Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-15-2019, 11:54 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,679

Trump declares "National Emergency" to build The Wall-Will it hold?


As expected, Trump made his "National Emergency" Wall declaration. And I am wondering if this will hold up.
Quote:
In Mr. Trump’s case, he is defining a longstanding situation at the border as an emergency even though illegal crossings have actually fallen in recent years.
During hs declaration he actually says he "didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster", so where is the emergency? Do you think this will survive Congress and/or the courts? I hope not...but realistic expectations seem to be a thing of the past.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 02-15-2019 at 11:55 AM.
  #2  
Old 02-15-2019, 11:59 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,839
No. Even if it goes all the way to the supreme Court I don't think they will consider that good precedent to enact even with it's current composition.
  #3  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:01 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,602
Gaah. In rational times this would be shot down faster than a duck at the NRA summer barbecue but these are not rational times. One can only hope.
  #4  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:06 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,365
This may free up some funds for him if I understand it, but Trump is never going to build the wall that he promised. The best he can hope for is to redefine what it is that he's looking for, and then declare that he accomplished it. You see it now with Republicans replacing "border security" for Trumps wall.
The NY AG has threatened to sue; I hope to hell that the ACLU does; and there are bound to be others. I also await the response from House Democrats.
In the end, no wall, Donnie.
  #5  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:09 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,026
I know little about "standing" or how emergency declarations work. I'm hoping someone who knows more can chime in. Who sues?
  #6  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:09 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,463
It will almost definitely survive congress, with McConnell supporting it it is hard to imagine that there will be 20 Republicans in the senate who would vote to override a veto. The courts are a bit more iffy. On the one hand saying that the president can overrule Congress's power of the purse by saying the magic words "national emergency" is contrary to the checks and balances outlined by the constitution. On the other hand they may not want to risk tying the presidents hands to act in the face of a crisis, and they may argue that Congress gave the power to the president in the first place and if they object they should simply legislate against it. Recently it seems to me that the Supreme court seems to be willing to ignore actual political realities so long as there is a theoretically viable solution available.

In anycase, between the time it takes to go through the courts, and the time it takes to arrange for the land, design work etc. it may be that just about the time the first brick is placed, a new president comes in and declares the national emergency over.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 02-15-2019 at 12:11 PM.
  #7  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:09 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
By way of background information, we still have one active national emergency from the '70's:

Quote:
I, JIMMY CARTER, President of the United States, find that the situation in Iran constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. ...
Executive Order #12170

There are something like 30 other active national emergencies still. I don't think "but it's not really an emergency" is going to be the most fruitful angle of attack on this. YMMV.
  #8  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:12 PM
BeepKillBeep is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,445
If it does, then it is bad for the USA. Bypassing Congress so the Executive branch can have their way for a phony national emergency ought to be very concerning to the USA citizens.
  #9  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:13 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
By way of background information, we still have one active national emergency from the '70's:



Executive Order #12170

There are something like 30 other active national emergencies still. I don't think "but it's not really an emergency" is going to be the most fruitful angle of attack on this. YMMV.
How many of those were declared after funding approval was previously denied by Congress? Or proposed by a President that declared that it wasn't really an emergency?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 02-15-2019 at 12:14 PM.
  #10  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:16 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
By way of background information, we still have one active national emergency from the '70's:



Executive Order #12170

There are something like 30 other active national emergencies still. I don't think "but it's not really an emergency" is going to be the most fruitful angle of attack on this. YMMV.
But how many of those national emergencies directly circumnavigated Congress's power of the purse?

Also, just for the record, do you believe that the such a declaration of emergency is legally within Trump's power?
  #11  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:17 PM
Skammer's Avatar
Skammer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Music City USA
Posts: 14,182
On the other hand, I'm looking forward to the next Democratic president using federal and military funds to address real, actual emergencies like climate change, healthcare accessibility and gun violence, unencumbered by the need to actually persuade Congress to allocate any money.
  #12  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:18 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
By way of background information, we still have one active national emergency from the '70's:



Executive Order #12170

There are something like 30 other active national emergencies still. I don't think "but it's not really an emergency" is going to be the most fruitful angle of attack on this. YMMV.
The linked executive order was made 10 days after the beginning of the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Which was legitimately an emergency, in the literal definition of the word as something sudden, unexpected, and urgent. Maybe it's not now, but you can't really blame Jimmy Carter for that.

Were any of the other existing national emergencies not actually emergent at the time they were declared?

The situation at the US Southern border is none of those things. If anything, it's less unexpected or urgent than it has been in the past. And the US government has failed to do something about it not because it happened too fast for them to react, but because we don't agree on what to do about it. A failure of consensus is not an emergency.

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; 02-15-2019 at 12:18 PM.
  #13  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:18 PM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
It will almost definitely survive congress, with McConnell supporting it it is hard to imagine that there will be 20 Republicans in the senate who would vote to override a veto. The courts are a bit more iffy. On the one hand saying that the president can overrule Congress's power of the purse by saying the magic words "national emergency" is contrary to the checks and balances outlined by the constitution. On the other hand they may not want to risk tying the presidents hands to act in the face of a crisis, and they may argue that Congress gave the power to the president in the first place and if they object they should simply legislate against it. Recently it seems to me that the Supreme court seems to be willing to ignore actual political realities so long as there is a theoretically viable solution available.

In anycase, between the time it takes to go through the courts, and the time it takes to arrange for the land, design work etc. it may be that just about the time the first brick is placed, a new president comes in and declares the national emergency over.
Is a resolution challenging an emergency subject to a veto? My (limited) understanding is that it's not. If the House passes a resolution, it becomes a privileged resolution that must be voted on in the Senate; and if it passes both chambers by a simple majority, it takes effect and the emergency is consigned to the dustbin of history.

Can someone with more knowledge than I have — not hard — confirm or contradict?
  #14  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:25 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skammer View Post
On the other hand, I'm looking forward to the next Democratic president using federal and military funds to address real, actual emergencies like climate change, healthcare accessibility and gun violence, unencumbered by the need to actually persuade Congress to allocate any money.
What specifically do you imagine a future president might do with this new-found power (that has existed for decades)? It's not a do-whatever-you-want card. There are still limits on what powers a president has under a national emergency. He can't, for example, ban the possession of all semi-automatic firearms.
  #15  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:30 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What specifically do you imagine a future president might do with this new-found power (that has existed for decades)? It's not a do-whatever-you-want card. There are still limits on what powers a president has under a national emergency. He can't, for example, ban the possession of all semi-automatic firearms.
What specifically is your position on this-Do you support the President's decision, or oppose it?
  #16  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:30 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What specifically do you imagine a future president might do with this new-found power (that has existed for decades)? It's not a do-whatever-you-want card. There are still limits on what powers a president has under a national emergency. He can't, for example, ban the possession of all semi-automatic firearms.
No, that's what Obama and Hillary were going to do supposedly.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #17  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:37 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What specifically is your position on this-Do you support the President's decision, or oppose it?
I wish Congress hadn't spent the last several decades giving up power to the executive branch. I suspect this order is legal, but I'm not a fan. I don't think it's really setting a new "precedent" either.
  #18  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:41 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What specifically do you imagine a future president might do with this new-found power (that has existed for decades)? It's not a do-whatever-you-want card. There are still limits on what powers a president has under a national emergency. He can't, for example, ban the possession of all semi-automatic firearms.
Well lets start with an emergency in woman's health requiring a 1.5 billion dollar grant to planned parenthood to get their clinics to match those required by state law.

Then we will go with an an emergency in minority voting requiring 50 million dollars to revive ACORN.

An emergency in education requiring a $70 billion dollars to allow free community college tuition for those earning less than $125,000

An emergency in healthcare requiring Healthcare to be centralized to a single payer system.

Not to mention the actual global warming emergency which would require that the Green New Deal be implemented in full.

All of this will of course result in a emergency in the budget requiring large tax increases on those earning more than $250,000 a year.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 02-15-2019 at 12:46 PM.
  #19  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:44 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Well lets start with an emergency in woman's health requiring a 1.5 billion dollar grant to planned parenthood to get their clinics to match those required by state law.

Then we will go with an an emergency in minority voting requiring 50 million dollars to revive ACORN.

An emergency in education requiring a $70 billion dollars to allow free community college tuition for those earning less than $125,000

An emergency in healthcare requiring a public option.

All of this will of course result in a emergency in the budget requiring large tax increases on those earning more than $250,000 a year.
I don't think you have a very good understanding of what the National Emergencies Act allows. You might want to review this, for starters.
  #20  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:48 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What specifically do you imagine a future president might do with this new-found power (that has existed for decades)?
How about relocate Guantanamo prisoners to the United States over the objections of Congress?

How about decide that migrants should be eligible for treatment at military hospitals at no cost to those receiving care?
  #21  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:51 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
Is a resolution challenging an emergency subject to a veto?
Trump seems to think so, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
  #22  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:54 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think you have a very good understanding of what the National Emergencies Act allows. You might want to review this, for starters.
What specifically is violated by the items on my list that are not violated by Trumps declaration. (Other than IOKIYAR)

Last edited by Buck Godot; 02-15-2019 at 12:56 PM.
  #23  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:56 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I wish Congress hadn't spent the last several decades giving up power to the executive branch. I suspect this order is legal, but I'm not a fan. I don't think it's really setting a new "precedent" either.
You're not a fan...but you are going to spend post after post telling us why it shouldn't be opposed.
What is the opposite of "Damning with faint praise"-"Praising with faint damnation"?
  #24  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:59 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
Is a resolution challenging an emergency subject to a veto? My (limited) understanding is that it's not. If the House passes a resolution, it becomes a privileged resolution that must be voted on in the Senate; and if it passes both chambers by a simple majority, it takes effect and the emergency is consigned to the dustbin of history.

Can someone with more knowledge than I have — not hard — confirm or contradict?
So, as I read it, a emergency declared by the President is "terminated" when (1) "there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency" or (2) "the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency." 50 U.S.C. 1622.

According to the Senate website glossary, a "joint resolution" is " submitted (just as a bill) to the president for possible signature into law."

So unless I'm missing some relevant provision (entirely possible), the President would need to sign the joint resolution for it take effect and (therefore) could veto it. Which is kinda weird, because if he's willing to sign the joint resolution, he could just issue the proclamation. But I guess it forces Congress to take partial ownership of ending whatever emergency has been declared.
  #25  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:04 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,959
I think the Senate and the Supreme Court will let this stand. The Republicans aren't going to defy a Republican President. So Trump will probably be able to start construction of his wall by stealing the money from the armed forces.

Trump's supporters will believe this is a great thing. Because Trump will tell them to believe that.

In the long run, this is going to end up as another failure for Trump. He can probably divert enough money to get a wall started but he's not going to be able to complete it without a lot more money from Congress and the House isn't going to approve it. So Trump will spend five billion dollars or so building a three mile long section of the wall and it'll stop there. It'll accomplish nothing except to be a standing demonstration of Trump's inability to get things done.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 02-15-2019 at 01:05 PM.
  #26  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:17 PM
begbert2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think the Senate and the Supreme Court will let this stand. The Republicans aren't going to defy a Republican President. So Trump will probably be able to start construction of his wall by stealing the money from the armed forces.

Trump's supporters will believe this is a great thing. Because Trump will tell them to believe that.

In the long run, this is going to end up as another failure for Trump. He can probably divert enough money to get a wall started but he's not going to be able to complete it without a lot more money from Congress and the House isn't going to approve it. So Trump will spend five billion dollars or so building a three mile long section of the wall and it'll stop there. It'll accomplish nothing except to be a standing demonstration of Trump's inability to get things done.
Trump will spend eight billion dollars on Russian steel that will sit unused. It'll accomplish something - just not building a wall.
  #27  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You're not a fan...but you are going to spend post after post telling us why it shouldn't be opposed.
What is the opposite of "Damning with faint praise"-"Praising with faint damnation"?
I don't care if you oppose it. Go right ahead. Pelosi can author a joint resolution, and bring it up for a vote. It'll probably even pass in the House.

I don't know what you expected. Fire-and-brimstone outrage over it? It's like 0.2% of the federal budget, to do something I'm not opposed to. Sure, I'd prefer he not go about it this way (via an emergency declaration), but I'm not going to wake up in a cold sweat tonight because he did. Like I said, I don't think it's especially precedent-setting. It is not, in the words of our former vice president, "a big fucking deal".
  #28  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:29 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think you have a very good understanding of what the National Emergencies Act allows. You might want to review this, for starters.
I didn't see anything in your link that would support Trump's "emergency" while precluding any of Buck Godot's.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #29  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:30 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
What specifically is violated by the items on my list that are not violated by Trumps declaration. (Other than IOKIYAR)
Presumably the answer is that while Congress has given the President broad emergency powers, you still need to tether your actions to some statutory power. We know what Trump is relying on. I don't know emergency power allows the President to impose income taxes (to use one of your examples) or issue education or community development grants. They could exist, but we know that they wouldn't be supported by 10 USC 2808 (the power that, as I understand it, Trump is relying on).

Edit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I didn't see anything in your link that would support Trump's "emergency" while precluding any of Buck Godot's.
Same answer to you, I suppose. The ability to declare the emergency seems to be largely without limit and so maybe you could declare it. But what that emergency allows you to then do is (while broad) limited by the grants of emergency powers.

Last edited by Falchion; 02-15-2019 at 01:33 PM.
  #30  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:31 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
What specifically is violated by the items on my list that are not violated by Trumps declaration. (Other than IOKIYAR)
It's not a matter of where it is violated, it's a matter of where does the President have authorization to raise taxes upon declaration of a national emergency. I don't see anywhere that he does.

The law is written in the format of "the President can do A, B, or C in a national emergency" NOT "the President can do whatever he wants to do in a national emergency except for X, Y, or Z". You're asking me to show you where in the list item X is, but that's not what the list is. The law lists things he CAN do, not things he can NOT do. If "raise taxes" isn't in the list (and it's not), he can't do it.

ETA: ninja'd by Falchion, and much more eloquently.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-15-2019 at 01:31 PM.
  #31  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:41 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't care if you oppose it. Go right ahead. Pelosi can author a joint resolution, and bring it up for a vote. It'll probably even pass in the House.

I don't know what you expected. Fire-and-brimstone outrage over it? It's like 0.2% of the federal budget, to do something I'm not opposed to.
So logically you are in support of the likely loss of readiness for our military? Don't think so, but that is where that logic from your post leads.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/p...uild-his-wall/
Quote:
The end result could mean multi-year delays for a host of construction projects military officials have deemed critical to force readiness.

Among the potential targets: a new vehicle maintenance shop at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, drydock repairs at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii, F-35 hangar improvements at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, ongoing hospital construction at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, and new family housing builds in South Korea, Italy and Wisconsin.
Military Times, that I quoted there, also did quote Congressman G. K. Butterfield:

Quote:
Things that are a national emergency:
- Opioid epidemic
- Russian interference in our elections
- Climate change
- Gun violence

Things that are not a national emergency:
-Building a wall on the southern border.
Even from very right wing groups, there is the view that this is a very bad precedent to let it stay.

Quote:
Outside experts also questioned the move. Mackenzie Eaglen, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said making the declaration “will forever destroy precedent for what constitutes an 'emergency' under executive authority.” She predicted an immediate and lengthy court challenge.
Bottom line, you still support a leader that is doing his best to undermine America just to give some some "good" feelings to his base.
  #32  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:42 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
Presumably the answer is that while Congress has given the President broad emergency powers, you still need to tether your actions to some statutory power. We know what Trump is relying on. I don't know emergency power allows the President to impose income taxes (to use one of your examples) or issue education or community development grants. They could exist, but we know that they wouldn't be supported by 10 USC 2808 (the power that, as I understand it, Trump is relying on).

Same answer to you, I suppose. The ability to declare the emergency seems to be largely without limit and so maybe you could declare it. But what that emergency allows you to then do is (while broad) limited by the grants of emergency powers.
OK, so what's to stop the next Democratic president from declaring that lack of access to safe abortion is a national emergency, and diverting military funds and personnel to building clinics in Kentucky?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #33  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:44 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's not a matter of where it is violated, it's a matter of where does the President have authorization to raise taxes upon declaration of a national emergency. I don't see anywhere that he does.

The law is written in the format of "the President can do A, B, or C in a national emergency" NOT "the President can do whatever he wants to do in a national emergency except for X, Y, or Z". You're asking me to show you where in the list item X is, but that's not what the list is. The law lists things he CAN do, not things he can NOT do. If "raise taxes" isn't in the list (and it's not), he can't do it.
Do you believe your opinions on this topic in general are influenced by your political affiliation?
  #34  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:45 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,570
I feel like I've been channeling Bricker all morning.

I believe that POTUS is within his legal rights under the National Emergencies Act to make this declaration. I believe that Congress does not have standing of themselves to bring a suit. And I believe that any suit brought by someone with standing (say, someone hosed by eminent domain seizure) will not prevail.

Which is all to say that here we have yet another law predicated in part on norms and tradition which are increasingly irrelevant. It relies on a rational actor in the White House willing to exercise the law in the way it was intended to be used. But the law was clearly poorly written and subject to being rules lawyered.

Congress could have fixed this, and they can fix it going forward, by clarifying the law if they so choose. But he's within the bounds of the law as written.


"You could warn them...if only you spoke Hovitos."
  #35  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
How about relocate Guantanamo prisoners to the United States over the objections of Congress?

How about decide that migrants should be eligible for treatment at military hospitals at no cost to those receiving care?
I don't see that a president's emergency powers allow for the relocation of prisoners. Same thing regarding medical treatment. But, given his powers as CiC and the nature of the prisoners as "enemy combatants" and / or military hospitals, there might be some other powers the president has that would allow him to accomplish either of those goals.

Aside from the legal aspects, they're both very likely political suicide. If a president were to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the states, he risks their release into the USA being ordered by a judge, and the potential for subsequent terrorist attacks. He'd be crucified for it. Same thing with military hospitals. The VA has been a total shitshow for years, but if he were to order them to treat illegal aliens for free, as soon as some soldier died while waiting for treatment at an overcrowded military hospital, well ... the president's political career would die with him.
  #36  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:46 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
OK, so what's to stop the next Democratic president from declaring that lack of access to safe abortion is a national emergency, and diverting military funds and personnel to building clinics in Kentucky?
A republican Congress given marching orders to oppose everything the Democratic President proposes, sight unseen...even if they previously supported the idea?
  #37  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:47 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
A republican Congress given marching orders to oppose everything the Democratic President proposes, sight unseen...even if they previously supported the idea?
How? Congress can't stop Trump this time.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #38  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:49 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't see that a president's emergency powers allow for the relocation of prisoners. Same thing regarding medical treatment. But, given his powers as CiC and the nature of the prisoners as "enemy combatants" and / or military hospitals, there might be some other powers the president has that would allow him to accomplish either of those goals.

Aside from the legal aspects, they're both very likely political suicide. If a president were to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the states, he risks their release into the USA being ordered by a judge, and the potential for subsequent terrorist attacks. He'd be crucified for it. Same thing with military hospitals. The VA has been a total shitshow for years, but if he were to order them to treat illegal aliens for free, as soon as some soldier died while waiting for treatment at an overcrowded military hospital, well ... the president's political career would die with him.
Sounds like you're just backtracking because the President could do either of those things under an emergency.

A few years ago, people would have probably said that there's no way a President would seize the power of the purse without setting off a firestorm. Today, a fringe political movement is just fine with THIS president doing that.
  #39  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:49 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
How? Congress can't stop Trump this time.
Well, they surely could if enough of them cared to.
  #40  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:56 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Sounds like you're just backtracking because the President could do either of those things under an emergency. ...
I don't see where the "backtracking" is. I also still don't see where either of those things are authorized by the National Emergencies Act. Could you point to a section of code perhaps that you think authorizes either of them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... A few years ago, people would have probably said that there's no way a President would seize the power of the purse without setting off a firestorm. Today, a fringe political movement is just fine with THIS president doing that.
You might be using a non-standard definition of the word "fringe" here. Anyways, it has set off a "firestorm". It's just not one with, I think, much legal basis (the firestorm opposing the national emergency declaration).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-15-2019 at 01:57 PM.
  #41  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:00 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Well, they surely could if enough of them cared to.
Well sure, it's theoretically possible. But Czarcasm said a Republican Congress could prevent a future Democratic president from enacting ridiculous emergency measures. My point was, like this Congress, they can't do it without a veto-proof majority in both houses.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #42  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
So logically you are in support of the likely loss of readiness for our military? Don't think so, but that is where that logic from your post leads. ...
Your "logic" has failed you. Why don't you try re-reading post #17 to figure out my position rather than trying to "logic" your way into it and making a total hash of it.
  #43  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:01 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,506
How about the fact that it's wildly unpopular? On the heels of the wildly unpopular shut down? I mean playing to the base is good during primary season, but how do you think this is playing out among independents?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...nal-emergency/

If you think only the rabid GOP base is enough to win, you weren't paying attention in the midterms, and if this is going to continue to be his strategy, then all I can say is please proceed with doing wildly unpopular things.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #44  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:04 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
How about relocate Guantanamo prisoners to the United States over the objections of Congress?

How about decide that migrants should be eligible for treatment at military hospitals at no cost to those receiving care?
I would have thought that the power to do either of those things would come (if at all) from the President's executive authority, not from any emergency power implicated by the National Emergencies Act. Is there some provision you're thinking of?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
OK, so what's to stop the next Democratic president from declaring that lack of access to safe abortion is a national emergency, and diverting military funds and personnel to building clinics in Kentucky?
What's your argument that he/she could?
  #45  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:05 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't see where the "backtracking" is. I also still don't see where either of those things are authorized by the National Emergencies Act. Could you point to a section of code perhaps that you think authorizes either of them?
For the first, perhaps you should look up the authority with respect to military construction which is the entire reason the president declared a national emergency.

For the second, 42 USC 1302b-5.

So do you think your political affiliation is shaping your views on this?
  #46  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:06 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
What's your argument that he/she could?
Because Trump is doing something equally idiotic right now?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #47  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:09 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Well sure, it's theoretically possible. But Czarcasm said a Republican Congress could prevent a future Democratic president from enacting ridiculous emergency measures. My point was, like this Congress, they can't do it without a veto-proof majority in both houses.
I'm sorry-I thought you would get the reference.
  #48  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:15 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your "logic" has failed you. Why don't you try re-reading post #17 to figure out my position rather than trying to "logic" your way into it and making a total hash of it.
What part of "Don't think so" that acknowledges already that that is not your position do you miss?

The point that you missed and continues to try to avoid by tap dancing around, is that indeed military readiness and other items will be negatively affected, and it is clear that you were a bit ignorant about what it really means to give this abuse of power to Trump.

The point also was to let you know why is that you do need to be outraged much more because as it was also pointed by Military Times, what Trump is doing is seen as a big mistake by right wingers like Mackenzie Eaglen, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who said: the declaration “will forever destroy precedent for what constitutes an 'emergency' under executive authority.” She predicted an immediate and lengthy court challenge. IOW, it means that she worries that once a Democratic president is in power you are giving him or her a lot of power that me and many others think that s/he should not get.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-15-2019 at 02:18 PM.
  #49  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:20 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I'm sorry-I thought you would get the reference.
You said: "A republican Congress given marching orders to oppose everything the Democratic President proposes, sight unseen...even if they previously supported the idea?" could stop Ms. Demprez from building abortion clinics in Kentucky under her emergency powers.

I get that you were referring to the GOP opposing everything Obama (and believe me, I revile that GOP congress as much as anyone). But even that noxious bunch couldn't have stopped this emergency powers nonsense, had Obama been craven enough to go there.

Or am I missing something else?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #50  
Old 02-15-2019, 02:20 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
For the second, 42 USC 1302b-5.
Unless I'm missing something, 42 USC 1320b-5 gives the HHS Secretary authority to waive certain regulatory requirements of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, (and other HHS administered programs) in the event of a declared emergency in order to ensure "that sufficient health care items and services are available to meet the needs of individuals in such area enrolled in the programs" administered by HHS.

How would that allow HHS to authorize the treatment of aliens at military hospitals? How would the HHS Secretary have the authority to require (or authorize) military hospitals to do anything? Since they are presumably under DOD jurisdiction. What am I missing?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Because Trump is doing something equally idiotic right now?
Okay then.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017