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
The Ruling Class has sucked since 1946. That is all you need to worry about.
In all fairness to Trump and past presidents, a quick look back at prior declarations will show that few could be called what we think of as an emergency. For example, on his way out of office in January 2001 Clinton declared a national emergency blocking the importation of rough diamonds from Sierra Leone. A complete list may be found here.
I am a British subject. I am married to a US Citizen (who voted for Donald Trump) and I live in Pennsylvania. The differences, between “your” system of government and my own are pretty well-documented, with one of the primary sources being your Declaration of Independence. It’s not a secret, and I’ve mentioned it many times on Ricochet. I spent the first ten years of my life in heavily-Muslim Northern Nigeria. My father was a bit of a legend, and not someone to be lightly messed with: http://ricochet.com/372283/archives/tall-tales-gagara-yasin/. (You might want to ponder, in the interests of future interactions, how far you think the fruit might fall from the tree. Kidding.)
I trust that you have a Green Card. Have you ever considered becoming a U.S. citizen? Are you able to vote for a member of Parliament? If your husband were to pass away, where would you want to live? What system of government do you prefer?
Thank you for your confidence in me.
Yes.
No.
Right where I am.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Both countries are advanced first world Western democracies with advantages and disadvantages (not going to argue about the differences between monarchies and republics).
Let’s allow this thread to get back on topic.
Monarchy is the superior form of government.
Fair enough. Thank you for indulging me. (I don’t try to hijack threads, but I do tend to follow tangents when they appear.)
Only if I am the monarch.
We are not amused.
I love that. It’s only ten minutes long.
Seriously, the GOP, every single Trump hater on Ricochet really ought to pay attention to the wacky stuff I post from Mises.org. What are they wrong about? Not very much.
Be sure to vote!
Mother Of God here is the extended interview of why no one is really conservative.
Be sure too vote! Ronald Reagan all the way!
I wasn’t clear. It was a yes-or-no question, not a statement:
To clarify, my Comment didn’t contain an argument. It was a yes/no question:
I wasn’t clear: I don’t agree with the premise. Therefore, I cannot answer yes or no.
So, if you assert the article had such statements, you are going to have to point them out to me and prove that premise to me.
I anxiously await your proof.
To clarify my Comment above, I don’t think it contained one or more instances of ad hominem arguments. I do think that Fred Cole, who you appear to be on the same anti-Trump side with, is using ad hominem arguments, and my implied statement was I cannot help but notice you are ignoring his very clear attacks on Trump supporters while picking at the article I posted.
Further, you have picked one line, and gone after that. That is a sure sign of someone on the losing end of an argument: picking one line to divert the whole argument to. Make me defend that one line, and nothing else.
The article is spot on, and I agree with what it says. Now, if you think I am wrong, how about you make some arguments of your own.
I assume that’s the Royal We?
Now you’re becoming childish. The Democrats and some Republicans cannot tolerate the man. What the man is doing is unusual but mostly, at least for now, effective. That is what the Democrats hate. Continue to criticize but the border is obviously important, and is under attack. The attack is being organized by folks hostile to Trump and the US and joined by folks who want to leave their deteriorating countries or just want to take advantage of falling unemployment in the US and who live within walking distance. If we plug up the border the attack will end, and the folks organizing the attack will stop this effort. Some of those who want to just come here will look for alternatives and if we continue to effectively crack down on illegals those who are eligible will have to look for alternatives. You will say the numbers are not outlandish and the criminals are not a significant portion. That is irrelevant. It is an organized hostile act and with time, it will get worse, especially in terms of the criminals. What I don’t understand is why that is not obvious.
Yes.
One last tangent. As a U.S. citizen, I invite you to join us as a citizen. You would be very, very welcome to join us.
I have often thought that our biggest mistake was combining the presidency with the monarchy, which is basically what we have.
It has worked pretty well so far. I don’t have a problem with the President being Head of State. The problem is Congress having given away its power to the Head of State.
You are right on both counts.
That is a ten minute speech. It’s impossible to argue with what he is saying.
Completely agree. There is something to be said for separating “head of state” from “head of government.” Or at least for not making “head of state” some objectified ideal.
There is certainly something to be said about the prestige a monarch as head of state and above politics has versus a mere politician. For those of you who may doubt that, ask yourself whether you would rather be invited to a dinner at 10 Downing Street or Buckingham Palace.
Thanks, Bryan. To clarify:
I hope it’s clear now that I wasn’t arguing with you, or making some point which I have failed to prove. I want to know if you think it contains ad hominem arguments (and thus think it is spot on in spite of containing some false arguments) or that it does not.
I think you would agree that your answer to my question (now that it is clear) is:
“No…
If I read your comment correctly, you’ve answered my question, and I think I may understand Trump enthusiasts a little better now, which was my goal.
Nope. The Bumpkins too. Enjoy your president!
Congress did its job. The President asked for wall money and they said no.
True.
As you said,
They didn’t give him money that he had to spend on the wall whether he wanted to or not.
= = = = = = = =
But wait, there’s more.
That answer is why, according to legal scholar Jonathan Turley, the President will win in a cakewalk if this goes to the courts.
And now you know…the rest of the story.
Except, of course, I am not a “Trump Enthusiast”. I am a “Trump Supporter”. He was my last choice in the Primary, just like Romeny, just like McCain, Just like Bush. I voted for all in the general, and I have supported all with the same level of support.
I cannot help but notice, by the way, you have yet to even point out what you thought were said ad hominem arguments much less argue the case they were. Instead, you take the attitude of being a researcher studying another form of life, much like the East Coast leftists going on an adventure to understand Flyover Country.