Jump to content
ROMAD1

The National Emergency Over the Wall

Recommended Posts

Just now, Gehringer_2 said:

Yeah - another shutdown isn't going to fly.

It wouldn't fly in the Senate.  Trump wouldn't have any problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $200 Free Offer - Launching Friday (1/22)

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is launching on Friday, January 22, 2021. Pre-register at BetMGM Sportsbook & Casino and get a free $200 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $200 at BetMGM Michigan Now

14 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

He's running.  If Howard Schultz decides to run as an independent, Trump has an excellent chance of winning.

Trump wins any 3 (or 4) person race, but probably cannot get 270 EL votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

If he shuts it..... it’s his.  

Just like the first one.

There are a subset of folks that will attribute it to him regardless, just as there is a subset that pointed out (correctly, but without an understanding of the nuance, IMO) that it takes more than just the president to cause a shutdown.  

If he touts for the next three weeks that he's willing to give up something for funding for a wall, and the other side refuses to address it, there are folks in the middle that will question if he should be blamed for a second one.  

Understand that I personally want the wall.  I wish it was part of a larger immigration bill that actually provided a real and definitive solution for the problem at hand, along with the ability to shift based on problems that may arise.  There are people like me that are for the wall, but against the narrative being used for it or believe that a shutdown is warranted for it.  To the various degrees peoples thoughts are on these issues could cause them to start pointing elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

Trump wins any 3 (or 4) person race, but probably cannot get 270 EL votes.

He's win with literally a third of the country voting for him, which would almost guarantee Dem majorities in the House and Senate due to his enormous unpopularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go ahead Trumpies.... push him to 67.

and as far as SCOTUS.... from what I've seen from Gorsuch I don't think he'd rule in Trump's favor.  Roberts either.   And if Kavanaugh is wavering I could see him pushing for independence.  These guys will be around for decades and want to sever historical ties to Trump.  They don't need him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Euphdude said:

Yup.  Trump would just need to appeal to his base, and everyone else would split between Schultz and the Dem nominee.  It would be a MAGA dream come true.

But Trump could  lose the "don't like Trump but I'm a lifelong Republican" crowd.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Oblong said:

These guys will be around for decades and want to sever historical ties to Trump.  They don't need him.

 

Yup. Once on that bench, a JOTSCOTUS owes nobody nothin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Euphdude said:

Yup.  Trump would just need to appeal to his base, and everyone else would split between Schultz and the Dem nominee.  It would be a MAGA dream come true.

Will Schultz actually appeal to anyone?

I watched the interview with him yesterday... he seems like a candidate that is too far to the left to appeal to any moderate conservatives, and too focused on deficits (which are a concern, fwiw) to think he's going to appeal to many liberals. And although there are a lot of independents, many of them are still partisan and are aligned with one side or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any precedent to rejecting a federal emergency?  Seems like the president has pretty broad powers in regards to this and just as some may argue that this is ongoing and not a true emergency right now, the counter-argument can point to flooding disasters.  The Fed's declare the emergency to provide funds to help with the aftermath, not the original issue.  

From a pure legal argument, I kind of think Trump would and should win.  Set's a horrible precedent though.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good question. Both Ross Perot and George Wallace were way better known nationally than Schultz before they started. He's basically the equivalent of a single A baseball prospect at this point - little reason to believe he can hit the curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Is there any precedent to rejecting a federal emergency? 

Yes - Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry in the face of a strike during WWII. He was shot down by SCOTUS. That was just a wee bit more serious than folks needing shelters and legal processing at the border don't you think?

Not to mention that if the House were to vote to reject the emergency, it gives the Court a very powerful presumption to overcome that the executive is off the reservation. Especially when the executive had legislation that dealt with the border and then rejected it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Oblong said:

Go ahead Trumpies.... push him to 67.

and as far as SCOTUS.... from what I've seen from Gorsuch I don't think he'd rule in Trump's favor.  Roberts either.   And if Kavanaugh is wavering I could see him pushing for independence.  These guys will be around for decades and want to sever historical ties to Trump.  They don't need him.

 

If Trump was going to pick a random name off the list (because, God knows, he didn't do hardly any research independently), I'm glad he landed on one with a skeptical view of executive power (ie. Gorsuch). I'd feel less sure about having two Kavs on the bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

good question. Both Ross Perot and George Wallace were way better known nationally than Schultz before they started. He's basically the equivalent of a single A baseball prospect at this point - little reason to believe he can hit the curve.

No joke.... 

I noticed the freakout yesterday, but tbh, Schultz seems to be the type of candidate especially designed to appeal to no one. So I'm not sure why I should be concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Is there any precedent to rejecting a federal emergency?  Seems like the president has pretty broad powers in regards to this and just as some may argue that this is ongoing and not a true emergency right now, the counter-argument can point to flooding disasters.  The Fed's declare the emergency to provide funds to help with the aftermath, not the original issue.  

Are federal disaster declarations governed by the National Emergencies Act of 1976? I'm not sure that they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have voted for Perot.  I don't remember.  I hated politics and was always intrigued by independents. Plus, I thought Perot was hilarious and I'll never forget the Stockdale debate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Is there any precedent to rejecting a federal emergency?  Seems like the president has pretty broad powers in regards to this and just as some may argue that this is ongoing and not a true emergency right now, the counter-argument can point to flooding disasters.  The Fed's declare the emergency to provide funds to help with the aftermath, not the original issue.  

From a pure legal argument, I kind of think Trump would and should win.  Set's a horrible precedent though.  

It's opens the door to a future Dem POTUS declaring climate change as a national emergency.  That individual can cite our own military stating that climate change is a risk to our national security to justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Are federal disaster declarations governed by the National Emergencies Act of 1976? I'm not sure that they are

Ok, guess that's what I was thinking as that's generally the only context i've heard in terms of 'emergencies' and funds being appropriated for something.  Regardless, hope it doesn't get to that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Are federal disaster declarations governed by the National Emergencies Act of 1976? I'm not sure that they are

The Federal disaster declarations are governed in large part by the Stafford Act.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Microline133 said:

The Federal disaster declarations are governed in large part by the Stafford Act.

Thanks... I'm guessing the procedure (states declaring an emergency, requesting assistance from the feds) was probably established there as well. 

At any rate, they are mutually exclusive concepts. In terms of the border wall, I honestly don't know whether a national emergency declaration would be allowed under the National Emergencies Act. I suppose it would hinge on how it was justified and whether the how much deference to the executive the courts would extend in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

If Trump was going to pick a random name off the list (because, God knows, he didn't do hardly any research independently), I'm glad he landed on one with a skeptical view of executive power (ie. Gorsuch). I'd feel less sure about having two Kavs on the bench.

He picked Gorsuch due to him looking like a guy who could star on a TV show.    That was the only list.  I bet the only material he looked at were their pictures.  Full body of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Is there any precedent to rejecting a federal emergency?  Seems like the president has pretty broad powers in regards to this and just as some may argue that this is ongoing and not a true emergency right now, the counter-argument can point to flooding disasters.  The Fed's declare the emergency to provide funds to help with the aftermath, not the original issue.  

From a pure legal argument, I kind of think Trump would and should win.  Set's a horrible precedent though.  

 

He can declare an emergency and there is literally nothing anyone can do about the declaration itself.

But when he tries to affirmatively act on that declaration, the courts, and congress, and, possibly, the military, will get involved.

Short answer: he can do a whole lot and there are only a few ways to stop him.

Best article on it is here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Thanks... I'm guessing the procedure (states declaring an emergency, requesting assistance from the feds) was probably established there as well. 

At any rate, they are mutually exclusive concepts. In terms of the border wall, I honestly don't know whether a national emergency declaration would be allowed under the National Emergencies Act. I suppose it would hinge on how it was justified and whether the how much deference to the executive the courts would extend in this case.

 

Correct, including the requirement for State cost share under Stafford Act declarations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

There are a subset of folks that will attribute it to him regardless, just as there is a subset that pointed out (correctly, but without an understanding of the nuance, IMO) that it takes more than just the president to cause a shutdown.  

Except here, the Senate and the House and Trump all agreed to a bill before Christmas, and he was ready to sign it, until the crazy right made fun of him. So here it is just one person's fault. See also: “I will shut down the government. I am proud to shut down the government. I will be the one to shut it down. I am not going to blame you for it. I will take the mantle of shutting it down.”

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

If he touts for the next three weeks that he's willing to give up something for funding for a wall, and the other side refuses to address it, there are folks in the middle that will question if he should be blamed for a second one.  

He is willing to give nothing - and the one thing Dems want, resolution of DACA applicants - he cannot give.

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Understand that I personally want the wall.  I wish it was part of a larger immigration bill that actually provided a real and definitive solution for the problem at hand, along with the ability to shift based on problems that may arise.  There are people like me that are for the wall, but against the narrative being used for it or believe that a shutdown is warranted for it.  To the various degrees peoples thoughts are on these issues could cause them to start pointing elsewhere.

No serious person who has looked at the issue thinks that a wall is part of any "real" solution.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RatkoVarda said:

Except here, the Senate and the House and Trump all agreed to a bill before Christmas, and he was ready to sign it, until the crazy right made fun of him. So here it is just one person's fault. See also: “I will shut down the government. I am proud to shut down the government. I will be the one to shut it down. I am not going to blame you for it. I will take the mantle of shutting it down.”

He is willing to give nothing - and the one thing Dems want, resolution of DACA applicants - he cannot give.

No serious person who has looked at the issue thinks that a wall is part of any "real" solution.

He shut it down, and everyone (rightly so) blamed him.  He also succumbed to Pelosi and reopened it without getting any movement on his requests.  If he did that, and Pelosi doesn't even show any ability to even discuss it, the second one can be blamed on someone else.  As I said, there is no point getting you to blame someone else, it's not going to happen, but some in the middle might.

 

As for the wall, unfortunately you've been getting your news from too many meme's.  There are very serious folks that believe more wall will help.  It's not an end all be all, but overall it'll push more folks to specific crossing areas, allowing border patrol to put more focus on those entry points.  Last I remember hearing they felt improvements on about 500 existing miles of wall/fence and another 275 were needed.  You are right that I haven't heard any legitimate proposal for a wall across the entire landlocked southern border.  

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.

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.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


×
×
  • Create New...