Jump to content
SaysWho?

UPDATE: Trump signs funding bill and declares national emergency, promptly admits he didn't actually need to declare a national emergency

Recommended Posts

After reading much of the legal complaint 16 states have signed onto, my entirely worthless legal opinion is that this is going to largely be a question of "does it matter what the president says?" 

 

As far as I can tell, there really aren't many limits on what a President can call an emergency, and it seems pretty certain that he can move the money around like he's planning to. However, if you take him at his word it's almost certainly a constitutional violation.

 

It's almost like a physics question where you're asked to consider a perfectly spherical cow on a flat plane with no friction. In a hypothetical world where you have a blank slate President and only the letter of the law, it seems to me that even in the absence of evidence, that President can do exactly what Trump is doing. Even in the complaint, I think the States kinda admit that. They quote from congress people who passed the National Emergencies Act and why, rather than finding justification solely within the act itself. I honestly have no idea how legally binding that kinda thing is. If you pass a law saying "this law is here for this purpose," and it gets used for another purpose without violating the text of the law, I don't know what the courts make of that.

 

On the other hand, when you look at what Trump has said, it's clear he's using the NEA to subvert the will of congress and run end round their constitutional authority to distribute funds. I don't even think that point is arguable. He's said it so bluntly so many times. So the question is, does that actually matter?

 

The complaint has some other smaller legal arguments. He might not have specified the right statues he intends to invoke to get the money he wants, there might be a real question as to if the Military is "required" for this emergency, and there might be an environmental issue, but mostly it seems like the complaint is centered around the idea that the President shouldn't be able to subvert congress through the NEA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TwinIon said:

 

 

On the other hand, when you look at what Trump has said, it's clear he's using the NEA to subvert the will of congress and run end round their constitutional authority to distribute funds. I don't even think that point is arguable. He's said it so bluntly so many times. So the question is, does that actually matter?

 

 

So the question is, if his order gets upheld and he does appropriate funds to build any of the wall, does that set precedence for future Presidents to do the same on any scale? Could a Democrat President declare an educational emergency and get billions to build new schools? Could a Republican President declare a military emergency and get billions to hire a force of military contractors outside the military's chain of command?

 

Like, where does it end if the precedent is set that the executive branch can now approve spending measures unilaterally? And then what is the point of Congress? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

So the question is, if his order gets upheld and he does appropriate funds to build any of the wall, does that set precedence for future Presidents to do the same on any scale? Could a Democrat President declare an educational emergency and get billions to build new schools? Could a Republican President declare a military emergency and get billions to hire a force of military contractors outside the military's chain of command?

 

Like, where does it end if the precedent is set that the executive branch can now approve spending measures unilaterally? And then what is the point of Congress? 

 

For the executive, I can see the idea of moving military money to cover "emergency" costs. I don't see how that would work moving other federal dollars into the military. That said, if this passes muster, I see no reason a future Democratic president couldn't declare a climate change emergency and reappropriate military dollars to green initiatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

For the executive, I can see the idea of moving military money to cover "emergency" costs. I don't see how that would work moving other federal dollars into the military. That said, if this passes muster, I see no reason a future Democratic president couldn't declare a climate change emergency and reappropriate military dollars to green initiatives.

Especially given that the military has said climate change is a national security threat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

So the question is, if his order gets upheld and he does appropriate funds to build any of the wall, does that set precedence for future Presidents to do the same on any scale? Could a Democrat President declare an educational emergency and get billions to build new schools? Could a Republican President declare a military emergency and get billions to hire a force of military contractors outside the military's chain of command?

 

Like, where does it end if the precedent is set that the executive branch can now approve spending measures unilaterally? And then what is the point of Congress? 

This is exactly why it will die in the courts, the constitution is pretty clear on who gets to spend money and where, Congress.  The only logical explanations are everyone in the WH is completely incompetent or they're just going to say "see we tried, but the deepstate is everywhere!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

So the question is, if his order gets upheld and he does appropriate funds to build any of the wall, does that set precedence for future Presidents to do the same on any scale? Could a Democrat President declare an educational emergency and get billions to build new schools? Could a Republican President declare a military emergency and get billions to hire a force of military contractors outside the military's chain of command?

 

Like, where does it end if the precedent is set that the executive branch can now approve spending measures unilaterally? And then what is the point of Congress? 

Thing is, it's not unlimited money. Doing this he can only re-allocate money. This specific order is moving: (from page 29)

  • $601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund;
  • Up to $2.5 billion under the Department of Defense funds transferred for Support for Counterdrug Activities (10 U.S.C. § 284); and
  • Up to $3.6 billion reallocated from Department of Defense military construction projects under the President’s declaration of a national emergency (10 U.S.C. § 2808).44

Theoretically, under a national emergency the President can only use funds "that have been appropriated for military construction . . . that have not been obligated.” Thats where the $3.6B is coming from. So while Congress can just decide to spend an extra trillion on the military for no particular reason, even under a national emergency the President can't. 

 

Given all the crazy games that congress plays, it's conceivable that in the future congress appropriates money knowing that the President will use it for an emergency. Imagine the previous GOP congress putting a bunch of extra money into a military construction fund so they didn't have to take the heat for passing specific wall funding. I think it's also possible that future budgets ensure that very little money is available to move, maybe changing the funding mechanisms for future military construction projects such that the President couldn't move those funds.

 

The $2.5B and the $601M is money that I don't even think the President needed an emergency to move. As far as I can tell he doesn't have specific authority to do it. He's just doing it and seeing if he loses in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Link200 said:

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Trump starts saying "New Mexico" is paying for the wall.

 

Is Trump even aware there is a New Mexico?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only there were a newly elected republican senator who garners national headlines and who once talked a big game about executive overreach.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If only there were a newly elected republican senator who garners national headlines and who once talked a big game about executive overreach.

 

 

Rand Paul has objected to the declaration, but we'll have to see if he'll vote to override it.  I could see Romney voting against it, for two reasons:  The Mormon church seems to be against the policy, and Romney really doesn't like Trump at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Rand Paul has objected to the declaration, but we'll have to see if he'll vote to override it.  I could see Romney voting against it, for two reasons:  The Mormon church seems to be against the policy, and Romney really doesn't like Trump at all. 

Counterpoint: Romney is a cuck

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Rand Paul has objected to the declaration, but we'll have to see if he'll vote to override it.  I could see Romney voting against it, for two reasons:  The Mormon church seems to be against the policy, and Romney really doesn't like Trump at all. 

Well we’re screwed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Counterpoint: Romney is a cuck

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Rand Paul has objected to the declaration, but we'll have to see if he'll vote to override it.  I could see Romney voting against it, for two reasons:  The Mormon church seems to be against the policy, and Romney really doesn't like Trump at all. 

 

18 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Counterpoint: Romney is a cuck

 

 

 

D66-D2-A29-C306-4-C46-AF51-212-D6-EC0-E2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

The GOP has found themselves a winning policy right here.

 

 


Since when have polls swayed the GOP since Trump has taken over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Littleronin said:


Since when have polls swayed the GOP since Trump has taken over. 

I'm not saying it will, but they're absolutely swaying voters to vote dem, Texas is a state the GOP cannot lose, what i mean is if they manage to lose texas it doesn't matter how WI, PA, OH, AZ, MI, and FL vote.  Beto just lost by 2% in the state, and Trump has an approval of -9 in the state, so pushing unpopular policies in a state they need and has been moving more and more towards a battleground isn't a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Littleronin said:


Since when have polls swayed the GOP since Trump has taken over. 

 

Since Trump?

 

Polls were unpopular for investigating Clinton and they went full charge and did poorly in 98. Polls were unpopular for the Iraq War, they were stubborn about it, and they were whipped in 2006 and 2008.

 

If it doesn't sway them, they tend to pay the price despite the CEB's doom and gloom, glass full empty mindset. Being Trump bootlickers certainly didn't help them nationally last year. We'll see what problems Dem have going into 2020, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 10:04 PM, mclumber1 said:

 

Rand Paul has objected to the declaration, but we'll have to see if he'll vote to override it.  I could see Romney voting against it, for two reasons:  The Mormon church seems to be against the policy, and Romney really doesn't like Trump at all. 

 

On 2/26/2019 at 12:01 PM, Chris- said:

Well we’re screwed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2019 at 7:46 AM, SaysWho? said:

 

Since Trump?

 

Polls were unpopular for investigating Clinton and they went full charge and did poorly in 98. Polls were unpopular for the Iraq War, they were stubborn about it, and they were whipped in 2006 and 2008.

 

If it doesn't sway them, they tend to pay the price despite the CEB's doom and gloom, glass full empty mindset. Being Trump bootlickers certainly didn't help them nationally last year. We'll see what problems Dem have going into 2020, though.

 

People need to stop doubting you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

 

 

Should be interesting to see how many defections there will be now that they don't have to be seen as the one person who put it over the top.

 

I don't think they actually want to override the veto, but from what I heard there could easily be ten or so Republicans joining the Dems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

Should be interesting to see how many defections there will be now that they don't have to be seen as the one person who put it over the top.

 

I don't think they actually want to override the veto, but from what I heard there could easily be ten or so Republicans joining the Dems.

 

10 still only puts them at 57, 10 short of an override.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...