Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cocaine Mitch Lets Down the Side
As a skeptic of President Trump, this doesn’t surprise me:
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that President Trump will sign the homeland-security-spending bill pending before Congress while simultaneously declaring a national emergency in order to fund his long-promised border wall.
But this does:
McConnell also announced Thursday on the Senate floor that he supports Trump’s national-emergency declaration, breaking from a group of Senate conservatives critical of ceding more authority to the executive.
“I’ve just had an opportunity to speak with President Trump, and he would, I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated that he’s prepared to sign the bill,” McConell said. “He will also be issuing a national-emergency declaration at the same time. And I’ve indicated to him that I’m going to prepare — I’m going to support the national-emergency declaration. So for all of my colleagues, the president will sign the bill. We’ll be voting on it shortly.”
I was glad to see President Trump rescind the unconstitutional executive orders that President Obama enacted, but was worried that, since President Trump didn’t appear to have any well-defined principle recognizing Constitutional authority as a prerequisite for issuing EOs, when push came to shove he would do the same thing as his predecessor, when it was politically expedient. And now that has come to pass.
Now, I’m open to persuasion that the border situation constitutes an actual emergency, but not much open to it. While the southern border is a problem, not much has changed in 30 years in terms of the acuteness of the issue, as far as I can tell. It’s more of a chronic (in more ways that one!) issue that is not on the order of the types of emergencies that the emergency power is supposed to be for. As always, though, there’s usually much to be learned by going at it hammer and tongs here, so let’s squawk at each other about it for a while.
Published in Politics
You reminded me of a good thing about this bill. Just wait until thousands of illegals trample through the butterfly park because the new walls keeps them out through other areas of Texas.
Note to self: Order lots of popcorn for 2021.
Did you see the other things in this ‘compromise’? Small town mayors can refuse the wall, 3.1 billion for healthcare in other countries, more goodies for the Dems…..
I don’t believe everything I read on the net. I check several sites to see if there are other people reporting on something. I did a search and found one referencing that number on Redstate. The numbers are coming from the Gallup poll chairman. Breitbart and the Santa Fe World Review also have stories on this. Whether you believe it or not, even 5,000 is too many at one time. Also, the apprehension of so-called ‘family units’ has increased substantially, because of the left’s outcry over separating ‘families’. Without rapid DNA testing at the point of entry, family relationship can’t be verified.
As many have already pointed out, several Presidents have declared ’emergencies’ in the past that weren’t ’emergencies’. Many have also been renewed.
What would be YOUR solution to the border problem?
You also don’t answer my questions in my post. Why isn’t the U.S. allowed to have a secure border? Measles, mumps, tuberculosis are appearing across the country, because people are being let into the country without health checks. Add that to the anti-vaccination movement, and you have a real mess. Measles and mumps can cause sterility, also. Guess Planned Parenthood could lose some business….
Why don’t our so-called ALLIES support us having a secure border? We’re so concerned with other countries’ security and safety, it seems we have little left for our own!
I’ll go on record right now as saying: this whole rigamarole is pure kabuki, and there will be no major new wall construction (save perhaps a small section somewhere that Trump can stand in front of on TV) by the next election.
Here’s a clue as to why: we’ve all had to be reminded that there have actually been dozens of similar emergencies declared by each president since the emergency powers law was passed several decades ago. Why do we need to be reminded of that fact? Because apparently the emergency powers granted are actually pretty weak – so weak that we haven’t really noticed the changes made under the aegis of these powers.
So history suggests that the actual resources that will now be available to Trump under these powers are rather modest.
Now add the fact that there will be legal challenges to both the emergency declaration itself and to whatever actual specific wall construction plans are drafted. The Trump administration has a mixed record at fighting legal challenges to its actions – it managed to persevere on the travel ban but has been pretty limp-wristed several other legal challenges, including the one on ending DACA.
Now add the fact that even if Trump overcomes all these legal challenges and finds the resources to build a wall, he and his administration will then have to single-handedly plan and implement the construction. And so far the Trump administration also has a very poor track record of developing fully-fledged programs in-house.
Taken together, there’s simply no way an emergency declaration will lead to any meaningful wall construction before Trump leaves office. This is simply fan service.
And they would do this even if Trump does not declare the border crisis an emergency.
Come on. you build a wall and you force all the drugs through the ports of entry. The ICE agents that are now no longer needed to police a couple thousand miles of border are now available to work the ports of entry. Walls work.
What precedent is being set? Presidents have been declaring national emergencies since the 1970s under this specific statute.
Acting under a statute enacted by Congress is, last I checked, not being a dictator. Again, you don’t have to like it. But to argue that it’s illegal or unconstitutional or sets a new precedent is, I’m sorry, profoundly ignorant. You understand I’m not saying you’re stupid. I’m saying you’re not understanding that Trump would not be setting a precedent, that declaring a national emergency is specifically authorized by Congress, and that as the executive the president is the appropriate officer under the Constitution to declare a national emergency.
I’ll add that for the Dems to use it for “Climate Change” or to force “Medicare for All” there would have to be provisions in existing law that can be accessed via a national emergency declaration.
Declaring a national emergency does not suddenly give the executive unlimited powers, as some here seem to think (based on comments).
Trump’s already declared three national emergencies. But the only problem anyone has is with the one that would protect the border.
By the way, he just announced at the White House he is going to declare the emergency on the border. But he’s giving a speech, not doing a signing. So… He hasn’t declared it yet.
I didn’t say he was being a dictator, I was asking what the limits of the definition of emergency were, and whether they were over-broad. The point is that if he has the latitude to do this, then the law needs to be amended to constrain it based on some limiting principle.
That’d be great, but so far not a lot of luck martialing them to the cause.
Not sure what to do with this, assuming you’re talking to me. I am for border security, I just don’t think this falls (or should fall) under the definition of an emergency. It does not follow that therefore I am for all of the bad things you reeled off.
To continue to push for many of the things he’s pushing for. In addition, I’d like to see him push for e-verify and crack down on visa overstayers. But that can and should be handled through the legislative process.
What’s the chance of passing a line item veto and a balanced budget amendment to control federal spending? We need both. Reagan wanted both. So did Bush ‘41. Congress won’t pass either of these as legislation (and the line item veto is unconstitutional under current law). There probably is no other way to put some breaks on the spending. In the hands of the wrong president or Congress, there could be an infinite number of negative consequences. But what other option is there?
We already have fences at the primary and secondary locations. We are down to tertiary locations for fencing. Illegal entry is down to the lowest level in some 20 years.