Pelosi, Schumer rip Trump emergency declaration

[byron]

The Latest: Pelosi, Schumer rip Trump emergency declaration


this will surly hit the courts then Trump should use thier own words aginst them everyone one them in the past have been for the wall and stated that it is a BIG problem and somthing has to be done and its all documented on video. make them look like the fools they are.

 

[GOYABEAN]

If America can't see who the real turn coats in this country are then all is lost as a country and nation

 

[prambo]

And , here it is again........................

 

[SomeSoldier]

Did he actually declare it? I have seen him only saying he will do it.

 

[Toecutter]

Lol if these two object to it I know it's the right thing for America . Fuck these two lying assholes.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Just as expected. So basically, they disagree with themselves.

 

[Camaro45th]

Did he actually declare it? I have seen him only saying he will do it.

Done

 

[Deplorable Me]

Just as expected. So basically, they disagree with themselves.

Flip flop......

But most voters have selective memory.

 

[S&W Fan]

Those two hypocritical assholes had ample opportunity to do the right thing and push through the funding. Instead they postured and grandstanded. To both I say FU.

 

[SomeSoldier]

I hope he bails on this bill. Let the gov shutdown.

 

[C3D]

Minority view here: Trump is in the wrong. There’s no such thing as a “national emergency” for something you asked for in a budgeting process and didn’t get.

Trump should have just vetoed the bill, and issued a do-over.

And Pelosi’s right, this will come back to bite Republicans in the same way removing the filibuster on nominees bit the Democrats.

 

[That_FNG]

There's a key distinction between allocating funds to enforce EXISTING law (such as immigration laws) and declaring an emergency to enforce a NON EXISTING law, such as instituting socialized healthcare. The precedent for future presidents would NOT be, "oh, Trump declared a national emergency in order to move funds from one portion of the executive branch - which he manages - to another portion, in an effort to enforce existing law, therefore I get to institute new laws as though I were a dictator." The precedent would merely be, "Trump enforced existing law, therefore I can use the same tactics to enforce existing law." The people concerned that such a precedent would allow democrats to - in turn - institute socialism are mistakenly conflating existing law with non-existing law.

Budget triage is done at every company, in every household, and in every government. The executive of EVERY institution, big or small, decides where to allocate the limited funds they have. If a new police chief takes over and decides his city needs to focus more on homicide investigation, for instance, he could take some funds away from drug enforcement, and use them to hire two additional homicide detectives. By doing so, he is not guilty of creating new law. Murder was already illegal. He already sought to enforce the law by bringing murderers to justice. He just happened to believe that his city needed to allocate a larger share of their existing budget to already existing murder laws. This is called management, not dictatorship. Now if said chief decided to start arresting rich people and seizing their property because he felt it was immoral to be wealthy, THAT would be the enforcement of non-existing laws which WOULD be an abuse of power. Enforcing existing laws, however, is not.

One might ask, “how is building a wall enforcing existing law?” The answer is simple; it's an enforcement mechanism used to execute our border security and immigration laws. For instance, under Title 8, Section 1325, titled “Improper entry by alien,” the law reads as follows:

“Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall ...be fined under title 18 or imprisoned…” [a] So to sum it up, illegal entry is against current law, and a border barrier is simply the new chief’s judgement on how to best enforce current law.

Another common question is whether a national emergency declaration can be used to specifically re-allocate funds towards a construction project. In short, yes. One statute, 33 U.S. Code § 2293, under “During National Emergencies," it states, “In the event of… a declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act… [the Secretary of Defense] may (1) terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense, and (2) apply 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. Another law, 10 U.S. Code § 2808, clarifies that during said National Emergency, the Secretary of Defense “may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law…” understanding that “such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction. [c]

People also question if this is this common, and if so, how long do such declarations last. The way the law is constructed, “national emergencies end automatically one year after their declaration unless the President informs Congress and the public of a continuation.” [d] “According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law” and “31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect.” [e] These aren't even counting weather related emergencies. So yes, this is a commonly deployed tactic.

Lastly, people may justifiably wonder who gave the president authority to declare national emergencies in the first place. The short answer? Congress. As stated in the law, “With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such a national emergency. [f] And as stated in the CRS Report For Congress on National Emergency Powers: "Federal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in response to crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening the nation. Moreover, they are not limited to military or war situations. Some of these authorities, deriving from the Constitution or statutory law, are continuously available to the President with little or no qualification. Others — statutory delegations from Congress — exist on a stand-by basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. These delegations or grants of power authorize the President to meet the problems of governing effectively in times of crisis. ...Furthermore, Congress may modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority." [d]

CONCLUSION:
Regarding national emergency powers, two questions must be asked. One, are they lawful? Two, are they being used to advance sound public policy? These are entirely separate questions. This essay sought to shed light on the first one while leaving the second question for you to debate separately. Although people can - and should - take issue with the fact that Congress escapes many of its duties by delegating authority to the president, whether said authority presently exists or not is undeniable. The president DOES have the authority, via a National Emergency Declaration, to reallocate existing funds away from projects his administration wishes to de-prioritize and towards construction projects which seek to better enforce existing border security laws. Even those skeptical of a border barrier must acknowledge that Congress DID delegate its authority. Because of that, it IS within the current powers of the executive, whether you want it to be or not. Furthermore, the National Emergencies Act was amended in 1985 to establish that a joint resolution from Congress can rescind a president’s declaration of a national emergency. [d] In other words, Congress COULD revoke his authority if they TRULY wished to. Perhaps they will, but until that day comes, they gave the executive the authority to act, and now the executive will act.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
[a]
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien


33 U.S. Code § 2293 - Reprogramming during national emergencies

[c]
10 U.S. Code § 2808 - Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency

[d]
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

[e]
Here's a list of the 31 national emergencies that have been in effect for years

[f]
[USC03] 50 USC Ch. 34: NATIONAL EMERGENCIES

 

[Podmonkey]

Who gives a fuck what communist traitors think?
70 years ago the modern day democrat politician would have been tried, convicted of treason and then shot.
Nothing those two psychopaths have to say has any validity whatsoever. Any authority any democrat has is unethical and unjust.
DISBAND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY NOW!

 

[Blimey]

Minority view here: Trump is in the wrong. There’s no such thing as a “national emergency” for something you asked for in a budgeting process and didn’t get.

Trump should have just vetoed the bill, and issued a do-over.

And Pelosi’s right, this will come back to bite Republicans in the same way removing the filibuster on nominees bit the Democrats.

I want the wall but this is unfortunately probably right. I think a national emergency should be for something that just happened, is truly urgent. I think immigration is a major issue but it's been going for a while with many months of negotiations.

I think in a similar scenario by Obama people here would be enraged. Imagine he asks for a bunch of money for some, in our view, pet project that's stupid. Let's say a bunch of nice apartments to house people who are too lazy to work. Republican congress says no, he finally gets a little bit, then just says screw it I'm building them anyway with your tax money.

 

[Podmonkey]

 

[Phauxtoe]

Flip flop......

But most voters have selective memory.

they Are NOT Flip Floppers!

they ALWAYS vote for what makes their Wallets Fatter! you cant be a congressional multi millionaire if you dont!

 

[Jmac00]

Minority view here: Trump is in the wrong. There’s no such thing as a “national emergency” for something you asked for in a budgeting process and didn’t get.

Trump should have just vetoed the bill, and issued a do-over.

And Pelosi’s right, this will come back to bite Republicans in the same way removing the filibuster on nominees bit the Democrats.

welp, there goes that theory:

Here's a list of the 31 national emergencies that have been in effect for years

 

[Cooolone]

Minority view here: Trump is in the wrong. There’s no such thing as a “national emergency” for something you asked for in a budgeting process and didn’t get.

Trump should have just vetoed the bill, and issued a do-over.

And Pelosi’s right, this will come back to bite Republicans in the same way removing the filibuster on nominees bit the Democrats.

Obama used it and so did Bush before him... But of course Trump, that evil devil is the scourge of all Presidents, how dare "HE" use it to get around Congress?

 

[BDinPutnam]

Minority view here: Trump is in the wrong. There’s no such thing as a “national emergency” for something you asked for in a budgeting process and didn’t get.

Trump should have just vetoed the bill, and issued a do-over.

And Pelosi’s right, this will come back to bite Republicans in the same way removing the filibuster on nominees bit the Democrats.

It's at least a minority of two, my friend.

Actually, PS. If it really is an emergency and he thinks it is so bad, why not veto it, let them over-ride the veto, and then declare an emergency?

 

[prambo]

It's at least a minority of two, my friend.

Actually, PS. If it really is an emergency and he thinks it is so bad, why not veto it, let them over-ride the veto, and then declare an emergency?

^^^^^^
This!!

Make the DemonRats own the immigration problem, publicly.

Make Palsi Pelosi and Cuck Schemer the face of those who like dead BP agents, people killed by illegals, sex trafficking of minors, etc.

 

[C3D]

With acknowledgment to the other times “national emergency” has been used, the scale and controversial nature of this issue make it qualitatively different.

It is a President saying Congress doesn’t matter, and I don’t buy the constitutionality arguments advanced to support this.

 

[dubleuhb]

So just for fun here, if these wonderful people breaking the law as soon as they step foot on US soil we're armed would it be an emergency?
How many can we let just ignore the rule of law? If there is such a thing as an unarmed army this is it, these wonderful people have no intention of being "Americans".
We need a border, not a line on a map, Trump seems to be the only one to have the balls to say it and mean it.

 

[CaseHardened]

Ninth Circuit AFFIRMS the Wall can be built: Trump administration had statutory authority to expedite California border wall, 9th Circuit rules