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.
Responding to Conservative Critics of Trump using the National Emergency Law on 1976
I saw this article two days ago and I think it is spot on. I have some quotes, but please, read the whole thing. (All quotes from this article except the table on how Reagan, too, shredded the Constitution by using the 1976 law)
Now come all the great Washington “conservatives” lambasting President Trump for threatening to declare a “national emergency” so he can finally build the promised southern border wall that got him elected president.
These out-of-the-blue “constitutionalists” have lined up alongside the open border Democrats who for years have airily dismissed U.S. citizens’ alarm over the open border as a “manufactured crisis.”
These critics are all of a sudden worried that Mr. Trump will overreach his executive authority. Even more fundamentally, they cringe, this action by a president will forever grant unchecked new powers to every future president.
Give me a break. These are the same goons in Congress who for decades have handed over congressional authority to any president in the White House who happens to wear the same color jersey they do. Democrats have done it for Democrat presidents and Republicans have done it for Republican presidents.
Indeed. I guess when Reagan did it it was OK:
| Reagan | October 14, 1983 | December 20, 1983 | Trade[18] | Continuation of Export Control Regulations (Executive Order 12444)[20] – expiry of the Export Administration Act of 1979 | |
| Reagan | March 30, 1984 | July 12, 1985 | Trade[18] | Continuation of Export Control Regulations (Executive Order 12470)[20] – expiry of the Export Administration Act of 1979 | |
| Reagan | May 1, 1985[21] | March 13, 1990[22] | Sanctions[18] | Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua (Executive Order 12513)[21] – The United States embargo against Nicaragua,[23]followed the victory by Sandinista candidate Daniel Ortega in the 1984 Nicaraguan general election over the U.S.-backed Contras | |
| Reagan | September 9, 1985 | July 10, 1991 | Sanctions[18] | Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (Executive Order 12532)[20] – response to the initial attempt by Senate Democrats to pass what would be the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 | |
| Reagan | January 7, 1986 | September 20, 2004 | Sanctions[18] | Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya (Executive Order 12543)[20] – followed the 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks | |
| Reagan | April 8, 1988 | April 5, 1990 | Sanctions[18] | Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Panama (Executive Order 12635)[20] – deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and General Manuel Noriega |
Why did Congress invent the National Emergencies Act in the first place if it is such a threat to the Constitution? And where has all this angst been the five dozen times presidents have declared national emergencies since the law was created in 1976?
Yep. Which party first ran for a third term? Which party abused the filibuster? Which party decided to unwind the filibuster?
The truth of most of the political class is they don’t want to protect the border.
Because Congress won’t do its job. Its members are all willing to just pass the buck and do nothing. More on this here.
If Congress did not want this to happen, it could have stopped it, and still could stop it. Congress gave the power to the Executive and they can take it away.
Published in General
I don’t know enough about the circumstances of the other declarations to offer an opinion on their legality. Also, I don’t know which other statutes were put into play by those emergency declarations. Maybe they exceed the president’s authority and maybe they don’t.
I can certainly think of hypothetical cases that clearly wouldn’t exceed presidential authority with respect to the statutes the president is invoking in this case. If, for example, an earthquake took out bridges across a river or a bay, and Army engineers were available to rapidly construct a new bridge to provide emergency services, allow basic commerce, or whatever to the other side, then this re-appropriation of funds by the president would be well within his authority under the statutes. That would be an obvious emergency situation, where there would be no time for the ordinary congressional process, and clearly a situtation that may require military assistance. That would meet the statutory test laid out by Congress. The differences between this type of situation and the present issue are fairly plain to see, I believe.
Didn’t Obama say in his inauguration that he was going to be the President for all people. Obama governed for the Democrats because he was a Democrat. Giving your base “wins” is kind of what every President does. Trump is doing things that all Republican politicians have paid lip service to, whether they took actions or not.
I am still not sure that this is the right move, but it should be completely expected. This issue was a major part of his campaign. I am actually better with a President who goes to extreme measures to fulfill his promises than with politicians who promise one thing to get elected and then act another way until they need to be re-elected.
Oh yeah?! Well I think you’re stinky too!
Oh, sorry. Are we not in second grade? My bad.
In fact, I’ve been struck by the pleasant contrast of this administration as compared to the previous one, when it comes to inclusiveness. I was tired of seeing the nation divided into ever smaller identity groups based on race or sex or class or increasingly odd proclivities. I’ve noticed how careful President Trump is to identify common interests in his speeches, rather than imply that we are a nation of competing and incompatible interests.
He performs, in his rallies, for his core of enthusiastic supporters, I get that: he likes attention and adulation, and that’s pretty much the only place he gets it. But he seems to govern with a view of one nation, and without regard to the divisions that have come to dominate the Democrats and the left.
I won’t speak for Fred, but I certainly don’t associate with Maxine Waters. (I doubt that Fred does either.)
Trump is the President, but he sure isn’t my President.
Trump is the President, but certainly not my president.
I guess it all depends on how you are parsing language. I never much got into the “Not my President” with Obama. I think it is nonsense. I did not vote for Obama, but he was President of these United States for 8 years. Period.
This all points to Congress not doing its job. I would be thrilled if Congress grabbed power back. We will see if it does.
Why does he get to do this? It is clear from my OP I am not in some praise Trump Mode
If you look at the history of this, the National Emergency Act was a small step towards Congress pulling power back. Before the act the President had more power and there was not Congressional Review.
Let’s hope so.
Am I to understand you have formally renounced your citizenship and are officially and legally a stateless person?
He’s your president too.
Yeah. He is.
So Clinton and Obama were “your” President, or “the”/“our” President?
There is a distinction behind saying the X is “my” President, “the” President, or “our” President. You seem to have missed this point.
Or you are twisting language. There is no difference between Trump/Obama is the President and Trump/Obama is my President or our President.
You don’t get your very own President. So your President is the President.
Would you agree that it’s spot on, in spite of containing one or more instances of ad hominem argument?
Yehehesss… He may your President that you hate, but, unless you renounce your citizenship (as so many lefties threaten, but never carry out, sadly), he’s your President. You just hate him. That would be a more precise use of language.
With regard to this long-running debate on the “Not My President” business:
I think “The President” is much like “The Truth.”
There is “The President.”
There is no such thing as “My President,” or “Your President,” just as there is no such thing as “My Truth,” and “Your Truth.” Each of us is not a special snowflake whose feelings are soothed or inflamed by imagining and claiming that the occupant of the White House, or the giraffe at the local zoo, or the closet doorknob, is his or her own special President, or someone else’s own special President, or anything else that it is not.
There is just “The President.” Of the United States. Who lives in the White House. You might say that he is “our” President. Of “our” United States. That would be OK.
I can’t exactly say that myself, because I am not a United States Citizen. But you all can. And probably should, for as long as he is in office.
None of that, BTW, has anything to do with whether you respect the man in the office, or agree with a single thing he says or does. It’s simply an acknowledgement of reality, and an entry point into a conversation which does not go through baiting, trolling or otherwise looking for ways insult fellow members as brainwashed members of a cult you despise.
The chart in #46 is entirely accurate. Dislike Donald Trump all you like. Criticize his actions all you want. But he is the President. Of all of your United States. And every citizen in it.
We appreciate your discretion. Since you necessarily refrained from issuing a judgement, but we over here do need to figure this out right away (we might get drafted, for example, and need to know who’s giving the orders), I called my solicitor to get the official answer.
I call her my “lawyer”, by the way. That’s the term we use over here for an all-in-one Solicitor-plus-that One Other Thing. “Barrister”, maybe, or Marquess? I am rusty on my English. It’s not Footman, I know that, she’s the one who reports to the Butler.
Anyway, back to the point.
It turns out that President Trump actually is the President. We’ve only the one. So I was right all along. He’s my President. I didn’t ask if Obama was my President. Solicitors bill by the hour, and it’s water under the barn door now.
Good idea. Always good to know who you’re supposed to salute.
lol. I’ll read the fine print in Debrett’s, once the Butler brings it to me.
I may not be a US citizen, but I know all about barn doors. You don’t want water running under them, BTW. Very nasty.
A poor example, but the best I can come up with. After the Dallas Cowboys won, I think, Super Bowl XII, NFL film’s summary was titled “America’s Team.” There was a huge reaction despite the fact that the Cowboys had become the “go to” late game on Sundays.
I would guess that there is a team that you identify as “your” team, be it the Steelers, Packers, or Patriots or your local team.
(BTW, who is “your” NFL team. By geography, mine is the Arizona Cardinals, but I am also partial to the Steelers and Patriots.)
Does it, please enlighten me as to which arguments are ad hominem.
It seems to me those sorts of arguments to the Anti-Trump side.
I said this on another thread. The wording of that act is ridiculously broad. The Carteles Control all illegal immigration over non-ports of entry. Walls work. The border patrol wants walls. It’s legal.
Fox news had a good attorney on it yesterday I think his name is Dan Burns. Very reasonable guy. I think when he goes on CNN he makes it more overt that he’s a Democrat. He thinks Trump is going to get his way.
As far as I’m aware (please correct me if I’m wrong), no NFL team has ever been elected, via constitutional means, to represent all the citizens of the United States at anything. So why should the Dallas Cowboys claim to play for me? And why should I feel some sort of obligation to them?
And yes. The Steelers are my team (since they’re not running for anything, and there’s no citizenship requirement to be a fan, I claim them).
A better example, from a sports perspective, might have been the Olympics, had they not become such a political football themselves, as well as the source of so many unpleasant and disgusting stories of athlete abuse. I loved supporting the national teams, when it was still possible to do so without feeling soiled.
Pat Toomey (R-mostly) and Bob Casy JR (D-not a patch on his old man) are my state’s Senators. Guy Reschenthaler (R) represents my district in Congress. And the three of them are in Washington DC ostensibly to represent all the citizens of Pennsylvania in their relevant electoral geographies. That’s how it works. Up to and including the President.
A couple of quick questions, if you are willing to answer them. What country are you a citizen of? Where do you live? How do you compare the U.S. governmental system to the country of your birth?
You don’t have to answer any of these questions. (I am sometimes aggravated when a fellow Ricochetti seeks to cross-examine me or lead me into a trap.) I am genuinely curious. If you have addressed this previously please feel free to give me a hyperlink. You are also free to tell me that this is none of my business, and/or that you decline to answer without stating any reason. Your privacy; your call.
Tried to look up that one question we were discussing, but it’s the Butler’s day off (still!) and I am pathetic trying to use the Interwebs. This “Debrett’s” thing has sort of a British version of a paywall. To subscribe, you have to give your name and email, and be descended from a Brevet Woolwoedings-squire of the Order of the Pipshiresgate, or higher. Which I looked up on Ancestry.com, and I am, but only on my mother’s side, and naturally it turns out her estate was entailed. Probably by some bl__dy Barrister.
Fun part first. I am a Dolphins fan but would by geography be locked to the Chiefs.
There are 32 teams. Each is the the theoretical equal to the others as anyone can win on any given Sunday. So it is easy to Identify “my team” it is who I like. My choice (despite all the sports arguments) is just as valid as anyone’s but no sports team has any actual power. I can also switch teams over the years.
So if I declare Trump not “my President” it does not bestow some new authority in Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal. There is only one guy. I can think of very little that I liked about Obama but he was, for better or worse, “my President”. To declare otherwise is simply to exacerbate partisan and inter-party conflict. The difference between “Not My President” and “My President but I Don’t Like Him” is that the first one is needlessly inflammatory and not factually correct. While the second is a factually accurate opinion.
In terms of sheer weighted silliness (sws) — that is, the fundamental silliness of the point multiplied by the number of comments made about it — this must be one of the silliest things on Ricochet right now.
Tellingly, that realization is not sufficient to prevent me from commenting, thus ratcheting the sws just a little bit higher.
First, Trump is the President. I think all of us here agree to that. I mean, this isn’t something ambiguous, like whether or not the little infant
malechild born with a penis is a boy or a girl. That is ambiguous. The identity of the current chief executive is not: it’s all Americans have heard about for the past three years.Secondly, a lot of people can say “Trump is not my President,” and we all understand that they mean they really don’t like or respect the man and they don’t want to be associated with him. Fair enough: in that sense, Obama wasn’t my President (though I never said that because I made it pretty obvious that I didn’t like him without resorting to complex circumlocutions).
Thirdly, there are those who say “Trump is not my President” and mean, by saying it, that they reject the legitimacy of Trump as President — much as a large number of people in Venezuela reject the legitimacy of Maduro as their President. I’m going to assume that everyone here on Ricochet is reasonably well grounded in reality, and therefore that there aren’t any here who seriously doubt the electoral legitimacy of President Trump.
So we should all agree with the first point: Trump is the President.
We all know that some of our members really, really don’t like Trump, and so should be able to accept that they use the “not my” bit in the second sense, to remind us that they really, really don’t like Trump. Lest we forget. It hardly seems worth arguing the point.
There. I feel better.