National Emergency - Page 8

WilliamSeger · 18th February 2019, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

The fact that the President doesn't pass laws, primarily.

Well, suppose Congress passes a law that says the president can also pass laws? That's the un-Constitutional equivalent of saying a president can appropriate money.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th February 2019, 02:33 AM

https://twitter.com/DeadlineWH/statu...36340311695361

Quote:

NEWS: MSNBC National Security Analyst Jeremy Bash tells us more than 40 national security officials will sign joint declarations explaining why Trump's actions undermine national security and his declaration doesn't meet the test of an emergency w/ @NicolleDWallace

Video embedded in tweet.

Belz... · 19th February 2019, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and California have sued over Trump's Emergency Declaration.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/18/polit...ncy/index.html

Wow, almost a third of the Union.

Belz... · 19th February 2019, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Well, suppose Congress passes a law that says the president can also pass laws? That's the un-Constitutional equivalent of saying a president can appropriate money.

Wouldn't that require an amendment?

Garrison · 19th February 2019, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

How
Now consider this Wall "National Emergency". Trump has already conceded out loud it isn't even needed, he's just doing it because he wants to. So in what way is this different to the above in-house hamberder joint? Nothing much.

And that admission is going to give the courts every reason to side with the states and individuals bringing cases before them.

BobTheCoward · 19th February 2019, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

How broadly?

What if Trump defined his National Emergency as "I need to build a MacDonalds outlet in the White House basement so I can order hamberders 24/7. And a Tiffany's shop for my main squeeze too." Do you think Congress would say payment for that is authorised with no questions asked? Surely there would be some oversight and potential brake-squeals from the Capital. It would be rightly considered a huge misunderstanding of what "National" and "Emergency" really mean. It isn't needed; it's just a personal whim.

Now consider this Wall "National Emergency". Trump has already conceded out loud it isn't even needed, he's just doing it because he wants to. So in what way is this different to the above in-house hamberder joint? Nothing much.

Because congress would be addressing it, I could see a judge saying it is non justiciable.

BobTheCoward · 19th February 2019, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Well, suppose Congress passes a law that says the president can also pass laws? That's the un-Constitutional equivalent of saying a president can appropriate money.

I'm generally on the side of non delegation doctrine advocates. We lose...a lot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

Quote:

However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)[1] that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[2]

...

Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine.

WilliamSeger · 19th February 2019, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Wouldn't that require an amendment?

Yes, and that's the point: Passing legislation and appropriating money are powers reserved to Congress, and they can't be delegated without changing the Constitution. A somewhat similar case was the line item veto, which Congress did pass into law, but the Supreme Court decided it violated the Constitutional separation of powers.

Drewbot · 19th February 2019, 07:51 AM

You all understand that Trump doesn't care if he gets the wall?

What he wants is 18 months of the media and democrats saying they don't care about the border of our country, they don't care about fentanyl deaths, they don't care about sex-trafficking.

Regardless of whether it will stop any of those things, he has framed it so they all look like they hate America, and he will use it to get reelected.

Last time it was drain the swamp, don't elect Hillary. This time it is going to be if you love America, don't elect these people who don't want to protect America.

As Admiral Akbar said: "ITS A TRAP!"

WilliamSeger · 19th February 2019, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

You all understand that Trump doesn't care if he gets the wall?

What he wants is 18 months of the media and democrats saying they don't care about the border of our country, they don't care about fentanyl deaths, they don't care about sex-trafficking.

Regardless of whether it will stop any of those things, he has framed it so they all look like they hate America, and he will use it to get reelected.

Last time it was drain the swamp, don't elect Hillary. This time it is going to be if you love America, don't elect these people who don't want to protect America.

As Admiral Akbar said: "ITS A TRAP!"

Unless, of course, all the people that ignorant and gullible are already on the Trump Train, headed for the washed-out 2020 bridge. You may have missed it, but Democrats had a winning strategy in 2018: Get people who are sick of Trump to the voting booths.

Upchurch · 19th February 2019, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

You all understand that Trump doesn't care if he gets the wall?

What he wants is 18 months of the media and democrats saying they don't care about the border of our country, they don't care about fentanyl deaths, they don't care about sex-trafficking.

Y'all understand that it doesn't matter if there is not 18 months of media and democrats saying all those things, he'll simply claim they said all those things and his base will believe it?

"Truth isn't truth."

JoeMorgue · 19th February 2019, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

You may have missed it, but Democrats had a winning strategy in 2018: Get people who are sick of Trump to the voting booths.

I am feeling the following two emotional response in equal measure.

1. I hope you are right.
2. I'll believe it when it see it.

Drewbot · 19th February 2019, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Unless, of course, all the people that ignorant and gullible are already on the Trump Train, headed for the washed-out 2020 bridge. You may have missed it, but Democrats had a winning strategy in 2018: Get people who are sick of Trump to the voting booths.

Easy to have a winning strategy when Trump isn't up for election.

he's definitely got the winning strategy as long as the Dems keep walking into his traps.

JoeMorgue · 19th February 2019, 08:21 AM

"Trump is obviously gonna lose. Lookit his support numbers" was the Dem's entire strategy in 2016 as well.

I swear I'm trying to get over this but "I don't understand. I keep explaining why he should be losing" ISN'T A GODDAMN STRATEGY.

WilliamSeger · 19th February 2019, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Easy to have a winning strategy when Trump isn't up for election.

he's definitely got the winning strategy as long as the Dems keep walking into his traps.

Yeah, they really fell for that shut-down trap, huh.

JoeMorgue · 19th February 2019, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Yeah, they really fell for that shut-down trap, huh.

Ah... yeah. They absolutely did.

In what world is Trump shutting down the government for over a month a win for the Democrats?

More "Oh it showed how bad he is and that eroded his base in ways that are completely invisible?"

Belz... · 19th February 2019, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Ah... yeah. They absolutely did.

In what world is Trump shutting down the government for over a month a win for the Democrats?

More "Oh it showed how bad he is and that eroded his base in ways that are completely invisible?"

In the same way that Benghazi eroded Clinton's base in ways that were not visible until people went to the polls.

JoeMorgue · 19th February 2019, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

In the same way that Benghazi eroded Clinton's base in ways that were not visible until people went to the polls.

And again I really, really, with zero snark or ulterior motive hope that all this is correct. I really, really do.

I get it, and I'll honestly try to ease this button for a while because I'm working myself up a bit and I don't like that, but I'm trying real hard to balance "I hope this time is different" with "That's exactly what every said last time."

Belz... · 19th February 2019, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And again I really, really, with zero snark or ulterior motive hope that all this is correct. I really, really do.

I get it, and I'll honestly try to ease this button for a while because I'm working myself up a bit and I don't like that, but I'm trying real hard to balance "I hope this time is different" with "That's exactly what every said last time."

The point is that public opinion can be swayed over long periods of time, and the people holding those opinions might not even realise it. All those things that _might_ damage Trump's image can build up over time and result in major changes.

I Am The Scum · 19th February 2019, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And again I really, really, with zero snark or ulterior motive hope that all this is correct. I really, really do.

I get it, and I'll honestly try to ease this button for a while because I'm working myself up a bit and I don't like that, but I'm trying real hard to balance "I hope this time is different" with "That's exactly what every said last time."

Joe, I like you, but you go on this type of rant at least once a week. I really don't know why you decry the lack of result when you don't have any apparent idea of what a positive result would be. Yes, I wish Trump would shrivel up into a tiny raisin and fall between the cracks of an old hardwood floor. But I think that's about as likely as his resignation.

So what do you actually want? Go ahead and paint me a rosy (though realistic) picture of a positive outcome. It's really not that easy, because a slim majority of the senate is controlled by evil people, and they're not going anywhere until the next election.

WilliamSeger · 19th February 2019, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Ah... yeah. They absolutely did.

In what world is Trump shutting down the government for over a month a win for the Democrats?

More "Oh it showed how bad he is and that eroded his base in ways that are completely invisible?"

You're too cynical. In my world, when polls told Republican leaders that the shut-down ship was taking on water, they told the captain there was an override mutiny afoot to minimize damage to their own reelection prospects, and he caved. For that, even Ann Coulter is calling him an idiot, because that's how he looks now from whichever side you look -- if you look, that is, which his hardcore base studiously avoids.

But no sensible person should waste any more time pondering what it would take to erode Trump's base -- ain't gonna happen. But so what, when they are a 40% minority, neither shrinking nor growing? Trumpism must be defeated at the polls, and 2018 showed that it can be. All Trump can do is hope that Hillary runs again, and depending on what Mueller has on him, even that might not save his sorry ass.

JoeMorgue · 19th February 2019, 09:30 AM

I'll ease off it guys, okay?

Segnosaur · 19th February 2019, 09:30 AM

Some polling numbers out, and as expected, the majority of people are against the declaration of a National Emergency.

From: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/69572...onal-emergency
More than 6-in-10 Americans disapprove of President Trump's decision to declare a national emergency so he can build barriers along the U.S border with Mexico, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds.

The results do seem to be split along party lines, with most Republicans favoring the declaration, and most Democrats against it. More importantly though, a majority of independent voters are against the National Emergency declaration. So, while it may help placate Trump's voter base, its not likely to add any new voters.

Craig4 · 19th February 2019, 09:43 AM

I wish they'd start breaking out results of these polls by state. It's time to start tracking what issues move the needle in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.

Lurch · 19th February 2019, 10:42 AM

I understand JoeMorgue's cynicism. A *significant* minority of Americans are stoopid. It only takes that lot fired up to vote to outdo a more apathetic majority. The Dem voters must have it pounded into their heads that *every* damned vote counts.

And if a Shultz third party effort siphons off more Dem leaners than GOP leaners, the danger is enhanced.

So yeah, while it's *hopefully* not doom 'n gloom yet, there remains real potential for another WTF election.

Stacko · 19th February 2019, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Lurch

I understand JoeMorgue's cynicism. A *significant* minority of Americans are stoopid. It only takes that lot fired up to vote to outdo a more apathetic majority. The Dem voters must have it pounded into their heads that *every* damned vote counts.

And if a Shultz third party effort siphons off more Dem leaners than GOP leaners, the danger is enhanced.

So yeah, while it's *hopefully* not doom 'n gloom yet, there remains real potential for another WTF election.

His other problem is going to replicating his success with disillusioned voters now that he's a known quantity.

Quote:

This disillusioned group -- 14% of all voters -- broke heavily for Trump: 69% to 15%, according to exit polls. About 1 in 7 in this group voted for someone other than the major party candidates. Most were independent voters, with 38% Republicans and 18% Democrats. Had they sat out the election instead, Clinton would have won in a landslide with 53% of the vote to Trump's 44%. Further evidence of this disillusionment can perhaps be found in total voter turnout; while votes are still being counted, early indications are that turnout is on par with its lowest rate in 20 years.

acbytesla · 19th February 2019, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

His other problem is going to replicating his success with disillusioned voters now that he's a known quantity.

I think the problem is worse than that for Trump. People are more likely to turnout to vote against something or someone. This is why negative advertising works. No need to make Trump out to be worse than he is. He really is that bad.
As crazy as Trump was during the campaign there will be no hiding behind the idea that Trump will be different as President. No rising to the occasion.

There is not going to be a turnout problem in that election. There won't be a Democratic candidate who was vilified and investigated EVERY DAY for 4 years leading into the election. No Ben Ghazzi or Hillary's emails to run up their unfavorable. They'll have 6 months at most.

I'm convinced that people will be stoked to vote against Trump. No one will believe the polls becoming overconfident either.

Drewbot · 19th February 2019, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Yeah, they really fell for that shut-down trap, huh.

That was exactly how he wanted that to play out.

The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown.

They were forced to tell America that they weren't willing to protect the border, in exchange for reopening the government.

Trump frames it as he would shut down the government to protect Americans, and the Dems will shut down the government to protect illegal immigrant criminals.

Upchurch · 19th February 2019, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

That was exactly how he wanted that to play out.

The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown.

They were forced to tell America that they weren't willing to protect the border, in exchange for reopening the government.

What are you talking about? None of that happened.

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Trump frames it as he would shut down the government to protect Americans, and the Dems will shut down the government to protect illegal immigrant criminals.

Trump will frame it to his advantage regardless of what actually happened. The vast majority of Americans blamed Trump for his shut down and do not believe there is a security emergency on the boarder.

Drewbot · 19th February 2019, 02:05 PM

Like I said, for the next 18 months you can keep telling Americans there is no emergency at the border, and that drug deaths and sex trafficking don't matter to you.

You won't win telling America that.

Upchurch · 19th February 2019, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Like I said, for the next 18 months you can keep telling Americans there is no emergency at the border, and that drug deaths and sex trafficking don't matter to you.

You won't win telling America that.

Who is telling America that, exactly?

quadraginta · 19th February 2019, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

That was exactly how he wanted that to play out.

The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown.

They were forced to tell America that they weren't willing to protect the border, in exchange for reopening the government.

Trump frames it as he would shut down the government to protect Americans, and the Dems will shut down the government to protect illegal immigrant criminals.

Trump refused a bipartsan bill and shut the government down for a month.

Only to accept another bipartisan bill which gave him less than he had refused and shut down the government for.

And this is the Democrats' fault ... how?

Lurch · 19th February 2019, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Like I said, for the next 18 months you can keep telling Americans there is no emergency at the border, and that drug deaths and sex trafficking don't matter to you.

You won't win telling America that.

Drug deaths result from folks *wanting* and *buying* and *taking* drugs. They well know the dangers. It's their *choice* to do this. Money would be far better spent helping these people get off the drugs. The war on drugs is just one long litany of abject failure. And a Wall would be just one more chimerical part of this losing strategy. Follow the example of Portugal.

Funny how so much more angst and hand-wringing is engendered among the right-wingers concerning self-inflicted dying by *voluntary* drug use, but no such spurring to action in the sphere of tragic deaths by *involuntary* gunfire.

If I had to assign a scale of tragedy, an innocent victim of a shooting would engender rather more sympathy from me than would a junkie who overdoses. And note that my youngest brother recently died of a drug overdose, likely from fentanyl.

Delphic Oracle · 19th February 2019, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Like I said, for the next 18 months you can keep telling Americans there is no emergency at the border

Quote:

Jackbooted thugs are kidnapping children.

and that drug deaths and sex trafficking don't matter to you.

You won't win telling America that.

And you'll hardly convince anyone who hasn't said that they actually said that.

Your attempt at shaming and embarrassing others into silence is deeply insulting.

Segnosaur · 19th February 2019, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown.

Nope. Wrong. Bzzzzt. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

The democrats had no problem with securing the border. They had no problem with programs like enhanced electronic monitoring. (Which actually does help border security.)

What they didn't want to do was fund a border wall, which would have done little or nothing to provide real security, and would have cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of dollars each.

Got it?

Elvis666 · 19th February 2019, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Lurch

I understand JoeMorgue's cynicism. A *significant* minority of Americans are stoopid. It only takes that lot fired up to vote to outdo a more apathetic majority. The Dem voters must have it pounded into their heads that *every* damned vote counts.

You are not wrong. But the Democratic Party has to realize that calling a significant portion of the voters derogatory names will result in some of the independent minority turning against them, even if those independents are not meant to be included in that group. I think the Dems have to field a candidate who is running for the presidency, instead of against Trump.

CORed · 19th February 2019, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Lurch

Drug deaths result from folks *wanting* and *buying* and *taking* drugs. They well know the dangers. It's their *choice* to do this. Money would be far better spent helping these people get off the drugs. The war on drugs is just one long litany of abject failure. And a Wall would be just one more chimerical part of this losing strategy. Follow the example of Portugal.

Funny how so much more angst and hand-wringing is engendered among the right-wingers concerning self-inflicted dying by *voluntary* drug use, but no such spurring to action in the sphere of tragic deaths by *involuntary* gunfire.

If I had to assign a scale of tragedy, an innocent victim of a shooting would engender rather more sympathy from me than would a junkie who overdoses. And note that my youngest brother recently died of a drug overdose, likely from fentanyl.

Perhaps more to the point, I believe that the wall will make little or no difference in illegal immigration. However, if adequately guarded, it might make a small difference. I know that the wall will not have even a small impact on drug smuggling. Given the amount of cross-border trade, drug smugglers will have no problem concealing drugs in commercial shipments. Besides, interdiction and prohibition are a failed approach to drug problems. They have never worked, and never will, for any kind of drugs.

BobTheCoward · 19th February 2019, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

That was exactly how he wanted that to play out.

The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown.

They were forced to tell America that they weren't willing to protect the border, in exchange for reopening the government.

Trump frames it as he would shut down the government to protect Americans, and the Dems will shut down the government to protect illegal immigrant criminals.

The wall is unpopular. Trump's views were soundly rejected in the presidential election. That was before he failed to secure Mexican funding. Democrats running on no wall platform crushed the republicans in the house and senate. There isn't a world in which democrats need to come to the table and the polling proved that.

WilliamSeger · 19th February 2019, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Like I said, for the next 18 months you can keep telling Americans there is no emergency at the border, and that drug deaths and sex trafficking don't matter to you.

You won't win telling America that.

On planet Earth: Broad disapproval of Trump's national emergency mirrors a critical 2020 problem for Trump
(paywalled)

Originally Posted by Washington Post

We’re pretty far down a tricky path for President Trump, whose promises on the 2016 campaign trail to build a wall on the border with Mexico were never likely to come to fruition given the process for getting legislation passed by Congress. Much of the focus on Trump’s bold assertions focused on his proclamations that Mexico would cover the costs for the wall, but the wall itself, particularly as described by Trump and particularly once it became intermingled with Trump’s views on immigration, faced a rocky path forward.

During the past two months, the bumpiness of the path became manifest: Trump blocked government funding to try to force Democrats to capitulate; they didn’t; he took the loss. But on Friday, Trump launched a last-ditch effort to move the wall forward, declaring a national emergency focused on the border, potentially allowing him to allocate money to get it built. The courts will probably decide if that happens.

The move is not popular. As our Aaron Blake wrote on Tuesday morning, a new NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll shows only about a third of the country thinks the declaration was a good idea. As you might expect, Republicans were more supportive than Democrats.

BadBoy · 19th February 2019, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Lurch

Funny how so much more angst and hand-wringing is engendered among the right-wingers concerning self-inflicted dying by *voluntary* drug use, but no such spurring to action in the sphere of tragic deaths by *involuntary* gunfire.

No idea what the "right wingers" think, but for me the issue with drugs is not the actual drug taking usually, it is all the crime associated with it like getting your house broken into by a junky who needs his next fix, or the collateral damage from stray bullets from drug related gang shootings etc etc.

I don't think people generally care if someone gets wasted in the privacy of their own home.

18th February 2019, 11:38 PM	#281
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,404	Originally Posted by Belz... The fact that the President doesn't pass laws, primarily. Well, suppose Congress passes a law that says the president can also pass laws? That's the un-Constitutional equivalent of saying a president can appropriate money.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

19th February 2019, 02:33 AM	#282
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 23,596	https://twitter.com/DeadlineWH/statu...36340311695361 Quote: NEWS: MSNBC National Security Analyst Jeremy Bash tells us more than 40 national security officials will sign joint declarations explaining why Trump's actions undermine national security and his declaration doesn't meet the test of an emergency w/ @NicolleDWallace Video embedded in tweet.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

19th February 2019, 03:43 AM	#283
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 79,588	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and California have sued over Trump's Emergency Declaration. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/18/polit...ncy/index.html Wow, almost a third of the Union.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

19th February 2019, 03:45 AM	#284
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 79,588	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Well, suppose Congress passes a law that says the president can also pass laws? That's the un-Constitutional equivalent of saying a president can appropriate money. Wouldn't that require an amendment?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

19th February 2019, 04:22 AM	#285
Garrison Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,629	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander How Now consider this Wall "National Emergency". Trump has already conceded out loud it isn't even needed, he's just doing it because he wants to. So in what way is this different to the above in-house hamberder joint? Nothing much. And that admission is going to give the courts every reason to side with the states and individuals bringing cases before them.
Garrison Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,629	__________________ So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

19th February 2019, 05:20 AM	#286
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,979	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander How broadly? What if Trump defined his National Emergency as "I need to build a MacDonalds outlet in the White House basement so I can order hamberders 24/7. And a Tiffany's shop for my main squeeze too." Do you think Congress would say payment for that is authorised with no questions asked? Surely there would be some oversight and potential brake-squeals from the Capital. It would be rightly considered a huge misunderstanding of what "National" and "Emergency" really mean. It isn't needed; it's just a personal whim. Now consider this Wall "National Emergency". Trump has already conceded out loud it isn't even needed, he's just doing it because he wants to. So in what way is this different to the above in-house hamberder joint? Nothing much. Because congress would be addressing it, I could see a judge saying it is non justiciable.

19th February 2019, 05:26 AM	#287
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,979	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Well, suppose Congress passes a law that says the president can also pass laws? That's the un-Constitutional equivalent of saying a president can appropriate money. I'm generally on the side of non delegation doctrine advocates. We lose...a lot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine Quote: However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)[1] that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[2] ... Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine.

19th February 2019, 06:54 AM	#288
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,404	Originally Posted by Belz... Wouldn't that require an amendment? Yes, and that's the point: Passing legislation and appropriating money are powers reserved to Congress, and they can't be delegated without changing the Constitution. A somewhat similar case was the line item veto, which Congress did pass into law, but the Supreme Court decided it violated the Constitutional separation of powers.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

19th February 2019, 07:51 AM	#289
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,931	You all understand that Trump doesn't care if he gets the wall? What he wants is 18 months of the media and democrats saying they don't care about the border of our country, they don't care about fentanyl deaths, they don't care about sex-trafficking. Regardless of whether it will stop any of those things, he has framed it so they all look like they hate America, and he will use it to get reelected. Last time it was drain the swamp, don't elect Hillary. This time it is going to be if you love America, don't elect these people who don't want to protect America. As Admiral Akbar said: "ITS A TRAP!"
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,931	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

19th February 2019, 08:05 AM	#290
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,404	Originally Posted by Drewbot You all understand that Trump doesn't care if he gets the wall? What he wants is 18 months of the media and democrats saying they don't care about the border of our country, they don't care about fentanyl deaths, they don't care about sex-trafficking. Regardless of whether it will stop any of those things, he has framed it so they all look like they hate America, and he will use it to get reelected. Last time it was drain the swamp, don't elect Hillary. This time it is going to be if you love America, don't elect these people who don't want to protect America. As Admiral Akbar said: "ITS A TRAP!" Unless, of course, all the people that ignorant and gullible are already on the Trump Train, headed for the washed-out 2020 bridge. You may have missed it, but Democrats had a winning strategy in 2018: Get people who are sick of Trump to the voting booths.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

19th February 2019, 08:09 AM	#291
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 31,120	Originally Posted by Drewbot You all understand that Trump doesn't care if he gets the wall? What he wants is 18 months of the media and democrats saying they don't care about the border of our country, they don't care about fentanyl deaths, they don't care about sex-trafficking. Y'all understand that it doesn't matter if there is not 18 months of media and democrats saying all those things, he'll simply claim they said all those things and his base will believe it? "Truth isn't truth."
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

19th February 2019, 08:10 AM	#292
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 16,547	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger You may have missed it, but Democrats had a winning strategy in 2018: Get people who are sick of Trump to the voting booths. I am feeling the following two emotional response in equal measure. 1. I hope you are right. 2. I'll believe it when it see it.
	__________________ - "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset - "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal - "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

19th February 2019, 08:17 AM	#293
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,931	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Unless, of course, all the people that ignorant and gullible are already on the Trump Train, headed for the washed-out 2020 bridge. You may have missed it, but Democrats had a winning strategy in 2018: Get people who are sick of Trump to the voting booths. Easy to have a winning strategy when Trump isn't up for election. he's definitely got the winning strategy as long as the Dems keep walking into his traps.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,931	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

19th February 2019, 08:21 AM	#294
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 16,547	"Trump is obviously gonna lose. Lookit his support numbers" was the Dem's entire strategy in 2016 as well. I swear I'm trying to get over this but "I don't understand. I keep explaining why he should be losing" ISN'T A GODDAMN STRATEGY.
	__________________ - "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset - "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal - "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

19th February 2019, 08:29 AM	#295
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,404	Originally Posted by Drewbot Easy to have a winning strategy when Trump isn't up for election. he's definitely got the winning strategy as long as the Dems keep walking into his traps. Yeah, they really fell for that shut-down trap, huh.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

19th February 2019, 08:33 AM	#296
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 16,547	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Yeah, they really fell for that shut-down trap, huh. Ah... yeah. They absolutely did. In what world is Trump shutting down the government for over a month a win for the Democrats? More "Oh it showed how bad he is and that eroded his base in ways that are completely invisible?"
	__________________ - "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset - "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal - "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

19th February 2019, 08:50 AM	#297
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 79,588	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Ah... yeah. They absolutely did. In what world is Trump shutting down the government for over a month a win for the Democrats? More "Oh it showed how bad he is and that eroded his base in ways that are completely invisible?" In the same way that Benghazi eroded Clinton's base in ways that were not visible until people went to the polls.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

19th February 2019, 08:54 AM	#298
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 16,547	Originally Posted by Belz... In the same way that Benghazi eroded Clinton's base in ways that were not visible until people went to the polls. And again I really, really, with zero snark or ulterior motive hope that all this is correct. I really, really do. I get it, and I'll honestly try to ease this button for a while because I'm working myself up a bit and I don't like that, but I'm trying real hard to balance "I hope this time is different" with "That's exactly what every said last time."
	__________________ - "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset - "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal - "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

19th February 2019, 09:10 AM	#299
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 79,588	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue And again I really, really, with zero snark or ulterior motive hope that all this is correct. I really, really do. I get it, and I'll honestly try to ease this button for a while because I'm working myself up a bit and I don't like that, but I'm trying real hard to balance "I hope this time is different" with "That's exactly what every said last time." The point is that public opinion can be swayed over long periods of time, and the people holding those opinions might not even realise it. All those things that _might_ damage Trump's image can build up over time and result in major changes.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

19th February 2019, 09:23 AM	#300
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,713	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue And again I really, really, with zero snark or ulterior motive hope that all this is correct. I really, really do. I get it, and I'll honestly try to ease this button for a while because I'm working myself up a bit and I don't like that, but I'm trying real hard to balance "I hope this time is different" with "That's exactly what every said last time." Joe, I like you, but you go on this type of rant at least once a week. I really don't know why you decry the lack of result when you don't have any apparent idea of what a positive result would be. Yes, I wish Trump would shrivel up into a tiny raisin and fall between the cracks of an old hardwood floor. But I think that's about as likely as his resignation. So what do you actually want? Go ahead and paint me a rosy (though realistic) picture of a positive outcome. It's really not that easy, because a slim majority of the senate is controlled by evil people, and they're not going anywhere until the next election.

19th February 2019, 09:27 AM	#301
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,404	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Ah... yeah. They absolutely did. In what world is Trump shutting down the government for over a month a win for the Democrats? More "Oh it showed how bad he is and that eroded his base in ways that are completely invisible?" You're too cynical. In my world, when polls told Republican leaders that the shut-down ship was taking on water, they told the captain there was an override mutiny afoot to minimize damage to their own reelection prospects, and he caved. For that, even Ann Coulter is calling him an idiot, because that's how he looks now from whichever side you look -- if you look, that is, which his hardcore base studiously avoids. But no sensible person should waste any more time pondering what it would take to erode Trump's base -- ain't gonna happen. But so what, when they are a 40% minority, neither shrinking nor growing? Trumpism must be defeated at the polls, and 2018 showed that it can be. All Trump can do is hope that Hillary runs again, and depending on what Mueller has on him, even that might not save his sorry ass.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

19th February 2019, 09:30 AM	#302
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 16,547	I'll ease off it guys, okay?
	__________________ - "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset - "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal - "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

19th February 2019, 09:30 AM	#303
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 12,574	Some polling numbers out, and as expected, the majority of people are against the declaration of a National Emergency. From: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/69572...onal-emergency More than 6-in-10 Americans disapprove of President Trump's decision to declare a national emergency so he can build barriers along the U.S border with Mexico, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds. The results do seem to be split along party lines, with most Republicans favoring the declaration, and most Democrats against it. More importantly though, a majority of independent voters are against the National Emergency declaration. So, while it may help placate Trump's voter base, its not likely to add any new voters.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

19th February 2019, 09:43 AM	#304
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State. Posts: 17,737	I wish they'd start breaking out results of these polls by state. It's time to start tracking what issues move the needle in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.
	Last edited by Craig4; 19th February 2019 at 09:45 AM.

19th February 2019, 10:42 AM	#305
Lurch Muse Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 679	I understand JoeMorgue's cynicism. A significant minority of Americans are stoopid. It only takes that lot fired up to vote to outdo a more apathetic majority. The Dem voters must have it pounded into their heads that every damned vote counts. And if a Shultz third party effort siphons off more Dem leaners than GOP leaners, the danger is enhanced. So yeah, while it's hopefully not doom 'n gloom yet, there remains real potential for another WTF election.
Lurch Muse Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 679

19th February 2019, 10:49 AM	#306
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,699	Originally Posted by Lurch I understand JoeMorgue's cynicism. A significant minority of Americans are stoopid. It only takes that lot fired up to vote to outdo a more apathetic majority. The Dem voters must have it pounded into their heads that every damned vote counts. And if a Shultz third party effort siphons off more Dem leaners than GOP leaners, the danger is enhanced. So yeah, while it's hopefully not doom 'n gloom yet, there remains real potential for another WTF election. His other problem is going to replicating his success with disillusioned voters now that he's a known quantity. Quote: This disillusioned group -- 14% of all voters -- broke heavily for Trump: 69% to 15%, according to exit polls. About 1 in 7 in this group voted for someone other than the major party candidates. Most were independent voters, with 38% Republicans and 18% Democrats. Had they sat out the election instead, Clinton would have won in a landslide with 53% of the vote to Trump's 44%. Further evidence of this disillusionment can perhaps be found in total voter turnout; while votes are still being counted, early indications are that turnout is on par with its lowest rate in 20 years.

19th February 2019, 01:14 PM	#307
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 20,753	Originally Posted by Stacko His other problem is going to replicating his success with disillusioned voters now that he's a known quantity. I think the problem is worse than that for Trump. People are more likely to turnout to vote against something or someone. This is why negative advertising works. No need to make Trump out to be worse than he is. He really is that bad. As crazy as Trump was during the campaign there will be no hiding behind the idea that Trump will be different as President. No rising to the occasion. There is not going to be a turnout problem in that election. There won't be a Democratic candidate who was vilified and investigated EVERY DAY for 4 years leading into the election. No Ben Ghazzi or Hillary's emails to run up their unfavorable. They'll have 6 months at most. I'm convinced that people will be stoked to vote against Trump. No one will believe the polls becoming overconfident either.
	__________________ “ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ” ― David Hume

19th February 2019, 01:56 PM	#308
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,931	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Yeah, they really fell for that shut-down trap, huh. That was exactly how he wanted that to play out. The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown. They were forced to tell America that they weren't willing to protect the border, in exchange for reopening the government. Trump frames it as he would shut down the government to protect Americans, and the Dems will shut down the government to protect illegal immigrant criminals.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,931	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

19th February 2019, 02:04 PM	#309
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 31,120	Originally Posted by Drewbot That was exactly how he wanted that to play out. The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown. They were forced to tell America that they weren't willing to protect the border, in exchange for reopening the government. What are you talking about? None of that happened. Originally Posted by Drewbot Trump frames it as he would shut down the government to protect Americans, and the Dems will shut down the government to protect illegal immigrant criminals. Trump will frame it to his advantage regardless of what actually happened. The vast majority of Americans blamed Trump for his shut down and do not believe there is a security emergency on the boarder.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

19th February 2019, 02:05 PM	#310
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,931	Like I said, for the next 18 months you can keep telling Americans there is no emergency at the border, and that drug deaths and sex trafficking don't matter to you. You won't win telling America that.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,931	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

19th February 2019, 02:14 PM	#311
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 31,120	Originally Posted by Drewbot Like I said, for the next 18 months you can keep telling Americans there is no emergency at the border, and that drug deaths and sex trafficking don't matter to you. You won't win telling America that. Who is telling America that, exactly?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

19th February 2019, 03:52 PM	#312
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 23,055	Originally Posted by Drewbot That was exactly how he wanted that to play out. The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown. They were forced to tell America that they weren't willing to protect the border, in exchange for reopening the government. Trump frames it as he would shut down the government to protect Americans, and the Dems will shut down the government to protect illegal immigrant criminals. Trump refused a bipartsan bill and shut the government down for a month. Only to accept another bipartisan bill which gave him less than he had refused and shut down the government for. And this is the Democrats' fault ... how?
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

19th February 2019, 03:56 PM	#313
Lurch Muse Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 679	Originally Posted by Drewbot Like I said, for the next 18 months you can keep telling Americans there is no emergency at the border, and that drug deaths and sex trafficking don't matter to you. You won't win telling America that. Drug deaths result from folks wanting and buying and taking drugs. They well know the dangers. It's their choice to do this. Money would be far better spent helping these people get off the drugs. The war on drugs is just one long litany of abject failure. And a Wall would be just one more chimerical part of this losing strategy. Follow the example of Portugal. Funny how so much more angst and hand-wringing is engendered among the right-wingers concerning self-inflicted dying by voluntary drug use, but no such spurring to action in the sphere of tragic deaths by involuntary gunfire. If I had to assign a scale of tragedy, an innocent victim of a shooting would engender rather more sympathy from me than would a junkie who overdoses. And note that my youngest brother recently died of a drug overdose, likely from fentanyl.
Lurch Muse Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 679

19th February 2019, 03:58 PM	#314
Delphic Oracle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 2,874	Originally Posted by Drewbot Like I said, for the next 18 months you can keep telling Americans there is no emergency at the border Quote: Jackbooted thugs are kidnapping children. and that drug deaths and sex trafficking don't matter to you. You won't win telling America that. And you'll hardly convince anyone who hasn't said that they actually said that. Your attempt at shaming and embarrassing others into silence is deeply insulting.

19th February 2019, 03:59 PM	#315
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 12,574	Originally Posted by Drewbot The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown. Nope. Wrong. Bzzzzt. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. The democrats had no problem with securing the border. They had no problem with programs like enhanced electronic monitoring. (Which actually does help border security.) What they didn't want to do was fund a border wall, which would have done little or nothing to provide real security, and would have cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of dollars each. Got it?
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot