What's new

US Politics

An emergency of the moment may set precedent for the ages
Fred Barbash, Ellen Nakashima

The Constitution is filled with ambiguities. But it has a few commands the framers wanted crystal clear. The president is commander in chief. Supreme Court justices have life terms.

And, it states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

Article I, section 9, clause 7 is constitutional bedrock, popularly known as “the power of the purse.” James Madison called it “a weapon” arming “the immediate representatives of the people” against the sweeping powers of the president.

But it’s been weakened over the years, often with the collusion of Congress, which enacts flexible spending laws, and by the courts, in their silence.

President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build a wall on the southern border “shines the brightest of lights on how much power Congress has given away,” tweeted Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush, “and how much extraordinary power presidents have amassed.”

Trump invoked both coequal branches Friday, citing the National Emergencies Act passed by Congress in 1976 in support of spending more money on a wall than Congress chose to provide. At the same time, he predicted that the question of his power to do so will inevitably rest with the Supreme Court.

A historic decision, then, may be approaching. Despite at least 58 emergency declarations since 1976, the high court has yet to confront the issues raised by them and the laws
authorizing them.

Wherever the court lands will make history: If it strikes down Trump’s action or upholds it, the justices will redefine presidential power; if it refuses to consider the merits of the challenges, deciding instead that it is a “political question,” the court could foreclose challenges against future presidents who go even further.

The long-term importance of this case deeply worries even some conservatives who believe Trump is acting constitutionally.

“Frustrated with Washington, President Trump believes he has no choice but to take this action today,” Kay Coles James, president of the Heritage Foundation, said in a statement Friday. “While it is strictly constitutional . . . this creates a dangerous precedent for future administrations.”

In 2011, the Heritage Foundation’s “guidance for lawmakers” told them flatly that their power of the purse means presidents “can’t spend what you don’t approve.”

With promises of lawsuits Friday from the state of California, the American Civil Liberties Union, the leadership of the House and many others, clashes are imminent. If the courts say they don’t have standing to sue, which is possible, next in line would be landowners of property the government tries to take for the wall.

Litigants will muster at least several lines of attack, lawyers said Friday.

They will challenge the constitutionality of Trump’s actions, citing Madison’s “weapon.” “The power of the purse is the most important checking and balancing tool that the Congress holds with respect to the separation of powers,” said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.

The framework for a constitutional challenge will be the Supreme Court landmark ruling on presidential power, the 1952 decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which struck down President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of American steel plants. “Youngstown,” as lawyers call it, will be “the most famous Supreme Court case in Washington for the next couple of months,” said Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.)

Under the Youngstown test, a president who exercises power “incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress” is in trouble. His power is at “the lowest ebb,” Justice Robert Jackson wrote in a legendary concurrence in the case. With Trump repeatedly saying the emergency arose because Congress would not pay for his wall, he may be in the ebbing zone.

But the federal courts try to avoid constitutional issues when they can.

So another line of attack will be the legitimacy of the emergency Trump declared. As a chorus of legal experts tweeted Friday, Trump didn’t help his case by declaring in the Rose Garden at the White House that “I didn’t need to do this . . . I just want to do it faster.”

“Whatever a national emergency may be, that’s not it,” tweeted former acting U.S. solicitor general Neal Katyal. “That quote is going right in the lawsuit.”

Finally, litigants will challenge Trump’s use of the specific laws he said he is using to come up with the money.

Among them, for example, is a law granting the president “emergency military construction authority.” It applies to a situation “that requires the use of the armed forces,” permitting the Pentagon to “undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

“There is no emergency that justifies the use of the military,” said Sam Berger, a former senior lawyer at the Office of Management and Budget and the vice president of the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress.

And even if there was, he said, the construction would have to be necessary to support the military.

In the end, if Trump loses, it may be a deeply conservative principle that does it: the sanctity of private property.

Much of the land he would need to build the wall is in private hands, and “the president can’t take private property to build something” without the permission of Congress, said Robert Turner, a conservative lawyer and member of the Federalist Society. The president, he believes, is on shaky legal ground.

“My sense is this is going to be a hard fight for the president,” he said. “I can’t say I’m certain he’s going to lose. But it would surprise me if he wins.” Source



@RabzonKhan whatever happened to:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/pelosi-nbc-nothing-wall/index.html
Pelosi says Democrats will give 'nothing for the wall'
i.e ZILCH...nada...ZERO

Yet gives 1.4 billion for wall in the bill directly (and reneges on her promise to her progressive "human shit on the streets of san francisco is A-OK" base).
Actually Pelosi did exactly what she said, “nothing for the wall” zilch… nada.. zero. :D

Trump got almost the same amount for the fence, but not the wall, that he had rejected in December last year:

Last December’s bill that Trump rejected:

As some Republicans grumbled that Trump caved, McConnell lashed out at Democrats for failing to give Trump any of the $5 billion that he wanted for the wall. The bill keeps funding at current levels, $1.3 billion, for border security and fencing, but not for the wall. Source

The new bill that Trump just signed two days ago:

In addition to funding for roughly a quarter of the government, the bill includes $1.375 billion for barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border including 55 miles of fencing. Source


California illegal voters STRONK! Get a license at DMV and yer good to go to cast ballot!
Come on now, you are just repeating Trump’s accusations, of course, without any proof.
 
Actually Pelosi did exactly what she said, “nothing for the wall” zilch… nada.. zero. :D

Trump got almost the same amount for the fence, but not the wall, that he had rejected in December last year:

Wall and fence is literally the same thing dude. Its a physical barrier. Piglosi said no money for it (physical barrier - call it what you want as Trump said to her long time back)...and now funded it...breaking her promise.

It will start the ball rolling while the court stuff goes on till SCOTUS gives the all clear. Pretty sure we all know kavanaugh is a safe vote now compared to kennedy....again thanks to democrat hypocrisy (added even more by virginia now....seems that boil gonna keep festering for dems a good long time now).

@Nilgiri 's posts are typical of people taking sides before due process has been completed. Let this one play out in the courts first, I say.

LOL, tell me how do you bring charges, trial and conviction against an entire rigged state apparatus that has gone all in to push its voter rolls with illegals?

Sanctuary cities are clearly illegal too from federal standpoint....but it would involve full RICO charges against the democraps of california (and democrap party more largely). It just won't happen because there are too many battles trump admin has already taken on that need to play out first.

Don't worry though, after the 2020 election win and 2021 redistricting....things are going to get very painful for the democraps. Nothing past their utter destruction for their outright treason is going to be enough.
 
LOL, tell me how do you bring charges, trial and conviction against an entire rigged state apparatus that has gone all in to push its voter rolls with illegals?

Sanctuary cities are clearly illegal too from federal standpoint....but it would involve full RICO charges against the democraps of california (and democrap party more largely). It just won't happen because there are too many battles trump admin has already taken on that need to play out first.

Don't worry though, after the 2020 election win and 2021 redistricting....things are going to get very painful for the democraps. Nothing past their utter destruction for their outright treason is going to be enough.

Like I said, I am going to let this one play out in the courts first. :D
 
Like I said, I am going to let this one play out in the courts first. :D

Which one?

That part of convo was about illegals on the voter rolls of california. Nothing has been brought to the courts about that (or how illegal it is to get put on voter registration database by simply getting a DMV license, not to mention how illegal it is to give an illegal a govt ID in first place).

Like I said, Republicans simply know the battle lies in the rust belt and swing state suburbia (i.e bypass the states that democraps have rigged thanks to Reagan's stupid trust in them). Far left democraps dig their own graves doing what they are doing. Trump got them triggered perfectly, its great!

As for the border wall funding now (through appropriating other funds)....its clear Trump will win, just like he won on the Travel ban (which you said the exact same thing for - let it play out). The language is very clear in the relevant statutes....there is a reason for the 90% overturn rate the 9th circuit has at (that too far more liberal in the past) SCOTUS.

90% is great betting odds. Hey if it was more like 50/50 I would start to say the same as you (and it really ought to be as close to 0% as possible)....but its not...its 90-10. Basically they suck royally at "due process"...and it will be great to see them get slapped yet again. Worthless activist judges....symptom of the greater disease of democrap party.
 
Which one?

That part of convo was about illegals on the voter rolls of california. Nothing has been brought to the courts about that (or how illegal it is to get put on voter registration database by simply getting a DMV license, not to mention how illegal it is to give an illegal a govt ID in first place).

Like I said, Republicans simply know the battle lies in the rust belt and swing state suburbia (i.e bypass the states that democraps have rigged thanks to Reagan's stupid trust in them). Far left democraps dig their own graves doing what they are doing. Trump got them triggered perfectly, its great!

As for the border wall funding now (through appropriating other funds)....its clear Trump will win, just like he won on the Travel ban (which you said the exact same thing for - let it play out). The language is very clear in the relevant statutes....there is a reason for the 90% overturn rate the 9th circuit has at (that too far more liberal in the past) SCOTUS.

90% is great betting odds. Hey if it was more like 50/50 I would start to say the same as you (and it really ought to be as close to 0% as possible)....but its not...its 90-10. Basically they suck royally at "due process"...and it will be great to see them get slapped yet again. Worthless activist judges....symptom of the greater disease of democrap party.

I meant letting the next two years play out in the courts. I like due process in all matters.
 
I meant letting the next two years play out in the courts. I like due process in all matters.

There are certain things that simply will not be brought to the courts in first place (in those 2 years). Doesn't mean that stuff is not happening and is highly illegal.

If everything gets brought to and aired out in the courts fairly, sure. But when it involves entire political parties (of a 2 party state with massive cooperation between those two parties...i.e a mono-party monolith), it wont (certainly not in one or even 2 terms of a presidency)....you need to start a process right from the base and invest long term inertia into it....which needs actual consolidated political opponents. That is only vaguely taking shape now.

So its wrong to look in a time frame of "2 years" as though everything is some be-all end-all for every issue of deepset political corruption and treason in the US.

As for specific thing like executive statute interpretation....well we can simply look at the record and precendent on such matters of the specific court in question. The go-to court for dems (filled with their activist judges) is the 9th circuit. When their grand body of decisions is given to SCOTUS, SCOTUS overturns their decisions at a rate of around 90 PERCENT. What does that tell any layman? That court is doing its job fairly? So its pretty clear Trump will get this won and done just like the travel ban, where the exact same noises and drama were made (and it ended with a complete smackdown and whimper).
 
So its pretty clear Trump will get this won and done just like the travel ban, where the exact same noises and drama were made (and it ended with a complete smackdown and whimper).

Let us see what happens first.
 
Yep I see the 90% overturning rate of 9th circuit by SCOTUS and wish I always had those clear defined odds on everything I stick my neck out for :D

It's okay. The system of checks and balances still works. I am sure we can talk about this in the coming months.
 
It's okay. The system of checks and balances still works. I am sure we can talk about this in the coming months.

Sure...so how did the travel ban stuff go? :P I think we promised to come around to that at some point but we never did a post-analysis :P. It's a good starting point for this in the interim while we wait for this new border wall drama in the courts stuff.
 
Sure...so how did the travel ban stuff go? :P I think we promised to come around to that at some point but we never did a post-analysis :P. It's a good starting point for this in the interim while we wait for this new border wall drama in the courts stuff.

The travel ban was implemented in its modified form to meet the requirements of the law. I had no problem with that at all.
 
The travel ban was implemented in its modified form to meet the requirements of the law. I had no problem with that at all.

Didnt say you did. But the people running to the 9th circuit back then (like they are now yet again) had a clear major problem with it (yet ignored how the whole thing started under the Obama admin, just like the border detentions of children etc)....they wanted it fully done away with (and promised everyone they would get their way against the evil orangutan)....and we all know what happened in the end.....and why they gone even more batsh!t crazy since lol.
 
Bernie is back, announces 2020 White House bid. And raised nearly $ 6 million in 24 hours.


5c6c8738cf411.image.jpg



 
Bernie is back, announces 2020 White House bid. And raised nearly $ 6 million in 24 hours.


View attachment 540724



Too easy to beat him now with this:


Good Bernie, just sit there all angry and glum (and likely worried) while other democrats (incl pelosi) stand to applaud :D

"BREAD LINES ARE GOOD!" .....*lives in millions of dollars houses*

The kind of super credible "lives by example" "socialist" we all have come to identify with the left (way before the downstream current "in vogue" lunacy of "green new deal" + *crazy glaring eyes of demon-rage*...and "I listened to snoop dawg in college in the 1980s while smoking pot"...DUHHHHH *awkward laugh* and "I have native american ancestry I used to get into harvard, because I have high cheekbones....*swigs beer bottle awkwardly*)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-slams-billionaires-gets-reminded-he-owns-3-houses

Going for the jugular is just so easy with hypocrite turds. But best to let them fight themselves a bit (or preferably a whole lot) for even more juicy material to use later....especially with the "already ran and lost" types with nice juicy bigger chip on shoulder now :D

@Desert Fox @VCheng @Hamartia Antidote @Metanoia @Psychic @KAL-EL @OsmanAli98
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom