Baby Donald will declare a national emergency.

His penchant for appeasing the base knows no bounds.

Trump will sign spending bill, seek a national emergency and 'other executive action' to build wall

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/tru...n-border-security-deal-to-avoid-shutdown.html

"President Donald Trump will sign spending legislation to prevent a government shutdown while declaring a national emergency to try to build his proposed border wall, the White House confirmed Thursday.

"President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action — including a national emergency — to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement as the Senate prepared to vote on a measure to keep the government open past a midnight Friday deadline."
.............................................................................................................
This is what happens when you have a petulant child shaking his rattle in the Oval Office. The self-proclaimed deal maker got his ass handed to him so now he will try to save face by invoking claims of a non-existent national emergency.

 

Part of me hoped he'd go this far. The courts or congress will ultimately set him straight on this kind of overreach. It's almost worth it just to expose him for what he is, not that it was much of a mystery.

 

I'm a little surprised Turtle Man is going to back him on this. He must feel, as a political calculation, the base must get its red meat on the Orange Fraud's signature issue. Perhaps Mitch thinks the attempt will be blocked by the courts or Congress but it would be worse for Repubs not to align themselves with President Flim Flam.

 

I do find that odd too, but the last time I heard him I think he was choosing his words carefully, talking about how Trump should take whatever action is "legally available" to him instead of outright saying he approved of the national emergency plan. I'm not sure about his most recent statements, though.

 

The President has very broad powers to declare a national emergency to protect our borders. Even the Congressional Research Service declared “nothing in current statute would appear to bar DHS from installing hundreds of miles of additional physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, even beyond the 700 miles required by law.”

 

After hundreds of posts and now that you are about to be crushed by the no Russian collusion declaration, just think, you can rejoice in yet another well to draw hate from.

 

He can't build much wall without exercising eminent domain and taking both private and State land. He's (thankfully) going to have a hard time pitching the idea to the courts that he can just say the word "national emergency" and take whatever he wants. And spending is a Congressional issue, not an Executive one. He doesn't have a lot of leeway to spend without Congressional appropriations; at least not if he's going to start obeying the Constitution.

 

Sometimes I swear that desperation has a smell. I do love the hypocrisy of accusing others of changing the topic . . . when you are the one scrambling to change the topic. That part is funny at least.

 

Careful what you wish for. Every time this goes to the court, the left set the precedent that they argued vehemently against when it was Obama. This isn't "whatabout ism". This is simply the caution that says, IF, democrats ever retake the whitehouse, every action that the democrats and their operatives have filed, every law suit, becomes the shackles that your next president must then live by. See how well Harry's nuke option worked out for you?

 

I don't doubt you are correct about that when the declaration has merit. This one doesn't........obviously.

 

Lol, I was against the nuclear option and still am, and I'm for limitations on the Executive regardless of party. I'd say you are barking up the wrong tree, but I'm not even sure if you are in the right forest.

Which side are you on: no President should have this kind of broad power or they all should? I know where I stand. But I agree that this particular example isn't whataboutism -- at least it isn't whataboutism if you are willing to address Trump as well instead of just talking about Obama and Dems. If you are willing to talk about both and address your own position then it isn't whataboutism, it is just a counterexample.

 

Any action in protection of our borders is allowed. Previous presidents declared national emergencies to protect Burundi and Burma, why is the only national emergency the democrats are against is the one to protect the American people?

 

I wish you luck with it.
Actually, no I don't. It's won't happen. It will be thrown out in court.

 

Protecting our own borders is actually in the Constitution. The National Emergency powers are specifically for that but have been widened in 76 where previous Presidents used it to protect the people of other nations. Why are the democrats against protecting our own?

 

Only if it is a liberal activist court willing to ignore the Constitution and current law.

 

I look at it this way. I see a very concerted effort to restrain this president who is using exactly the same methods as the previous president to unwind all of the things the previous president did that ostensibly you're "concerned" about. (Facts definitely not in evidence here). A President has a responsibility to protect the nation. Actively working against it's protection seems problematic for folks like you though. How do you justify this? If your party are unwilling to allocate the funds to provide these necessary protective services, are we supposed to simply wait until the borders are over run to wring our hand uselessly and wonder how it happened? Perhaps that's the intent of the progressive mind. Interesting insight there. Thanks for the demonstration.

 

No, it isn't. There are laws, for example, governing the use of force. Those still apply. Your "We're a nation of laws . . . except at the border, then anything goes" philosophy is part of a fantasy world. It has no bearing on our nation's laws and on our Constitution.

As strawmen go, this one is a particularly shabby on. No one is saying that a President can never declare a national emergency of any kind. No one. Fake argument.

And another fake argument. First of all, not a Democrat. Second of all, I don't object to border expenditures as long as they are smart. Third, you want a wall, do the Constitutional thing and make the case to Congress to provide the appropriations for it. If your plan doesn't work without the President unilaterally stealing private property, then it doesn't work for America.

 

Except the "emergency" you are talking about is 90% less than 10 years ago......so what is the actual emergency?

 

The Constitution and current law back fantasy emergencies? I don't think so.

 

Did it take a national emergency to build all those thousands of miles of highways using imminent domain?

 

If you are saying my own words are not enough to evidence for what I believe, then you are calling me a liar and we can take it up with the mods. If you'd like to have a mature, reasonable discussion, then you'll have to take my word as far as what my beliefs are. Otherwise I can only assume your only intention is to troll. I'll take your word about your positions and beliefs. If you can't do the same, then there's the door.

As far as your concern here goes, far all you've done is point to the hypocrisy of Dems to excuse your own hypocritical position on Executive power.

Within Constitutional limitations. He can't, for example, ban all guns and say he's doing so to protect the nation. Surely you agree that the President should be subject to checks and balances.

No one is "actively working against it's protection." If you are going to engage in discussion and debate, engage in honest discussion and debate.

How can you justify arguing that the President should be able to do whatever he wants as long as he claims it is for national security?

Please provide a link for when the LP has ever done that. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Please either learn what progressivism is, what libertarianism is, what my position is, how to have an intellectually honest discussion, or some combination of the aforementioned. Two out of four wouldn't be bad.

 

You either think that the President obtained all of that land without Congress or you didn't understand the post you quoted.

 

Looks like he has a phone and a pen too, huh?

 

It does not take a national emergency. Obama obtained land for a national monument without congressional approval.

 

You mean other than the clear cut law that gives him the authority to deny entry to any class of alien, as well as his clear directive to ensure the integrity of the US borders.

Other than that, I'm sure he's on shaky ground.