Stopping President Trump's Emergency Doesn't Need His Signature!

[Olde Europe]

Apparently the writers of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that there're would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

In 1976 they were so naive about the Presidency? Really? And that was why they wrote in a provision that would enable Congress easily to override an emergency proclamation. That doesn't make sense, or does it?

Much rather I would contend they weren't expecting a Congress so spineless as to stand by, idly, while a president would subvert the law and trample all over Congressional prerogatives.

 

[Flopper]

Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

Congress has certainly allocated money for specific purposes such as military construction and drug interdiction programs which Trump plans to use. If the president uses funds approved by congress for these specific programs to build a wall, he certainly is going against the will of congress. Congress does not have to pass a law forbidding the use of billions of dollars to build a new barrier wall, or any other major project because funds spent by the president on major projects must be approved by congress. The president's legal authority to spend money as he pleases is very limited.

 

[Flopper]

Apparently the writers of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that there're would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

In 1976 they were so naive about the Presidency? Really? And that was why they wrote in a provision that would enable Congress easily to override an emergency proclamation. That doesn't make sense, or does it?

Much rather I would contend they weren't expecting a Congress so spineless as to stand by, idly, while a president would subvert the law and trample all over Congressional prerogatives.

I was wrong. They actually did consider that there might be someone like Trump who would use the act to fill political promises or go against congress. They included what was called a legislative veto clause which would allow a simple majority vote to override a presidential veto to terminate a national emergency. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional so congress amended the act in 1985 to require a joint resolution by both houses to end the national emergency. A joint resolution just like any bill requires a 2/3 vote in both houses to override a presidential veto. So for congress to stop Trump, it will take a 2/3 vote.

 

[task0778]

Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

Congress has certainly allocated money for specific purposes such as military construction and drug interdiction programs which Trump plans to use. If the president uses funds approved by congress for these specific programs to build a wall, he certainly is going against the will of congress. Congress does not have to pass a law forbidding the use of billions of dollars to build a new barrier wall, or any other major project because funds spent by the president on major projects must be approved by congress. The president's legal authority to spend money as he pleases is very limited.

If Trump declares a border emergency, Section 2808 of Title 10 of U.S. law provides authority to build a wall: When a national emergency “requires use of the armed forces,” the Defense Department “may undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

Section 2808 of the Emergencies Act of 1976 allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects” that are “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” in the event that the president declares a national emergency. A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

There are no parameters governing the criteria for such a declaration or defining the types of projects that might be in order. The only thing the secretary of defense has to do is to communicate the nature of the decision and its costs to the relevant congressional committee, but he does not need to obtain congressional approval. One might legitimately feel uncomfortable with such broad authority delegated to the president, but nonetheless, this is the law on the books. Congress has delegated a lot of authority to the president for the purpose of protecting our sovereignty and security.

Given that Congress has delegated such authority to spend money under the NEA, I have no problem using it on a project that has already been authorized under statute. Section 102(a) of the 1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act provides that the secretary of homeland security “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads … in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated that DHS “construct fencing “along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.”

Long story short, Congress has in the last several decades delegated much of it's authority to the President, and now it's biting them in the ass. It's a hard sell IMHO to claim that Trump is subverting Congress or going against its will when in the past they have passed legislation to do what he's doing now.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Apparently the writers of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that there're would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

In 1976 they were so naive about the Presidency? Really? And that was why they wrote in a provision that would enable Congress easily to override an emergency proclamation. That doesn't make sense, or does it?

Much rather I would contend they weren't expecting a Congress so spineless as to stand by, idly, while a president would subvert the law and trample all over Congressional prerogatives.

I was wrong. They actually did consider that there might be someone like Trump who would use the act to fill political promises or go against congress. They included what was called a legislative veto clause which would allow a simple majority vote to override a presidential veto to terminate a national emergency. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional so congress amended the act in 1985 to require a joint resolution by both houses to end the national emergency. A joint resolution just like any bill requires a 2/3 vote in both houses to override a presidential veto. So for congress to stop Trump, it will take a 2/3 vote.

It is unlikely they will even get that in the House, let alone the Senate. However much some Republicans from purple states may grumble about the emergency declaration, Republican voters are solidly behind the President so they will not risk losing the support of the people who put them in office.

Trump enjoys strong support on the issue among Republicans, however, according to the poll. Seventy-seven percent of GOP respondents are in favor of the emergency declaration, compared to 18 percent who oppose it. Among Democrats, 81 percent of respondents oppose the declaration, as do 51 percent of independents.

Most oppose Trump emergency declaration in new poll, Republican support strong

 

[Flopper]

Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

Congress has certainly allocated money for specific purposes such as military construction and drug interdiction programs which Trump plans to use. If the president uses funds approved by congress for these specific programs to build a wall, he certainly is going against the will of congress. Congress does not have to pass a law forbidding the use of billions of dollars to build a new barrier wall, or any other major project because funds spent by the president on major projects must be approved by congress. The president's legal authority to spend money as he pleases is very limited.

If Trump declares a border emergency, Section 2808 of Title 10 of U.S. law provides authority to build a wall: When a national emergency “requires use of the armed forces,” the Defense Department “may undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

Section 2808 of the Emergencies Act of 1976 allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects” that are “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” in the event that the president declares a national emergency. A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

There are no parameters governing the criteria for such a declaration or defining the types of projects that might be in order. The only thing the secretary of defense has to do is to communicate the nature of the decision and its costs to the relevant congressional committee, but he does not need to obtain congressional approval. One might legitimately feel uncomfortable with such broad authority delegated to the president, but nonetheless, this is the law on the books. Congress has delegated a lot of authority to the president for the purpose of protecting our sovereignty and security.

Given that Congress has delegated such authority to spend money under the NEA, I have no problem using it on a project that has already been authorized under statute. Section 102(a) of the 1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act provides that the secretary of homeland security “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads … in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated that DHS “construct fencing “along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.”

Long story short, Congress has in the last several decades delegated much of it's authority to the President, and now it's biting them in the ass. It's a hard sell IMHO to claim that Trump is subverting Congress or going against its will when in the past they have passed legislation to do what he's doing now.

If he spends money that congress has allocated for other purpose he's certainly going against the will of congress. Congress approved money for a barrier wall limited to 1.3 billion. They refused to give him what he wanted so he went against the wishes congress and is taking what congress refused give him.

When the next democrat president is elected this is going to come back to haunt republicans when climate change, college expenses, etc. becomes another and another national emergency.

 

[depotoo]

No, only half of Congress.

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

Congress has certainly allocated money for specific purposes such as military construction and drug interdiction programs which Trump plans to use. If the president uses funds approved by congress for these specific programs to build a wall, he certainly is going against the will of congress. Congress does not have to pass a law forbidding the use of billions of dollars to build a new barrier wall, or any other major project because funds spent by the president on major projects must be approved by congress. The president's legal authority to spend money as he pleases is very limited.

If Trump declares a border emergency, Section 2808 of Title 10 of U.S. law provides authority to build a wall: When a national emergency “requires use of the armed forces,” the Defense Department “may undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

Section 2808 of the Emergencies Act of 1976 allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects” that are “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” in the event that the president declares a national emergency. A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

There are no parameters governing the criteria for such a declaration or defining the types of projects that might be in order. The only thing the secretary of defense has to do is to communicate the nature of the decision and its costs to the relevant congressional committee, but he does not need to obtain congressional approval. One might legitimately feel uncomfortable with such broad authority delegated to the president, but nonetheless, this is the law on the books. Congress has delegated a lot of authority to the president for the purpose of protecting our sovereignty and security.

Given that Congress has delegated such authority to spend money under the NEA, I have no problem using it on a project that has already been authorized under statute. Section 102(a) of the 1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act provides that the secretary of homeland security “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads … in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated that DHS “construct fencing “along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.”

Long story short, Congress has in the last several decades delegated much of it's authority to the President, and now it's biting them in the ass. It's a hard sell IMHO to claim that Trump is subverting Congress or going against its will when in the past they have passed legislation to do what he's doing now.

If he spends money that congress has allocated for other purpose he's certainly going against the will of congress. Congress approved money for a barrier wall limited to 1.3 billion. They refused to give him what he wanted so he went against the wishes congress and is taking what congress refused give him.

When the next democrat president is elected this is going to come back to haunt republicans when climate change, college expenses, etc. becomes another and another national emergency.

 

[task0778]

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

Congress has certainly allocated money for specific purposes such as military construction and drug interdiction programs which Trump plans to use. If the president uses funds approved by congress for these specific programs to build a wall, he certainly is going against the will of congress. Congress does not have to pass a law forbidding the use of billions of dollars to build a new barrier wall, or any other major project because funds spent by the president on major projects must be approved by congress. The president's legal authority to spend money as he pleases is very limited.

If Trump declares a border emergency, Section 2808 of Title 10 of U.S. law provides authority to build a wall: When a national emergency “requires use of the armed forces,” the Defense Department “may undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

Section 2808 of the Emergencies Act of 1976 allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects” that are “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” in the event that the president declares a national emergency. A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

There are no parameters governing the criteria for such a declaration or defining the types of projects that might be in order. The only thing the secretary of defense has to do is to communicate the nature of the decision and its costs to the relevant congressional committee, but he does not need to obtain congressional approval. One might legitimately feel uncomfortable with such broad authority delegated to the president, but nonetheless, this is the law on the books. Congress has delegated a lot of authority to the president for the purpose of protecting our sovereignty and security.

Given that Congress has delegated such authority to spend money under the NEA, I have no problem using it on a project that has already been authorized under statute. Section 102(a) of the 1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act provides that the secretary of homeland security “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads … in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated that DHS “construct fencing “along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.”

Long story short, Congress has in the last several decades delegated much of it's authority to the President, and now it's biting them in the ass. It's a hard sell IMHO to claim that Trump is subverting Congress or going against its will when in the past they have passed legislation to do what he's doing now.

If he spends money that congress has allocated for other purpose he's certainly going against the will of congress. Congress approved money for a barrier wall limited to 1.3 billion. They refused to give him what he wanted so he went against the wishes congress and is taking what congress refused give him.

When the next democrat president is elected this is going to come back to haunt republicans when climate change, college expenses, etc. becomes another and another national emergency.

It's not going against the will of Congress when they gave him the authority to do what he's doing under the NEA and the IIRIRA, especially since Congress has already passed legislation to build the freakin' wall already. You can spin in any way you want to, but the way it looks to me is they didn't say he could spend $1.3 billion and ONLY $1.3 billion.

As to the next Dem President, yeah I agree. It ain't the way we're supposed to do our business in Washington, but Trump is not the 1st president to divert money allocated for other purposes; he's just the 1st one to use the NEA as a reason. I think. And if Congress doesn't like it, they can override his veto. The good news, if you can call it that, is that Trump will face the voters next year and answer for his decisions and actions. I do worry about what happens if he or the next Prez is in his/her 2nd term though and doesn't have to worry about that. Not sure what grounds the Courts can use to limit a Prez who goes the NEA route to do whatever he wants to.

 

[Flopper]

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

Congress has certainly allocated money for specific purposes such as military construction and drug interdiction programs which Trump plans to use. If the president uses funds approved by congress for these specific programs to build a wall, he certainly is going against the will of congress. Congress does not have to pass a law forbidding the use of billions of dollars to build a new barrier wall, or any other major project because funds spent by the president on major projects must be approved by congress. The president's legal authority to spend money as he pleases is very limited.

If Trump declares a border emergency, Section 2808 of Title 10 of U.S. law provides authority to build a wall: When a national emergency “requires use of the armed forces,” the Defense Department “may undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

Section 2808 of the Emergencies Act of 1976 allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects” that are “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” in the event that the president declares a national emergency. A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

There are no parameters governing the criteria for such a declaration or defining the types of projects that might be in order. The only thing the secretary of defense has to do is to communicate the nature of the decision and its costs to the relevant congressional committee, but he does not need to obtain congressional approval. One might legitimately feel uncomfortable with such broad authority delegated to the president, but nonetheless, this is the law on the books. Congress has delegated a lot of authority to the president for the purpose of protecting our sovereignty and security.

Given that Congress has delegated such authority to spend money under the NEA, I have no problem using it on a project that has already been authorized under statute. Section 102(a) of the 1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act provides that the secretary of homeland security “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads … in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated that DHS “construct fencing “along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.”

Long story short, Congress has in the last several decades delegated much of it's authority to the President, and now it's biting them in the ass. It's a hard sell IMHO to claim that Trump is subverting Congress or going against its will when in the past they have passed legislation to do what he's doing now.

If he spends money that congress has allocated for other purpose he's certainly going against the will of congress. Congress approved money for a barrier wall limited to 1.3 billion. They refused to give him what he wanted so he went against the wishes congress and is taking what congress refused give him.

When the next democrat president is elected this is going to come back to haunt republicans when climate change, college expenses, etc. becomes another and another national emergency.

It's not going against the will of Congress when they gave him the authority to do what he's doing under the NEA and the IIRIRA, especially since Congress has already passed legislation to build the freakin' wall already. You can spin in any way you want to, but the way it looks to me is they didn't say he could spend $1.3 billion and ONLY $1.3 billion.

As to the next Dem President, yeah I agree. It ain't the way we're supposed to do our business in Washington, but Trump is not the 1st president to divert money allocated for other purposes; he's just the 1st one to use the NEA as a reason. I think. And if Congress doesn't like it, they can override his veto. The good news, if you can call it that, is that Trump will face the voters next year and answer for his decisions and actions. I do worry about what happens if he or the next Prez is in his/her 2nd term though and doesn't have to worry about that. Not sure what grounds the Courts can use to limit a Prez who goes the NEA route to do whatever he wants to.

If they wanted him to have more than 1.3 billion, they would have given it to him.

 

[jc456]

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

You mean the previous emergencies that resulted in less than 5% of the cost and lives of Americans as illegal immigration?

You can't justify a stupid wall. Trump can't justify a stupid wall. Accept that.

why is there one at all?

 

[jc456]

Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.

Do we have to pretend this is the same as all other emergency declarations?

What, each emergency isn’t unique?

You just answered this question: "Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not."

the thing you have to ask yourself is, if it isn't an emergency, why did congress fund a wall?

 

[jc456]

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

You mean the previous emergencies that resulted in less than 5% of the cost and lives of Americans as illegal immigration?

You can't justify a stupid wall. Trump can't justify a stupid wall. Accept that.

why did congress give funding for a wall then? Can't have it both ways you know that, right?

 

[jc456]

I love it when a thread gets demoralized by right minded people such as myself. every leftist in here, can't tell me why the congress justified money for the wall if it wasn't an emergency.

 

[jc456]

Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

Congress has certainly allocated money for specific purposes such as military construction and drug interdiction programs which Trump plans to use. If the president uses funds approved by congress for these specific programs to build a wall, he certainly is going against the will of congress. Congress does not have to pass a law forbidding the use of billions of dollars to build a new barrier wall, or any other major project because funds spent by the president on major projects must be approved by congress. The president's legal authority to spend money as he pleases is very limited.

that's where you're wrong. he certainly can. and you should learn something.

 

[jc456]

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

Congress has certainly allocated money for specific purposes such as military construction and drug interdiction programs which Trump plans to use. If the president uses funds approved by congress for these specific programs to build a wall, he certainly is going against the will of congress. Congress does not have to pass a law forbidding the use of billions of dollars to build a new barrier wall, or any other major project because funds spent by the president on major projects must be approved by congress. The president's legal authority to spend money as he pleases is very limited.

If Trump declares a border emergency, Section 2808 of Title 10 of U.S. law provides authority to build a wall: When a national emergency “requires use of the armed forces,” the Defense Department “may undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

Section 2808 of the Emergencies Act of 1976 allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects” that are “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” in the event that the president declares a national emergency. A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

There are no parameters governing the criteria for such a declaration or defining the types of projects that might be in order. The only thing the secretary of defense has to do is to communicate the nature of the decision and its costs to the relevant congressional committee, but he does not need to obtain congressional approval. One might legitimately feel uncomfortable with such broad authority delegated to the president, but nonetheless, this is the law on the books. Congress has delegated a lot of authority to the president for the purpose of protecting our sovereignty and security.

Given that Congress has delegated such authority to spend money under the NEA, I have no problem using it on a project that has already been authorized under statute. Section 102(a) of the 1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act provides that the secretary of homeland security “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads … in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated that DHS “construct fencing “along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.”

Long story short, Congress has in the last several decades delegated much of it's authority to the President, and now it's biting them in the ass. It's a hard sell IMHO to claim that Trump is subverting Congress or going against its will when in the past they have passed legislation to do what he's doing now.

If he spends money that congress has allocated for other purpose he's certainly going against the will of congress. Congress approved money for a barrier wall limited to 1.3 billion. They refused to give him what he wanted so he went against the wishes congress and is taking what congress refused give him.

When the next democrat president is elected this is going to come back to haunt republicans when climate change, college expenses, etc. becomes another and another national emergency.

It's not going against the will of Congress when they gave him the authority to do what he's doing under the NEA and the IIRIRA, especially since Congress has already passed legislation to build the freakin' wall already. You can spin in any way you want to, but the way it looks to me is they didn't say he could spend $1.3 billion and ONLY $1.3 billion.

As to the next Dem President, yeah I agree. It ain't the way we're supposed to do our business in Washington, but Trump is not the 1st president to divert money allocated for other purposes; he's just the 1st one to use the NEA as a reason. I think. And if Congress doesn't like it, they can override his veto. The good news, if you can call it that, is that Trump will face the voters next year and answer for his decisions and actions. I do worry about what happens if he or the next Prez is in his/her 2nd term though and doesn't have to worry about that. Not sure what grounds the Courts can use to limit a Prez who goes the NEA route to do whatever he wants to.

If they wanted him to have more than 1.3 billion, they would have given it to him.

why did they give him that if it wasn't an emergency? can't back out of that one can you? BTW, he really didn't need to do an NE to get the money he wants.

 

[MAGAman]

You can't justify a stupid wall. Trump can't justify a stupid wall. Accept that.

You mean like the 4 "stupid" wall structures that have come down Illegal crossings 90% in the areas where they are used?

Democrats are against reducing human trafficking of child sex slaves because they're afraid Trump will get credit for it. Are you proud of yourself?

 

[MAGAman]

None of those emergency declarations were to aid those countries. They were sanctions on those countries or sanctions on individuals in that country. Look at the list. Only non-sanction declaration by Obama was for swine flu.

Even if you're correct. You just prooved Trump's point

 

[toomuchtime_]

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

Congress has certainly allocated money for specific purposes such as military construction and drug interdiction programs which Trump plans to use. If the president uses funds approved by congress for these specific programs to build a wall, he certainly is going against the will of congress. Congress does not have to pass a law forbidding the use of billions of dollars to build a new barrier wall, or any other major project because funds spent by the president on major projects must be approved by congress. The president's legal authority to spend money as he pleases is very limited.

If Trump declares a border emergency, Section 2808 of Title 10 of U.S. law provides authority to build a wall: When a national emergency “requires use of the armed forces,” the Defense Department “may undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

Section 2808 of the Emergencies Act of 1976 allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects” that are “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” in the event that the president declares a national emergency. A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

There are no parameters governing the criteria for such a declaration or defining the types of projects that might be in order. The only thing the secretary of defense has to do is to communicate the nature of the decision and its costs to the relevant congressional committee, but he does not need to obtain congressional approval. One might legitimately feel uncomfortable with such broad authority delegated to the president, but nonetheless, this is the law on the books. Congress has delegated a lot of authority to the president for the purpose of protecting our sovereignty and security.

Given that Congress has delegated such authority to spend money under the NEA, I have no problem using it on a project that has already been authorized under statute. Section 102(a) of the 1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act provides that the secretary of homeland security “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads … in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated that DHS “construct fencing “along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.”

Long story short, Congress has in the last several decades delegated much of it's authority to the President, and now it's biting them in the ass. It's a hard sell IMHO to claim that Trump is subverting Congress or going against its will when in the past they have passed legislation to do what he's doing now.

If he spends money that congress has allocated for other purpose he's certainly going against the will of congress. Congress approved money for a barrier wall limited to 1.3 billion. They refused to give him what he wanted so he went against the wishes congress and is taking what congress refused give him.

When the next democrat president is elected this is going to come back to haunt republicans when climate change, college expenses, etc. becomes another and another national emergency.

Don't be silly, this is the 59th national emergency declared by presidents since 1976, the 4th by Trump and Obama declared 13 national emergencies, none of which would have qualified as emergencies under the usual sense of the word. The money for the border fence is coming from two sources, funds for military construction held by the DoD and funds from drug interdictions held by the Treasury. It is ridiculous to question whether the President can prioritize one military construction project over another and Congress has no jurisdiction over money from drug interdictions.

If Obama could have declared a national emergency to deal with climate change or other or other Democratic political sacred cows, he would have, but under the National Security Act, the President is limited to 123 extraordinary power detailed in the Act without the consent of Congress, and President Trump is acting within those powers. If a future Democratic president thinks he or she can find within the Act powers to deal with climate change or other issues Democrats bleat about, then he should have a go at it, but we both know you and Pelosi are just blowing smoke.

 

[Kittymom1026]

Oops! I am showing my age. I shoulda said Ho Chi Minh City.

I guess I'm from your generation because I knew exactly where you were talking about when you called it Hanoi.

 

[Kittymom1026]

BTW, a quick Google says the golf course in Long Bien is only 7 miles from Hanoi. Also others within 25 miles.

I would imagine, no one would be begrudging him flying even 250 miles to have some golfing - provided it helps making some progress with NK. Just to make President Spectacle's spectacle more spectacular, not so much.

Just as (next to) no one would deny that even $57bn would be wisely invested if it actually stopped human trafficking, or drugs. But…

The drugs come in through legal ports and the other comes in from the many underground tunnels. Remember the huge shipment that came into Philadelphia on a boat? A freighter I think.