|
On January 12 2019 05:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 05:15 iamthedave wrote:On January 12 2019 01:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2019 23:55 iamthedave wrote:On January 11 2019 14:25 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2019 14:20 Danglars wrote:
$50 bil for wall in exchange for RBG replacement. Nah. Trump is going to have his cake and eat it, too. Do you have an actual argument for why the Democrats are going to cave, or are you just making this a mantra in the hope you'll turn out to be right and can proclaim you were right all along? They may or may not cave (probably not). If they don't, Trump will just get it by executive order. By declaring an unjustified state of emergency to appropriate the funds? I assume that's the case? Or can Presidents just sign executive orders to override the Senate/House whenever they want and previous Presidents haven't done so? And in either case, I presume you'll be all on board when the next Democratic President decides to override congress to appropriate funds for [INSERT DEMOCRATIC POLICY YOU HATE HERE]? I must say, Daunt, this whole wall business has been very revealing concerning how little supposed Conservatives care for the rule of law and for Presidents ruling through Executive Order. Learn the law and the principles, and you'll figure out that we aren't compromising on anything.
Well, I mean, depends on what you're talking about. Supporting Trump's threat to call a state of emergency in order to supplant congress is pretty clearly you giving exorbitant leeway to actions for partisan reasons.
If you try to tell me you would have afforded Obama the same deference for something comparably concerning, with comparable tenuous legal justification, but for something to your left I'll pretty much lose all respect for you.
|
Heres trump making the case that there exists an emergency that requires immediate construction of a wall:
|
On January 12 2019 01:10 xDaunt wrote:Yet more proof of why #fakenews has been so devastating against the liberal media: Show nested quote +A San Diego television station on Thursday said that CNN had asked for a "local view" and then "declined to hear from us" after past reports from the station showed that a border wall was effective.
A CNN spokesperson pushed back on KUSI's claim on Friday, calling it a "non story" since the network ultimately didn't book any reporters from stations in the San Diego area.
"We called several local stations to book someone for a show. We didn’t end up booking any of them," says a CNN spokesperson in a statement to The Hill. "That happens many times every single day. We did, however, book a reporter from KUSI for a story on immigration and the border wall on CNN in November. This is a non story."
Immigration, the partial government shutdown and President Trump's proposed border wall have all been topics dominating the cable news landscape since the shutdown began three weeks ago.
"Thursday morning, CNN called the KUSI Newsroom asking if one of our reporters could give them a local view of the debate surrounding the border wall and government shutdown," a report by KUSI, an independent station in San Diego that began airing in 1982, begins.
"KUSI offered our own Dan Plante, who has reported dozens of times on the border, including one story from 2016 that was retweeted by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and posted on DrudgeReport.com," it continues while linking to a border fence tour report.
"We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work," it concludes. "We have continuously been told by Border Patrol Agents that the barrier along the Southern border helps prevent illegal entries, drugs, and weapons from entering the United States, and the numbers prove it." Source.
Yeah, they don’t want to get anybody from San Diego on their station. The big fence/double fence in that area totally cut down the former problem in the area. It used to be the go-to place because of the ease of blending into a major city once across. Critics say once (if) there’s a physical border barrier on most crossable points, it’ll be back on the menu.
|
You're getting good at this, but it's a dangerous life out on the tightrope.
That would certainly seem to indicate Trump isn't familiar with how "emergencies" work.
|
On January 12 2019 05:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 05:15 iamthedave wrote:On January 12 2019 01:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2019 23:55 iamthedave wrote:On January 11 2019 14:25 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2019 14:20 Danglars wrote:
$50 bil for wall in exchange for RBG replacement. Nah. Trump is going to have his cake and eat it, too. Do you have an actual argument for why the Democrats are going to cave, or are you just making this a mantra in the hope you'll turn out to be right and can proclaim you were right all along? They may or may not cave (probably not). If they don't, Trump will just get it by executive order. By declaring an unjustified state of emergency to appropriate the funds? I assume that's the case? Or can Presidents just sign executive orders to override the Senate/House whenever they want and previous Presidents haven't done so? And in either case, I presume you'll be all on board when the next Democratic President decides to override congress to appropriate funds for [INSERT DEMOCRATIC POLICY YOU HATE HERE]? I must say, Daunt, this whole wall business has been very revealing concerning how little supposed Conservatives care for the rule of law and for Presidents ruling through Executive Order. Learn the law and the principles, and you'll figure out that we aren't compromising on anything.
you think this is a national emergency calling for emergency powers?
|
On January 12 2019 06:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 05:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2019 05:15 iamthedave wrote:On January 12 2019 01:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2019 23:55 iamthedave wrote:On January 11 2019 14:25 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2019 14:20 Danglars wrote:
$50 bil for wall in exchange for RBG replacement. Nah. Trump is going to have his cake and eat it, too. Do you have an actual argument for why the Democrats are going to cave, or are you just making this a mantra in the hope you'll turn out to be right and can proclaim you were right all along? They may or may not cave (probably not). If they don't, Trump will just get it by executive order. By declaring an unjustified state of emergency to appropriate the funds? I assume that's the case? Or can Presidents just sign executive orders to override the Senate/House whenever they want and previous Presidents haven't done so? And in either case, I presume you'll be all on board when the next Democratic President decides to override congress to appropriate funds for [INSERT DEMOCRATIC POLICY YOU HATE HERE]? I must say, Daunt, this whole wall business has been very revealing concerning how little supposed Conservatives care for the rule of law and for Presidents ruling through Executive Order. Learn the law and the principles, and you'll figure out that we aren't compromising on anything. you think this is a national emergency calling for emergency powers?
Yep.
EMERGENCY.-"Emergency" means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.
42 U.S.C. § 5122(1) - Definitions
|
note in the language you’ve quoted a specific ‘and capabilities,’ and in saying so then you think this is outside the capability of the local efforts and only the military is able(at least this i think i’ve learned elsewhere so please correct me if i’m wrong.) it seems obviously more than a bit of a stretch, to be very generous.
i mean the simple fact that he can waffle back and forth without any real life consequence should point a real ugly finger at how it’s clearly not a national emergency; though oddly there’s no qualification for imminence, which seems like a drastic oversight.
|
On January 12 2019 07:10 brian wrote:
note in the language you’ve quoted a specific ‘and capabilities,’ and in saying so then you think this is outside the capability of the local efforts and only the military is able(at least this i think i’ve learned elsewhere so please correct me if i’m wrong.) it seems obviously more than a bit of a stretch, to be very generous.
i mean the simple fact that he can waffle back and forth without any real life consequence should point a real ugly finger at how it’s clearly not a national emergency.
A couple things. First, the statute that I cited isn't the real source of the president's authority to declare national emergency. The Constitution is. The statute (and related scheme) that I cited constitutes a further delegation of congressional authority to the president to act pursuant to his inherent constitutional powers.
Second, you're focused on the wrong language. It goes without saying that the states and local authorities are incapable of handling issues of illegal immigration on their own. It's a national problem, which is why authority over those issues is vested in the federal government. The real language that you should be focusing on is the language concerning the safety of lives, protection of property, health, and safety. There is an ample record showing great harm to the US on all of these points from ills that could be stopped by securing the southern border with a wall. I discussed it previously with GH. The one error that I made is in limiting the discussion to the Wall and the impact that a Wall would have. When Trump talks about "the Wall," he's really talking about securing the southern border, including the lawful points of entry. This becomes apparent when looking at his proposals. Finally, the most important language in the statute is "in the determination of the President." This authority is his, and his alone, not to be second guessed by the courts. It's on this basis that his executive action in building a wall will ultimately be approved and succeed, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court.
|
On January 12 2019 08:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 07:10 brian wrote:
note in the language you’ve quoted a specific ‘and capabilities,’ and in saying so then you think this is outside the capability of the local efforts and only the military is able(at least this i think i’ve learned elsewhere so please correct me if i’m wrong.) it seems obviously more than a bit of a stretch, to be very generous.
i mean the simple fact that he can waffle back and forth without any real life consequence should point a real ugly finger at how it’s clearly not a national emergency. A couple things. First, the statute that I cited isn't the real source of the president's authority to declare national emergency. The Constitution is. The statute (and related scheme) that I cited constitutes a further delegation of congressional authority to the president to act pursuant to his inherent constitutional powers. Second, you're focused on the wrong language. It goes without saying that the states and local authorities are incapable of handling issues of illegal immigration on their own. It's a national problem, which is why authority over those issues is vested in the federal government. The real language that you should be focusing on is the language concerning the safety of lives, protection of property, health, and safety. There is an ample record showing great harm to the US on all of these points from ills that could be stopped by securing the southern border with a wall. I discussed it previously with GH. The one error that I made is in limiting the discussion to the Wall and the impact that a Wall would have. When Trump talks about "the Wall," he's really talking about securing the southern border, including the lawful points of entry. This becomes apparent when looking at his proposals. Finally, the most important language in the statute is "in the determination of the President." This authority is his, and his alone, not to be second guessed by the courts. It's on this basis that his executive action in building a wall will ultimately be approved and succeed, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court.
"he's really talking about" The Wall, that's the whole reason this isn't done already. Don't play daft please.
At least cut to the good part and tell us why you think this wouldn't then open up more liberal national emergency circumventions of congress?
|
On January 12 2019 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2019 07:10 brian wrote:
note in the language you’ve quoted a specific ‘and capabilities,’ and in saying so then you think this is outside the capability of the local efforts and only the military is able(at least this i think i’ve learned elsewhere so please correct me if i’m wrong.) it seems obviously more than a bit of a stretch, to be very generous.
i mean the simple fact that he can waffle back and forth without any real life consequence should point a real ugly finger at how it’s clearly not a national emergency. A couple things. First, the statute that I cited isn't the real source of the president's authority to declare national emergency. The Constitution is. The statute (and related scheme) that I cited constitutes a further delegation of congressional authority to the president to act pursuant to his inherent constitutional powers. Second, you're focused on the wrong language. It goes without saying that the states and local authorities are incapable of handling issues of illegal immigration on their own. It's a national problem, which is why authority over those issues is vested in the federal government. The real language that you should be focusing on is the language concerning the safety of lives, protection of property, health, and safety. There is an ample record showing great harm to the US on all of these points from ills that could be stopped by securing the southern border with a wall. I discussed it previously with GH. The one error that I made is in limiting the discussion to the Wall and the impact that a Wall would have. When Trump talks about "the Wall," he's really talking about securing the southern border, including the lawful points of entry. This becomes apparent when looking at his proposals. Finally, the most important language in the statute is "in the determination of the President." This authority is his, and his alone, not to be second guessed by the courts. It's on this basis that his executive action in building a wall will ultimately be approved and succeed, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court. "he's really talking about" The Wall, that's the whole reason this isn't done already. Don't play daft please.
Wrong. Like I pointed out, there are too many vested interests in allowing illegal immigration, which is why they would never allow the only real solution to stopping it along the southern border: including a wall in the package.
At least cut to the good part and tell us why you think this wouldn't then open up more liberal national emergency circumvention of congress?
Good luck finding issues where Americans are dying and generally being materially harmed to the same extent as Americans are with illegal immigration. The record is incomparable.
|
On January 12 2019 08:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 07:10 brian wrote:
note in the language you’ve quoted a specific ‘and capabilities,’ and in saying so then you think this is outside the capability of the local efforts and only the military is able(at least this i think i’ve learned elsewhere so please correct me if i’m wrong.) it seems obviously more than a bit of a stretch, to be very generous.
i mean the simple fact that he can waffle back and forth without any real life consequence should point a real ugly finger at how it’s clearly not a national emergency. A couple things. First, the statute that I cited isn't the real source of the president's authority to declare national emergency. The Constitution is. The statute (and related scheme) that I cited constitutes a further delegation of congressional authority to the president to act pursuant to his inherent constitutional powers. Second, you're focused on the wrong language. It goes without saying that the states and local authorities are incapable of handling issues of illegal immigration on their own. It's a national problem, which is why authority over those issues is vested in the federal government. The real language that you should be focusing on is the language concerning the safety of lives, protection of property, health, and safety. There is an ample record showing great harm to the US on all of these points from ills that could be stopped by securing the southern border with a wall. I discussed it previously with GH. The one error that I made is in limiting the discussion to the Wall and the impact that a Wall would have. When Trump talks about "the Wall," he's really talking about securing the southern border, including the lawful points of entry. This becomes apparent when looking at his proposals. Finally, the most important language in the statute is "in the determination of the President." This authority is his, and his alone, not to be second guessed by the courts. It's on this basis that his executive action in building a wall will ultimately be approved and succeed, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court.
This shows the ease with which a national emergency argument can be invented, thus further expanding presidential power (which, admittedly, each president has done, so now it's Trump's turn). This shows real promise for climate change action in the future. It's the ultimate emergency, in fact. Fits that statute's definition exactly.
|
On January 12 2019 08:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 12 2019 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2019 07:10 brian wrote:
note in the language you’ve quoted a specific ‘and capabilities,’ and in saying so then you think this is outside the capability of the local efforts and only the military is able(at least this i think i’ve learned elsewhere so please correct me if i’m wrong.) it seems obviously more than a bit of a stretch, to be very generous.
i mean the simple fact that he can waffle back and forth without any real life consequence should point a real ugly finger at how it’s clearly not a national emergency. A couple things. First, the statute that I cited isn't the real source of the president's authority to declare national emergency. The Constitution is. The statute (and related scheme) that I cited constitutes a further delegation of congressional authority to the president to act pursuant to his inherent constitutional powers. Second, you're focused on the wrong language. It goes without saying that the states and local authorities are incapable of handling issues of illegal immigration on their own. It's a national problem, which is why authority over those issues is vested in the federal government. The real language that you should be focusing on is the language concerning the safety of lives, protection of property, health, and safety. There is an ample record showing great harm to the US on all of these points from ills that could be stopped by securing the southern border with a wall. I discussed it previously with GH. The one error that I made is in limiting the discussion to the Wall and the impact that a Wall would have. When Trump talks about "the Wall," he's really talking about securing the southern border, including the lawful points of entry. This becomes apparent when looking at his proposals. Finally, the most important language in the statute is "in the determination of the President." This authority is his, and his alone, not to be second guessed by the courts. It's on this basis that his executive action in building a wall will ultimately be approved and succeed, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court. "he's really talking about" The Wall, that's the whole reason this isn't done already. Don't play daft please. Wrong. Like I pointed out, there are too many vested interests in allowing illegal immigration, which is why they would never allow the only real solution to stopping it along the southern border: including a wall in the package. Show nested quote +At least cut to the good part and tell us why you think this wouldn't then open up more liberal national emergency circumvention of congress? Good luck finding issues where Americans are dying and generally being materially harmed to the same extent as Americans are with illegal immigration. The record is incomparable.
No, a wall is both not necessary or effective, particularly not the largely imagined one Trump talks about. Additionally presumably your good with the seizing of private property to fulfill these goals.
I'm not sure how you can even seriously suggest that there aren't issues worse than the consequences (remember there are positive ones too) of undocumented immigrants?
I mean medical errors is a pretty obvious one. Alcohol and tobacco dealers have killed exponentially more people than every drug and undocumented immigrant combined, just to name a few. I mean with the specious logic it takes to get anywhere near undocumented immigration being the threat you're suggesting I'm pretty sure the president could cite 9/11 and ongoing terrorism as an explanation for seizing US oil companies.
|
Illegal immigration costs the country hundreds of billion of dollars annually, and that's before we consider the crimes that they commit (everything from theft, to rape, to murder). Medical malpractice doesn't even come close to that level of harm. And alcohol and tobacco use and dealing is a lawful activity that occurs within the US. The national emergency power cannot be used to combat those. Illegal immigration is illegal, and it is a harm that comes from outside of the US. That is clearly the province of the executive.
|
On January 12 2019 08:32 xDaunt wrote:
Illegal immigration costs the country hundreds of billion of dollars annually, and that's before we consider the crimes that they commit (everything from theft, to rape, to murder). Medical malpractice doesn't even come close to that level of harm. And alcohol and tobacco use and dealing is a lawful activity that occurs within the US. The national emergency power cannot be used to combat those. Illegal immigration is illegal, and it is a harm that comes from outside of the US. That is clearly the province of the executive.
well..
Good luck finding issues where Americans are dying and generally being materially harmed to the same extent as Americans are with illegal immigration. The record is incomparable.
I found em.
As far as the cost of immigration, no. They don't. I can concede that most of the benefits are concentrated among the wealthy while the burdens borne by everyone else, but that's an outgrowth of our system being designed to do that, nothing specific to immigrants.
BTW Medical errors kill ~250,000-450,000 people a year, what count are you using for immigrants?
Which even on the conservative side of the value of human life is a crapton more than whatever you're trying to put on undocumented immigrants.
|
I don't think trump should invoke the nation emergency thing, I think hes winning this without needing to take drastic measures that will surely be used against republicans in the future. That being said I'd like to see some grander deal hammered out where trump gets the 20ish bill he needs for the full wall and the dems can get some sort of dreamer package and they re-open the goverment, both sides get what they want. Trump is more likely to do go for something like that then Nancy though lord knows what that women is thinking.
|
On January 12 2019 08:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2019 07:10 brian wrote:
note in the language you’ve quoted a specific ‘and capabilities,’ and in saying so then you think this is outside the capability of the local efforts and only the military is able(at least this i think i’ve learned elsewhere so please correct me if i’m wrong.) it seems obviously more than a bit of a stretch, to be very generous.
i mean the simple fact that he can waffle back and forth without any real life consequence should point a real ugly finger at how it’s clearly not a national emergency. A couple things. First, the statute that I cited isn't the real source of the president's authority to declare national emergency. The Constitution is. The statute (and related scheme) that I cited constitutes a further delegation of congressional authority to the president to act pursuant to his inherent constitutional powers. Second, you're focused on the wrong language. It goes without saying that the states and local authorities are incapable of handling issues of illegal immigration on their own. It's a national problem, which is why authority over those issues is vested in the federal government. The real language that you should be focusing on is the language concerning the safety of lives, protection of property, health, and safety. There is an ample record showing great harm to the US on all of these points from ills that could be stopped by securing the southern border with a wall. I discussed it previously with GH. The one error that I made is in limiting the discussion to the Wall and the impact that a Wall would have. When Trump talks about "the Wall," he's really talking about securing the southern border, including the lawful points of entry. This becomes apparent when looking at his proposals. Finally, the most important language in the statute is "in the determination of the President." This authority is his, and his alone, not to be second guessed by the courts. It's on this basis that his executive action in building a wall will ultimately be approved and succeed, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court. This shows the ease with which a national emergency argument can be invented, thus further expanding presidential power (which, admittedly, each president has done, so now it's Trump's turn). This shows real promise for climate change action in the future. It's the ultimate emergency, in fact. Fits that statute's definition exactly.
Bear in mind that the statute is not the only thing to consider. A president would not be able to use emergency powers to draft and promulgate climate change law without some kind of enabling statute. Furthermore, the exercise of presidential power is always weighed against other constitutional interests. Climate change legislation necessarily impacts private rights, most notably property rights. No court will allow the president to unilaterally implement a green scheme that adversely affects virtually all Americans to one degree or another.
|
wow, i am dumbfounded that you think that emergency executive powers are obviously appropriate to the current state of illegal immigration but not to climate change or anything else on the left’s agenda, broadly defined
|
putting aside the legality, do you think trump should declare a state of emergency to put up a wall?
|
On January 12 2019 09:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 08:20 Doodsmack wrote:On January 12 2019 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2019 07:10 brian wrote:
note in the language you’ve quoted a specific ‘and capabilities,’ and in saying so then you think this is outside the capability of the local efforts and only the military is able(at least this i think i’ve learned elsewhere so please correct me if i’m wrong.) it seems obviously more than a bit of a stretch, to be very generous.
i mean the simple fact that he can waffle back and forth without any real life consequence should point a real ugly finger at how it’s clearly not a national emergency. A couple things. First, the statute that I cited isn't the real source of the president's authority to declare national emergency. The Constitution is. The statute (and related scheme) that I cited constitutes a further delegation of congressional authority to the president to act pursuant to his inherent constitutional powers. Second, you're focused on the wrong language. It goes without saying that the states and local authorities are incapable of handling issues of illegal immigration on their own. It's a national problem, which is why authority over those issues is vested in the federal government. The real language that you should be focusing on is the language concerning the safety of lives, protection of property, health, and safety. There is an ample record showing great harm to the US on all of these points from ills that could be stopped by securing the southern border with a wall. I discussed it previously with GH. The one error that I made is in limiting the discussion to the Wall and the impact that a Wall would have. When Trump talks about "the Wall," he's really talking about securing the southern border, including the lawful points of entry. This becomes apparent when looking at his proposals. Finally, the most important language in the statute is "in the determination of the President." This authority is his, and his alone, not to be second guessed by the courts. It's on this basis that his executive action in building a wall will ultimately be approved and succeed, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court. This shows the ease with which a national emergency argument can be invented, thus further expanding presidential power (which, admittedly, each president has done, so now it's Trump's turn). This shows real promise for climate change action in the future. It's the ultimate emergency, in fact. Fits that statute's definition exactly. Bear in mind that the statute is not the only thing to consider. A president would not be able to use emergency powers to draft and promulgate climate change law without some kind of enabling statute. Furthermore, the exercise of presidential power is always weighed against other constitutional interests. Climate change legislation necessarily impacts private rights, most notably property rights. No court will allow the president to unilaterally implement a green scheme that adversely affects virtually all Americans to one degree or another.
So if it's so easy, Daunt, why hasn't he done it?
Why aren't the Republicans all around him pushing for him to do it?
Is it, perchance, possible that they recognise pushing the President to misuse executive powers in this manner is setting an incredibly dangerous precedent? You can put yourself out on a technical limb to feel good about it all you want, but your argument is reckless.
You can choose not to call it a compromise all you want, but it clearly is. You can't get your way through proper means so you're proposing giving the President the power to completely override the political process you allegedly believe in, simply because it's inconvenient for you at this time. Oh, the things Obama could have done with this precedent in place, when your champions were doing everything to block him!
And all this notwithstanding that me and GH have been pressing you for pages now and you still haven't addressed the base argument that the wall won't even do what you want it to. You want to go to these absurd lengths for something that's going to cost the American people billions of dollars in perpetuity year on year (this thing will need to be maintained once it's built, remember), and you want to do this based on the flawed base principle that it will even work. Building it is only the start of the costs.
|
its not a “technicality” or legally cognizable rule, it’s simply the carl schmitt clause inherent to any political order, more, or less, articulated depending on the context. its the inside-outside point of power
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
