Starlord Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 *stands up, looks around* Nope, I just don't get the feeling I'm in a national emergency. You'd think I'd be feeling some tension or a sense of dread. Wait, here comes some people who are probably terrified...aaaand there they go walking right by the TV with the President talking and going leisurely about their day. Huh. Anyway, I don't really think it's as big a deal as is being made out. Dozens of these things have been declared in the last 40 years for relatively minor things. Where the money is taken from is probably the more serious concern. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 Well, now that there's a constitutional crisis over funding or Trump's ego, NOW I feel less secure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Starlord said: Anyway, I don't really think it's as big a deal as is being made out. Dozens of these things have been declared in the last 40 years for relatively minor things. Where the money is taken from is probably the more serious concern. Oh well. Money and politics, as usual, are inextricably linked here. The President is attempting to bypass Congress's Constitutionally-appointed responsibility for government financial expenditures, which sets a dangerous precedent. Whether the reasons for other "national emergencies" were "relatively minor" or not, no previous President has attempted to declare one over such strenuous Congressional objections. The precedent is one that deeply worries Republicans, as well. If a Republican President can successfully declare a national emergency over immigration in the face of Congressional opposition, what's to stop a future Democratic President from declaring one over climate change? Or gun control? Or any other issue Republicans don't agree with? In any event, the case is already bound for the courts. I expect most lower courts to deny Trump's desire, but the real test will be when it makes its way to the Supreme Court. Then we'll see whether or not the current SCOTUS suffers from more than the usual partisan divisions. Regardless, we have months of gnashing of teeth ahead of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Lord Liaden said: In any event, the case is already bound for the courts. I expect most lower courts to deny Trump's desire, but the real test will be when it makes its way to the Supreme Court. Then we'll see whether or not the current SCOTUS suffers from more than the usual partisan divisions. The fact that Chief Justice Roberts recently sided with the Court's more liberal wing on an important decision gives me at least a slight glimmer of hope that there are enough Justices who care more about the Constitution than about party affiliation that this thing could be resolved properly. Of course, the Court's refusal last week to allow a convicted murderer to be executed in the presence of his spiritual advisor of choice gives me somewhat less hope on the matter. I guess we'll just have to see. Either way, this seems to me like a desperate reach on the President's part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 6 minutes ago, Pariah said: Either way, this seems to me like a desperate reach on the President's part. Like all of his moves as President, this one is calculated to please his base of support and the conservative pundits he listens to. Even if it ultimately fails, he'll be able to claim he did everything he could to make his wall happen. And then most likely blame Democrats, disloyal Republicans, the news media, and anyone else he can think of, as he has before. TrickstaPriest and Pariah 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 I don't believe the President has any idea what a can of worms he's opening today. But it would not surprise me at all if the next President elected from the Democratic Party declares climate change an emergency and appropriates funds and institutes policy changes as a result. Or if the next Democratic President declares a state of emergency after the next mass shooting and implements a bunch of gun control measures without bothering to get Congressional approval. It's what we science people refer to as the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum: What goes around, comes around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 26 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said: Money and politics, as usual, are inextricably linked here. The President is attempting to bypass Congress's Constitutionally-appointed responsibility for government financial expenditures, which sets a dangerous precedent. Whether the reasons for other "national emergencies" were "relatively minor" or not, no previous President has attempted to declare one over such strenuous Congressional objections. Which can also be argued as no other President attempted to declare a controversial emergency when his own party wasn't controlling Congress. There are currently 30 some active emergencies. This is left to courts to decide, just like an emergency concerning climate change could be decided and all other potentially stupid lawsuits and legal actions get decided. All over a difference in about 3 billion dollars. Making all of this into a big deal is actually what has ended up making this a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 A declaration of National Emergency is not like dealing with other emergencies. A state of National Emergency grants the President broad powers to act without following the usual legislative and legal procedures. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 was enacted to place limitations on the President's emergency powers; but it requires Congress to vote to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 19 minutes ago, Starlord said: Which can also be argued as no other President attempted to declare a controversial emergency when his own party wasn't controlling Congress. There are currently 30 some active emergencies. This is left to courts to decide, just like an emergency concerning climate change could be decided and all other potentially stupid lawsuits and legal actions get decided. All over a difference in about 3 billion dollars. Making all of this into a big deal is actually what has ended up making this a big deal. I don't believe this situation is due to funding for the wall. I believe it's the cumulative result of a long list of moves by President Trump which a significant number of the public, experts, and the country's leadership -- if not the majority -- believe to have been misguided and dangerous. It's about Congress exercising its Constitutional duty to balance the authority and actions of the Executive branch. If the fight hadn't been picked over the border wall, it would have been something else. This is just the first issue the new Democratic House has been in a position to oppose, and the one Trump has chosen to make his stand. TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 Well, let's see how much worse Mitch McConnell makes an already bad situation. That's his niche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 46 minutes ago, Pariah said: I don't believe the President has any idea what a can of worms he's opening today. A story has been making the rounds which may be apocryphal, being attributed to "unnamed sources within the Trump administration." Reputedly, when Republican Congressional leaders expressed concerns to the President over the future ballooning national debt resulting from his tax cuts combined with increased spending, Trump is said to have replied: "I won't be here." Again, that may not be true, but it would be consistent with the attitude Trump's displayed to date. If it doesn't directly affect him, it doesn't concern him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 50 minutes ago, Hermit said: Well, let's see how much worse Mitch McConnell makes an already bad situation. That's his niche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 If SCOTUS Doesn’t Get Involved in Pending Case, Veterans Could Potentially Be Court-Martialed For Speaking Against Trump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickstaPriest Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 7 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: I don't believe this situation is due to funding for the wall. I believe it's the cumulative result of a long list of moves by President Trump which a significant number of the public, experts, and the country's leadership -- if not the majority -- believe to have been misguided and dangerous. It's about Congress exercising its Constitutional duty to balance the authority and actions of the Executive branch. If the fight hadn't been picked over the border wall, it would have been something else. This is just the first issue the new Democratic House has been in a position to oppose, and the one Trump has chosen to make his stand. And probably terribly cynically of me, any politician isn't likely to have a donor with any major loss based on either outcome of this battle. The only losers are the people, and politicians' reputations... not the companies. Though that's just my dubious thoughts, and eat them with a grain of salt, maybe some alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 6 hours ago, Cygnia said: If SCOTUS Doesn’t Get Involved in Pending Case, Veterans Could Potentially Be Court-Martialed For Speaking Against Trump This is somewhat misleading. A regular service (not reserve) retiree receiving pay can be subject to the UCMJ. They usually won't court-martial unless it's an extreme case like the one in the article. Anyone else is only subject to the UCMJ for a short time after mustering out. As for speaking against the CIC, here's what the article says, bolding added for emphasis by me: " Under 10 U.S.C. § 888, a service member who speaks out against the government can be court-martialed: " A "service member" is a . . . anyone who served (and in this context retired with pay.) Here's what they quote from the USC: " Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against . . ." So, at worse, this could apply to retired officers. But so far as I can tell, the only retired military brought back to stand court martial have been those accused of committing a serious crime, like rape or murder. IMO, the article is a lot of Chicken Little nonsense and a non-issue. If I'm ever proven wrong on it, then I owe you a . . . chicken dinner, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 The writers at Saturday Night Live apparently thought that the President's "Emergency Declaration" was stupid and pointless, and Alec Baldwin portrayed the president in a parody over the weekend. President Trump, of course, tweeted all of the usual things in response: fake news, hit job, Enemy of the People, and so forth. He even worked the word "retribution" into it. Nice. I've grown tired of this stupid reality show. Will somebody just tell Donald Trump "You're fired!" so we can get on with the new season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted February 18, 2019 Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 pinecone and Iuz the Evil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted February 18, 2019 Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 The Prime Minister of Japan nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize...because the US asked him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assault Posted February 18, 2019 Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 11 hours ago, Starlord said: What have they got against Millard Fillmore anyway? Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 19, 2019 Report Share Posted February 19, 2019 His name was "Millard Fillmore.' What more do you need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 19, 2019 Report Share Posted February 19, 2019 #44 was Obama, wasn’t it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted February 19, 2019 Report Share Posted February 19, 2019 Bernie Sanders enters 2020 Presidential race So the two Democratic frontrunners are a superprogressive guy who would be 79+ when he takes office and (probably) Joe Boring who would be 78+ when he takes office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 19, 2019 Report Share Posted February 19, 2019 I don't think Joe Biden has formally confirmed he'll run -- he's still "exploring." For my part, while I respect Biden and Sanders, their advanced age would be a factor for me were I voting for President, just from concern over continuity. But the field of announced candidates is wide, and as with Barack Obama, there's plenty of time for others to rise to prominence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted February 20, 2019 Report Share Posted February 20, 2019 Bernie AND Warren are both possibilities? Well, rock on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted February 20, 2019 Report Share Posted February 20, 2019 I'm kind of annoyed by Warren lately. The whole putting "Native American" down as her race to gain advantage thing rubs me the wrong way. Pretending like she didn't know she wasn't supposed to put that on paperwork without a tribal affiliation given her education level really rubs me the wrong way. Then again, I should probably stopped hoping for any semblance of honesty from any politician a long time ago. Edit: I'll still take Warren over Trump if it comes to it. Just that 1/16th of me is peeved with her, even though I don't really lay any false claims to the culture that 16th came from. Starlord and archer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.