What’s “violating the constitution” about the shutdown situation?
What are you talking about?
Remind me which branch has authority over the budget and financial matters.
Read my link
1000 miles is not a continuous wall across the border. The border is roughly 2000 miles long. Trump repeatedly and consistently asserted that the wall would cover 1000 miles of border that was not protected by natural features.
If I promise you 1000 dollars and give you $250, I’m not clarifying my original statement. I was lying when I made the original promise.
I’m not “suggesting here” that anyone should adopt any form of “Keysianism”. What principle is it you think conservatives have betrayed? What does the shutdown have to do with personal responsibility, or family values? It’s an argument over the difference between $5.7B and $1.6B, about 0.1% of annual federal outlays, or about 169 (234-65) miles of steel bollard fencing.
The executive and legislative branches both have roles to play in the process. Again, what constitutional violations do you think are occurring in this current shutdown fight?
Let’s see a cite for the post of mine that you’re referring to, since I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. If you’re gonna make claims about me, you should back them up with links to posts.
Again, why would you expect Pelosi to offer to give Trump something she opposes (wall funding), with nothing offered in exchange? That doesn’t sound like a reasonable thing to expect. Trump is making demands while offering absolutely nothing in return.
She wants something both parties have agreed to just a few weeks ago, and something Trump has said he wants - the government to be funded and the shutdown to end. That’s something that both parties want. She’s made that very clear, and has taken action in a bipartisan way to accomplish it. But McConnell does nothing and Trump does nothing.
What dollar amount are you OK with?
dollar amount for WHAT?
For the president to violate the constitution. Could Obama have shut down the government until Congress agreed to fund Medicare for all?
If Congress was incapable of overriding his veto, then yes, he could have. That’s the way our Constitution & government works. What Constitutional violations are you imagining?
I suggest you re-read my comments while keeping in mind that I’m responding to two main arguments: that Pelosi is now responsible for the shutdown, and that paying billions for a public works project that has no economic utility is an unobjectionable thing.
As I said, mainstream conservativism today has turned its back on probably every principle it held just a few years ago. Name a principle; I’ll bet it has been sold out.
You think what’s happening right now is by design? Wow ok.
I don’t think what’s happening right now is a violation of the Constitution. If you do, I hope you have more compelling arguments than “Wow ok.”
As a general principle, do you believe Presidents can declare emergencies to promote spending on projects rejected by Congress?
Such as, for example, President Warren declaring a state of emergency to allow noncitizens to use military hospitals for general healthcare needs, after Congress rejected proposals to do so.
Sorry, the thought if you having been OK with Obama shutting down the government to get MFA is just too much for me. I haven’t gotten past that yet.
You have not presented this analysis because you’ve never even seen it. And I already posted (#445) a study showing that it didn’t do much to decrease off-checkpoint land border crossings.
How much for how little? You’ve already admitted that 100% is unattainable. Cost per benefit is asymptotic.
That’s not how this works. You want to spend my money (or more realistically with the Pubs being in charge, my kid’s money), so that’s your job. Let’s see their past analysis. Not that it matters much, as I already posted one showing it didn’t do much.
Here you’ve admitted to advocating for a boondoggle without knowing what it even is or whether it will work. I already posted (#454) a GAO assessment of CPB’s recent scheme. Despite having previously given them instructions on how to justify their plans, they’ve done next to nothing. They don’t need “all that information” to assess past efforts, locations, and the current barrier candidates, as well as both past and proposed technology deployments (e.g. drones, although IIRC they’re even worse wrt cost).
Want to tax me a bit more to pay for some studies? I’m on board with that. Want to tax me (or borrow) to spend billions on as-of-yet unjustified governmental mystery meat? No thanks.
“Can”? Yes, or at least “probably” for some definitions of “projects”. As for your specific hypothetical, I haven’t seen a specific emergency declaration law authorizing it, but am open to the possibility that one, or an interpretation of one, may exist.
But you asked about general principles, and I generally think it’s best if Congress is involved rather than the President bypassing them. For example, when Obama implemented DACA after he got frustrated with Congress for failing to approve the DREAM Act, I was dissatisfied with that decision.
“been OK” with is not the same thing as “a violation of the Constitution”. I would have been dissatisfied with Obama if he had done that, but it wouldn’t, AFAICT, have been a “violation of the Constitution”. Do you understand the difference between “things I don’t like” and “things that violate the Constitution”?
Well, I agree with you on DACA. In terms of process.
So why are you fine with essentially the same process possibly being used for the wall?