Veto

[Merge]

Appears that Trump will veto the measure to end the emergency declaration.

I had hoped there would be enough republicans to stand against Trump here as he is clearly bypassing constitutional authority as congress had just voted against funding the wall.

Likely the ends up to be a court battle and I honestly have no idea how that will play out.
I don't think the court will want a battle over every national emergency declaration and they could say that mechanism is in place through veto override... or they could say that congress specifically voted against the wall so Trump's emergency declaration is unconstitutional.

I hope the courts block it as I think it will set a horrible precedent going forward and bad for our republic and democrats shouldn't be expected to play by a different set of rules when they are in power.

 

[knowknow456]

I'm shocked it has taken this long for a comment to be posted about our national emergency. We have a number of people on this site who are fairly strict constitutional constructionists. I would imagine they are appalled by the whole thing. I would be interested in their opinions.

 

[SPK145]

Appears that Trump will veto the measure to end the emergency declaration.

I had hoped there would be enough republicans to stand against Trump here as he is clearly bypassing constitutional authority as congress had just voted against funding the wall.

Likely the ends up to be a court battle and I honestly have no idea how that will play out.
I don't think the court will want a battle over every national emergency declaration and they could say that mechanism is in place through veto override... or they could say that congress specifically voted against the wall so Trump's emergency declaration is unconstitutional.

I hope the courts block it as I think it will set a horrible precedent going forward and bad for our republic and democrats shouldn't be expected to play by a different set of rules when they are in power.

The entire National Emergencies Act (“NEA”) should be unconstitutional as it is a naked power grab for the president. That’s the conversation we should be having, not the Trump Derangement Syndrome knee-jerk reactions we’re seeing.

There’s nothing in the NEA about what if congress previously voted against funding. Under the NEA, you can redirect military funding towards these so-called emergencies.

As long as this crazy NEA is on the books, the president has an inordinate amount of power due to congress abdicating their constitutional authority.

 

[Merge]

not the Trump Derangement Syndrome knee-jerk reactions we’re seeing.

This is about the executive failing to have their party negotiate a bill and having their emergency declaration rebuked by their own party and then doing it anyway. You were way harsher on Obama for doing less and I even agreed with you on some of those instances. This is not just about Trump. This would establish a really bad precedent that will be abused by both parties.

There’s nothing in the NEA about what if congress previously voted against funding.

Indeed, it was more of a thought exercise for the board. I do think that will be considered by the court eventually if they give an opinion relating to what would qualify as an emergency. The question is if an emergency act can override the separation of powers effectively giving the president unlimited power over appropriations. I do not believe the emergency act was intended to do.

 

[SPK145]

This is about the executive failing to have their party negotiate a bill and having their emergency declaration rebuked by their own party and then doing it anyway. You were way harsher on Obama for doing less and I even agreed with you on some of those instances. This is not just about Trump. This would establish a really bad precedent that will be abused by both parties.

Wasn't harsher on Obama, just similarly harsh. He used the NEA for what were clearly not national emergencies in America and, although not using the NEA, also circumvented congress when he gave $7.9 billion to insurance companies that was not in accordance with the Affordable (LOL!!) Healthcare Act or had not been appropriated by congress or when he claimed agreements weren't treaties so he could circumvent the senate and gave Iran billions. Same thing here. Hence the obvious Trump Derangement Syndrome.

That precedent was established a long time ago.

The question is if an emergency act can override the separation of powers effectively giving the president unlimited power over appropriations. I do not believe the emergency act was intended to do.

Wow, this is EXACTLY what the National Emergencies Act was intended to do. Congress has always been a bunch of pussies and they abdicated their authority to the president because of it.

 

[Merge]

Same thing here. Hence the obvious Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Those were not the same thing. Obama admin believed the payments were legal and was appealing the initial decision. Assuming the government lost the appeal and then declared a national emergency to make the payments anyway I'd agree with you but the court allowed the admin to continue with the payments through the appeal process... A valid point for criticism for sure but I do feel this is different as it lets the president do whatever he wants. I dont want to see medicare for all, climate change, gun control addressed in the same manner but we are opening that door.

The other one was Iran's money. I dont think US appropriations applies there, and the Iran sanctions were from an executive order, so it was appropriate for am executive order to return their money.

Wow, this is EXACTLY what the National Emergencies Act was intended to do.

Not if you read into the history of the law. Lawmakes were indeed concerned about separation of powers. They did not intend to let the president do whatever he wants.


https://archive.org/stream/mergenc0...FjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2FSusX06gESi9cgpdahA_w

 

[Pirata]

If we look past our biases we should all be concerned that our government is no longer functioning as it was intended.

In a letter to James Madison, George Washington wrote:

"We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a National character to support—If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it."

https://founders.archives.gov/GEWN-04-03-02-0357

 

[Pirata]

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

 

[Merge]

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

 

[HALL85]

View embedded media

Merge, don’t be so hard on yourself....

 

[Merge]

Merge, don’t be so hard on yourself....

 

[Pirata]

Merge

Your point?

I post a factual listing of presidential creation of national emergencies and that's your response?

We're you born an A-Hole or have you worked hard to achieve it?

 

[Merge]

No, I just play one on the internet.

Use words next time. You're more than capable of having a discussion, so have it.
I am sure everyone in this thread has an understanding of previous emergency actions.

People on this board called Obama a dictator... but crickets when Trump raises the bar of executive overreach?

 

[Pirata]

Use words next time. You're more than capable of having a discussion, so have it.

Hey Einstein. I don't need you to tell me what I care to post or not post.

I am sure everyone in this thread has an understanding of previous emergency actions.

Are you clairvoyant and now know what everyone on this board knows and does not know?

Did you recently buy Rivals and are now outlawing posting of links unless they have an analysis that passes your muster?

You're more than capable of having a discussion, so have it.

The problem is you are not and so I tend not to engage in replying to your one-sided rants to yourself.

 

[Pirata]

View embedded media

Use words next time. You're more than capable of having a discussion, so have it.

Why don't you try following your own advice?

 

[Merge]

Why don't you try following your own advice?

I was trolling you for posting a link without any discussion around it... Hence the link with no text.

You're too sensitive man, lighten up.

Go on, what were you trying to say with your link?

 

[HALL85]

View embedded media

One of my favorite movies Uncle Rico...

 

[Pirata]

Go on, what were you trying to say with your link?

If I wanted to say something about it would have said it.

I posted it strictly for information for people to look at and draw their own thoughts. I believe the information in the link was germain to the subject being discussed

By the way on another note I thought hell had frozen over when I saw you liked one of my posts. Lol

 

[Merge]

If I wanted to say something about it would have said it.

I posted it strictly for information for people to look at and draw their own thoughts. I believe the information in the link was germain to the subject being discussed

By the way on another note I thought hell had frozen over when I saw you liked one of my posts. Lol

We probably agree on a lot of things but only the more divisive stuff tends to get a discussion going. I thought your other post was interesting and I hadn't thought about it from the perspective of an unsuccessful run leading to a decent amount of leverage if fundraising is there.

On this topic, I'll stand by my reaction on your link. One of those things is unlike the others in that there is only one emergency declaration there that was rebuked by Congress twice.

If this goes through, the next Democrat can use it for everything I support that would be impossible to get through Congress. I dont want that to be how we move forward at all.

Thats not Trump derangement syndrome. I was opposed to Obama acting without congress in some instances too... I just see it as something unprecidented and bad for the country.

 

[seton1996]

One of my favorite movies Uncle Rico...

Vote for Pedro!

 

[Pirata]

Your concerns are noble but that train left the station a long time ago.

If you want to debate the use of the national emergency on its own merits and in the context of a normal political environment I would say I prefer not to see that used.

However in light of the political war that is going on where there are no rules I can understand it's use.

I am beginning to subscribe to the belief that the Democratic disdain for Trump is now just a distraction and tool to advance revolutionary and radical change.

It's a simple strategy. "Trump is a horrible demon, ergo we must do anything we can to stop him."

The core issue we should debate is
socialism versus capitalism. Do we want the state to control industry, media, education, healthcare, and everything else or do we want those things to be controlled by the private sector with a reasonable amount of regulation by the government?

That is the elephant in the room. Debating the use of the national emergency is a nit.

 

[Merge]

The core issue we should debate is
socialism versus capitalism. Do we want the state to control industry, media, education, healthcare, and everything else or do we want those things to be controlled by the private sector with a reasonable amount of regulation by the government?

That is the elephant in the room. Debating the use of the national emergency is a nit.

If that is what you believe to be the core issue, you should be screaming about this emergency declaration as it will literally establish a precedent for any democrat in office to respond to any "emergency" with whatever policy they want.

I don't quite agree that is the core issue as the things that are being discussed are only brought up because of certain failures of a free market.
We should debate and find the best way to address those failure. No one is promoting state ownership of production though, so it's not really socialism.

The thread on this board about the comments from Jamie Dimon basically acknowledges that the free market has failed a segment of the population, kudos to him for trying to address it now, but those of us who have been agreeing with him for years were chastised then from the free market folk. We are not moving away from capitalism. We need capitalism, and the free market should and will be the primary driving force of our economy. I think the government can help fill the gaps of where capitalism fails.

 

[HALL85]

If that is what you believe to be the core issue, you should be screaming about this emergency declaration as it will literally establish a precedent for any democrat in office to respond to any "emergency" with whatever policy they want.

I don't quite agree that is the core issue as the things that are being discussed are only brought up because of certain failures of a free market.
We should debate and find the best way to address those failure. No one is promoting state ownership of production though, so it's not really socialism.

The thread on this board about the comments from Jamie Dimon basically acknowledges that the free market has failed a segment of the population, kudos to him for trying to address it now, but those of us who have been agreeing with him for years were chastised then from the free market folk. We are not moving away from capitalism. We need capitalism, and the free market should and will be the primary driving force of our economy. I think the government can help fill the gaps of where capitalism fails.

The failures we see in the free market are shared by industry, government and education. Greed, self-preservation and incompetence. Despite that, we have done much better than others. What “gaps” do you think government should fill that they don’t participate today?

 

[Merge]

The failures we see in the free market are shared by industry, government and education. Greed, self-preservation and incompetence. Despite that, we have done much better than others. What “gaps” do you think government should fill that they don’t participate today?

That's more of a philosophical approach to any issue, but the honest answer is that it depends on the circumstances and I think it is a balancing act that will continue where sometimes we need more government and sometimes less. That's not to say that the government can do everything better than the free market. I wouldn't agree with that at all. I think the free market sometimes lacks the incentive to do things that would be beneficial for the country overall and most of the time the government lacks the incentive to do things efficiently and effectively.

 

[HALL85]

That's more of a philosophical approach to any issue, but the honest answer is that it depends on the circumstances and I think it is a balancing act that will continue where sometimes we need more government and sometimes less. That's not to say that the government can do everything better than the free market. I wouldn't agree with that at all. I think the free market sometimes lacks the incentive to do things that would be beneficial for the country overall and most of the time the government lacks the incentive to do things efficiently and effectively.

So everything is fine right now in your opinion?

 

[Merge]

So everything is fine right now in your opinion?

No, we've just debated it all before.
I believe the government could play a larger roll in healthcare, education, the environment, the economy etc... but there are are fairly long and nuanced discussions within each of those.

 

[HALL85]

No, we've just debated it all before.
I believe the government could play a larger roll in healthcare, education, the environment, the economy etc... but there are are fairly long and nuanced discussions within each of those.

I was just looking for a few specific examples to better understand your position.

 

[Merge]

I was just looking for a few specific examples to better understand your position.

Each topic is worthy of a discussion but each conversation will get quite long. Overgeneralizing quite a but but two quick examples would be healthcare and the environment.
Heathcare - I believe the tens of millions of people without insurances places additional pressure on the healthcare system through increased costs in premiums and taxes. I believe the private sector lacks the incentive and ability to address that. I believe we should never deny coverage to someone for a pre-existing condition though that opens us up to the likelihood of abuses within the systems.

Environment - I believe the free market does not have the incentives in place to protect our environment and respond to the risks of climate change.

 

[HALL85]

Each topic is worthy of a discussion but each conversation will get quite long. Overgeneralizing quite a but but two quick examples would be healthcare and the environment.
Heathcare - I believe the tens of millions of people without insurances places additional pressure on the healthcare system through increased costs in premiums and taxes. I believe the private sector lacks the incentive and ability to address that. I believe we should never deny coverage to someone for a pre-existing condition though that opens us up to the likelihood of abuses within the systems.

Environment - I believe the free market does not have the incentives in place to protect our environment and respond to the risks of climate change.

Thanks...On the healthcare topic, I agree everyone should have access to healthcare, but we should focus on changing the incentives, create price transparency and enable more competition. Government should act as a regulatory agency and ensure there is a safety net. Do not believe the government should be in the business of delivering healthcare (just look at the VA).

Environment-Government should develop and implement policy, regulate and enforce the law. Not sure that is any different than what we have now.

 

[Merge]

Government should act as a regulatory agency and ensure there is a safety net. Do not believe the government should be in the business of delivering healthcare (just look at the VA).

If the free market was willing to fix it with limited government intervention, I would be all for that.
I'm not convinced they are.

I think opening up Medicare to lower age groups makes a lot of sense. Transition Medicare for those approaching retirement age to be what it is today, add in a safety net option for those younger than 50. Private companies can fill in the rest. There are lots of models that can work and be better than what we have today without the government running all of it.

Environment-Government should develop and implement policy, regulate and enforce the law. Not sure that is any different than what we have now.

Investment. I believe the government should be investing heavily in emerging technologies where the risk may be too high for private investment.