Trump lawyers working out details of using national emergency to build The Wall
61 replies, posted
WASHINGTON — As the government shutdown drags on, lawyers from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon are meeting to discuss whether
President Donald Trump can declare a national emergency to deploy troops and Defense Department resources to build his border wall, according to two sources with knowledge of the
One of the sources, a senior administration official, said the White House has kept this option on the table for some time, but is now considering it more seriously. "Depending on the
severity of crisis, it’s always been an option. Now that things are getting worse, we are looking at how that could be operationalized and used to confront the crisis," the official said,
speaking on the condition of anonymity.
The official said the talks are ongoing and will continue over the weekend as details are worked out. Trump said at a press briefing Friday he was considering declaring a national
emergency in order to bypass Congress.
Asked if the Department of Defense was open to the idea of using its resources to build the wall, the official simply said the president would use his power as the commander in chief.
Trump is a national emergency.
Remind me again why America has no safety measures to prevent lunatics like Trump from trying to pull this sort of stunt??? What dogshit severity of a crisis, this is just more dogwhistling about how they don't want any brown people to get into "their" country.
Jesus fucking christ, he's really going to declare an emergency to get his useless monument built.
How about we compromise and after throwing him out of office we build a special prison cell and wall that in. Then he gets to experience his useless monument first hand while safely locked away from society to rot?
oh no, I've got a better idea
I feel like it was never taken into consideration that someone like Trump could ever become president, or at the very least not someone who actively goes out of their way to harm his own country like he has. Why would anyone ever vote for someone like that?
We do, it's just dependent on Congress overruling his emergency declaration.
I dunno if reaction images are allowed so just imagine wojack peeling is face off in rage with a nuke going off in the background.
The only reason he's going hard for the wall is because he saw how the midterm elections went and is gearing for re-election and he's gonna get his wall whether it bankrupts us or not. The working class will pay more taxes to pay for this retardation and the corporations will continue to have these politicians in their pockets to pay as little tax as possible. If we manage to stop this madness he's just going to run on the basis of "democrats want brown people to invade our country and the media is the enemy."
Mueller needs to speed up his investigation and throw the book at this fucker before this country falls apart and we become russia's bitch.
He's not going to win the election with this strategy. The only reason he won the last time was because Hillary completely dropped the ball. He also is going to actively harm his own party in the congressional elections in 2020, just as he did last year. The Republicans know this, which is why all the ones who aren't also sold out to Putin will eventually turn on him.
Pretty much this. The Framers also expected that the branches would act, effectively, like baseball teams -- and so they'd always be fighting each other, which ensures that everyone is gunning for everyone else's back and so therefore the branches need to be in agreement on things or at least willing to compromise on them for things to happen or not happen.
One of the framers was worried about a political party seizing control of all three branches and acting unilaterally to create and control an environment where only what that political party wants is what gets passed and all rules and procedures pursuant to normal operation of the government become suspended. Turns out their fears were well substantiated.
The argument against their argument, of course, was the founders simply observing the literal rebellion against the State they were signing the Constitution in that had occurred less than two months prior. They assumed that if a State was to endure such rebellions for acts the citizenry felt went directly against their will, so would a Government that goes against the collective will of the Union. In other words: They more or less expected that should a Trump come along with the Senate that we have that the citizens would literally rise up, march to the capital and literally throw them out of the building and hold inpromptu, direct, immediate, elections to replace them.
the courts do not take kindly to presidents issuing emergency orders as a work around of congress.
They haven't served us in decades, they serve themselves and we're dragged along for the ride.
Sure, but nonetheless it is by our leisure that they have titles, power, and legitimacy. By the same stroke, they may legitimately be struck from their thrones and replaced by the people they are denying representation to. All that's required is a collective will to do so.
In other words: That ride only lasts as long as the horse doesn't get pissed and decides to roll on its rider -- and they've been whipping that horse awful hard the past two years.
The framers never anticipated someone like Trump getting past all the other checks and balances, so when they included this power, they included it on good faith that it would only be used in times of literal hostile invasion of the lower 48 and/or unfathomably large natural disasters.
Does anything good ever come out of "a team of lawyers"
It was also in a time where communications took a very long time to get passed around -- and so a President might need to declare national emergencies without alerting the members of the Union in advance in the event of War and so forth. The framers also explicitly expected that someone who abused the power of their office would shortly be removed from it. The 'high crimes and misdemeanors' added on to what qualifies for impeachment in the Congress was specifically added on to prevent corruption and abuses of the powers of office.
I don't know what the framers would think of the present situation but I do know that what was said of the Constitution - right after its birth - was, to summarize:
"It's a Republic -- if you can keep it. [...] when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. [...] (That it would be impossible to expect) a perfect production from such a gathering (but that The Constitution), with all its faults, was (better than any alternative likely to emerge)."
They know they didn't make a perfect document. They expected that it was simply a step towards a (as Lincoln put it) 'more perfect union'. Their greatest expectations were on the citizenry of the Republic -- whose job it became from the moment the Constitution was ratified to enforce their Constitution and mold it to ensure that they were represented fairly and forthrightly. But they did expect the Union to be founded, amongst a few other key ideas, on an idea of the rule of law. That when laws are violated, the violators of those laws are removed from power, prosecuted, and potentially jailed. So they would likely see Trump as a tyrant and the Congress as sympathizers to a Tyrant working directly against the Will of the American People -- especially because the President in power was not elected on popular vote to begin with, and the Electoral College was something of great debate when it was initially proposed to begin with. In the framers minds, Trump has already committed a plethora of impeachable offenses that they explicitly gave Congress the power to remove a President from office for -- and that the Congress has refused to do so despite public and blatant evidence of corruption would likely see them tear up the very Constitution they had worked hard to create and begin again with some other manner of balancing the power of the Federal Government. (For the record, the three branches approach was only the most popular of the considerations for dividing power -- in one case we might've had three Presidents where it is only by their collective agreement that things such as Executive Orders be passed or laws signed into effect).
This has already been said a bunch of times but the American political system just isn't prepared for bad-faith politicians like Trump and the current GOP. It's why you'll also hear a lot of people saying Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom.
En contrare: the system is prepared for it. The American People are not prepared to enforce the system as they have grown to fear their government.
"Maybe a bunch of slave owning rich white people from several centuries ago didn't invent the best possible form of government" is why they have no safety measures.
Safety measures mean nothing when they are ignored. They mean doubly nothing when, when broken, there are no consequences levied for their being ignored.
At that point, the existence of those safety measures is moot. We have the safety measures. They are purposefully not being engaged because the hands those safety measures were put in are the same hands willing to allow the Executive Branch to act without any real checks on its excesses and corruption -- because those excesses and corruptions benefit them. The safety measure for them not engaging those safety measures is more or less removing the people who own those hands from office and replacing them with people who will engage those safety measures.
Balance of powers is not a safety measure, it's a core of how the government functions. The safety measure would be a way to ensure it continues under any circumstance, which objectively has not been planned for.
Which is why I'll repeat what I said, maybe they didn't think up the perfect form of government under every circumstance, because obviously the fact that we're in this situation means certain avenues were taken they had no contingencies for.
It was explicitly created as a safety measure. The reason the government functions that way is to ensure that the government does not find itself easily prone to corruption and seizure of power. This was before political parties were the enormous entities they are today; it was not expected that the political parties could have so much power and influence that they could simply occupy all three branches and operate the entire government unilaterally.
There is no such safety measure that could ever exist which could not simply be ignored, objectively speaking. The only unignorable safety measure for such a thing would be the threat of armed rebellion and removal from power for those who refuse to do their jobs.
It is their own opinion that they did not. They simply made the best one they could imagine and left it to the people to ensure that their government represented them fairly and forthrightly.
And what is the contingency for 'the People of a Union refuse to hold their government responsible for acting against them and are willing to cede their power of rebellion'?
This is the best thing that could happen I think. The wall will be built in tiny uncomplete segments while its tied up in a court battle until the end of Trumps presidency. Meanwhile the government won't be held hostage anymore.
what are you talking about, if he spends a single cent that isn't allocated by congress on this under an illegal use, all the wall segments get frozen.
Considering his lawyers include rudy guiliani I'm not particularly scared of this.
He doesn't know every single thing about the law or it's foibles, why the attitude?
The mere fact that it was not expected and that parties could get big enough to occupy all three branches already means there weren't safety measures in place.
Dunno lol. Would have to be some radical solution we can't currently think of.
In any case it doesn't help that the electoral college doesn't represent the people anymore, or that the legal direction of the government has been set at and remains at 9 Supreme Court Justices. Doesn't help that the way the constitution is written means you have to interpret it instead of seeking wisdom from it. Doesn't help that it's by and large a FPTP system which was known very early on in political science to be garbage. Doesn't help that educational standards are not enshrined as above religion and party affiliation
The constitution is kinda shit, is my point.
Jefferson sorta recommended it, not "they". The 19 year update idea thing was more than just the constitution, but ownership of land, extensions of debts and term limits (Happen to agree with it). The point is that it wasn't written into the document in question.
Jefferson did not help write the constitution, and as far as I know none of the other founding fathers shared the same sentiment.
Dunno, maybe a fourth branch of government as the Watchers?
Who watches the watchers etc etc, all kinds of issues there.
B U I L D . T H E . W A L L
I feel like this is ironic cause his right hand is tiny lol
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.