borders.

Again, serious questions for the open border crowd in this thread: do you have a door on your house? Do you have walls in your house? Does your house or HOA have a barrier? If someone walked into your home uninvited, would you call the police? If you have answered "yes" to any of these questions why are you against securing our national border against people who would come into the United State illegally? 

[Koko78]

I love how everyone on the left is suddenly a Constitutional scholar.