Shutdown Over Border Security?

[carpedm9587]

You will never give an inch will you?

Normally I delete these personal attacks - but I'll respond to this one. Yes - I will absolutely give an inch: when you provide data and information that backs up your claims. Until you do - my views will stay as is. That's how it's supposed to work, Sparko. I don't have views that I just yanked out of the air. When I don't know, I say "I don't know." When I think I do, I provide the basis for what I think I know. If you want to convince - provide the data. Otherwise, you won't convince. Under those conditions, you are absolutely correct - I won't give an inch. I won't change a view just because someone wants me to, or prepends their posts with sighs, or calls me names, or personally attacks me for it. I'm not that thin-skinned.

Here you go:

From 2014 when Obama was not happy with congress's movement on immigration reform:

The background:

Yesterday afternoon, President Obama went to the Rose Garden and denounced Republican obstructionism on the issue of immigration, pledging to take executive action to address the issue. At a time when Republicans are making Obama’s alleged executive overreach the centerpiece of their political strategy, it was a pretty blatant thumb in the opposition’s eye. The coming confrontation over immigration could be dangerous for both sides.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.ebc6134dca46

The result:

There are any number of marvelous things one might do as president, if Congress were not such a checked and balanced mess. But future presidents now have a new method at their disposal: Declare a long-running debate to be a national emergency. Challenge Congress, under threat of unilateral executive action, to legislate on the topic before your term runs out. And when lawmakers refuse, act with the most expansive definition of presidential power.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.7b5efa454c5a

Pretty much exactly what Trump has done, and Obama even set the stage.

[mic drop]

So - no, not so much. Obama did not act to defy Congress. Obama acted because Congress refused to act. Congress was not saying "no." Congress was saying nothing. No immigration bill was passed by either house of Congress for Obama to sign, as far as I know. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

Does that mean Obama did the best thing? Frankly - no. Anyone with a mind could see that what one president could do with a pen another could undo with the same pen. Anything that is going to last and have teeth needs the legislative and executive branch on board. That's how the system works. And Obama said this repeatedly: send me a bill to sign, and I won't have to do this.

Trump WAS sent a bill to sign - and signed it. Then declared an emergency to explicitly defy the will of Congress, because he disagreed with them.

So, in short:

Obama: if you're not going to do anything, then I am.
Trump: I don't like what you did, so I'm going to change it.

They are not the same thing. And, last I checked, Obama never claimed a National Emergency related to immigration.

[Sparko]

So - no, not so much. Obama did not act to defy Congress. Obama acted because Congress refused to act. Congress was not saying "no." Congress was saying nothing. No immigration bill was passed by either house of Congress for Obama to sign, as far as I know. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

Does that mean Obama did the best thing? Frankly - no. Anyone with a mind could see that what one president could do with a pen another could undo with the same pen. Anything that is going to last and have teeth needs the legislative and executive branch on board. That's how the system works. And Obama said this repeatedly: send me a bill to sign, and I won't have to do this.

Trump WAS sent a bill to sign - and signed it. Then declared an emergency to explicitly defy the will of Congress, because he disagreed with them.

So, in short:

Obama: if you're not going to do anything, then I am.
Trump: I don't like what you did, so I'm going to change it.

They are not the same thing.

Wow. Your ability to ignore facts and redefine reality to suit your biases is astounding. It even said that Obama opened the door for future presidents to use the National Emergency act to get their way.

Obama: if you're not going to do anything, then I am.
Trump: if you're not going to fund the wall, then I am.

They are the same thing.

You are getting impossible to have a decent discussion with. You will go through something with a fine tooth come to comb up with some way to recharacterize it into meaning something that fits with your views rather than admit you are wrong.

[rogue06]

So - no, not so much. Obama did not act to defy Congress. Obama acted because Congress refused to act. Congress was not saying "no." Congress was saying nothing.

Not saying or doing anything is a response. Obama decided to override it with his pen and phone

[carpedm9587]

It even said that Obama opened the door for future presidents to use the National Emergency act to get their way.

Read the articles more carefully, Sparko. There is no reference to the NEA in either of them that I can find, and I've now read them both twice. There is one reference to "declare a national emergency." But it is not an accurate description of what Obama did: he never declared a national emergency about immigration. There is no such declaration. It's not in your previous list. It's not in the official list. It doesn't exist. Obama may have said "this is a national emergency that needs attention," but there is a difference between using the words "national emergency" in a speech, and formally declaring a national emergency under the NEA.

And what you linked to were two opinion pieces, Sparko. They have about as much weight as what you are posting. They reflect the opinions of the authors - and tend to be skewed to their political biases.

Obama: if you're not going to do anything, then I am.
Trump: if you're not going to fund the wall, then I am.

They are the same thing.

You're narrowly defining them in a way to make them look the same. The fact is there was no immigration bill from Congress when Obama acted - there was silence. There WAS a budget bill for Trump - which explicitly said "55 miles of wall only." Obama acted when Congress couldn't/wouldn't. There was no position taken on immigration for Obama to disagree with. There was no bill...nada. Trump is acting when Congress DID act and he signed the bill! But the bill prohibited what he wanted - his "campaign promise." Congress disagreed on the priorities - but came up with a workable compromise. They did not do so in a way he approved - so he is using the NEA in defiance of Congress. If he wants to defy Congress - he has a simple constitutional path: veto the bill.

So far, you have not provided any information that gives me any cause to shift my stance. On the other hand, I've provided several data points that don't seem to be swaying you. I have to wonder who is "not giving an inch?" I'm reasonably sure your answer will be "Carpe."

[carpedm9587]

Not saying or doing anything is a response. Obama decided to override it with his pen and phone

It CAN be a response. It is not necessarily a response. If Congress had communicated, "no immigration bill is necessary," and Obama had overridden them, I would be right next to you decrying his action and it would have been exactly the same as what Trump is doing now. But that was not the case. Congress was failing to put forward a bill because it would have required the two sides to work together - and Congress is too dysfunctional to do so anymore. Congress was inert and unable/unwilling to come to agreement on how best to structure an immigration bill. That is not a response: it is the absence of a response.

In that gap, Obama stepped in with Executive Orders. It was not ideal. It was not the preferred way of doing things. But given the situation facing many of these people, I believe it was both warranted and legal (albeit likely to be short-lived - as it turned out to be). All Congress needed to do to address the issue was pass a bill that overrode the EO and put legislation in place. They did nothing.

[Tassman]

I do not disagree that there is no national emergency. I do not disagree that Trump is overstepping. I merely note that the badly written act gives the courts very little to hang their "it's illegal" hat on. The one avenue I can see (with my legally neophyte brain) is that they will look at the act itself and determine that the act grants the executive branch too much unconstrained power and is in violation of the separation of powers and checks and balances embedded in the constitution. But with a right-leaning court and right-leaning executive - the only chance that will happen is if the courts are truly (as Roberts claims) independent and focused on the constitution and the law - and not the politics of the Executive and Legislative branches.

Are you really so cynical as to assume that even a right-leaning court would not “focus on the constitution and the law”. Even an ultra-conservative court must justify how it legally arrives at its conclusions.

Surely, there is very little problem in a court deciding the illegality of the president declaring a national emergency, when there is demonstrably no such national emergency and that such a declaration is merely a means to bypass a ruling already made by Congress (as Trump has already acknowledged).

[Sparko]

Read the articles more carefully, Sparko. There is no reference to the NEA in either of them that I can find, and I've now read them both twice. There is one reference to "declare a national emergency." But it is not an accurate description of what Obama did: he never declared a national emergency about immigration. There is no such declaration. It's not in your previous list. It's not in the official list. It doesn't exist. Obama may have said "this is a national emergency that needs attention," but there is a difference between using the words "national emergency" in a speech, and formally declaring a national emergency under the NEA.

Everyone of the links to the actual executive order mentions using the NEA in the first few paragraphs. If you don't see it it is because you are being willfully ignorant.

And what you linked to were two opinion pieces, Sparko. They have about as much weight as what you are posting. They reflect the opinions of the authors - and tend to be skewed to their political biases.

And they have links to each and every executive order they were talking about.


At this point I am done here. You have shown yourself incapable of taking an honest look at the data, and a willful ignorance and determination to twist everything to fit your bias. You aren't worth the effort and I really don't care what you think at this point. Everyone else reading this thread can see the parallel between Obama and Trump except you.

Enjoy your blissful ignorance Carp.

[carpedm9587]

Are you really so cynical as to assume that even a right-leaning court would not “focus on the constitution and the law”. Even an ultra-conservative court must justify how it legally arrives at its conclusions.

Yes - I have some question marks about how truly independent the courts have become. When men like Roy Moore and Kavanaugh can be placed on the highest benches in the state and federal judicial system, it raises a lot of questions for me.

Surely, there is very little problem in a court deciding the illegality of the president declaring a national emergency, when there is demonstrably no such national emergency and that such a declaration is merely a means to bypass a ruling already made by Congress (as Trump has already acknowledged).

Like I said, Tass - about the only path I see forward legally is calling into question the constitutionality of the NEA on the basis of separation of powers and checks/balances. But I guess we'll have to wait and see. Right now it's all speculation.

[carpedm9587]

Everyone of the links to the actual executive order mentions using the NEA in the first few paragraphs.

Please cut/paste what you are looking at here. I am not seeing any reference to the NEA, and I searched for it as well as read the articles. So I am apparently missing something.

And they have links to each and every executive order they were talking about

I've looked at the EOs involved. Not a single one involves the NEA. Indeed, the list of Obama's declared emergencies, which you posted earlier, does not include ANY national emergency declared under the NEA that was in any way associated with immigration. Here is the list, which mirrors what you yourself previously posted and we previously discussed: 11 declarations imposing sanctions on foreign nationals and countries, and one related to the H1N1 influenza. Zero about immigration.

For whatever reason, you seem to be confusing the use of the phrase "national emergency" in a speech (which is the only thing I can find, and what is referenced in these articles) with a formal declaration under the NEA. They are not the same thing. Obama's EOs about immigration had nothing to do with the NEA. The facts are simply unassailable.

At this point I am done here.

As you wish, Sparko. As I noted before - when you can provide evidence, my views change. When you cannot, they do not. What you do with your views is entirely up to you. If I was in your place, however, given that the evidence does not support the views you hold, I would reconsider them. But that is your call.

[Tassman]

Yes - I have some question marks about how truly independent the courts have become. When men like Roy Moore and Kavanaugh can be placed on the highest benches in the state and federal judicial system, it raises a lot of questions for me.

Yes, I have similar reservations. But, as I say, even an ultra-conservative court must attempt to legally justify how it arrives at its conclusions.

Like I said, Tass - about the only path I see forward legally is calling into question the constitutionality of the NEA on the basis of separation of powers and checks/balances. But I guess we'll have to wait and see. Right now it's all speculation.

Well certainly, it requires clarification. But, even so, declaring a National Emergency when there manifestly isn't one, makes it own case in my view.

[Terraceth]

Surely, there is very little problem in a court deciding the illegality of the president declaring a national emergency, when there is demonstrably no such national emergency and that such a declaration is merely a means to bypass a ruling already made by Congress (as Trump has already acknowledged).

The National Emergency Act gives no definition or qualification for emergency, so your constant declaration of there being no emergency seems irrelevant, at least from a legal standpoint. From my understanding, the president could legally declare a national emergency over not liking his breakfast cereal. The purpose of the act, as I understand it, was not to define what an emergency constituted (which makes sense, such a thing is extremely difficult to nail down a precise definition for) but to define what powers the president had under an emergency and how congress could override it.

The question is really not whether there is an emergency or not--it's whether Trump's actions exceed the powers granted by the Act and/or Constitution.

[Tassman]

The National Emergency Act gives no definition or qualification for emergency, so your constant declaration of there being no emergency seems irrelevant, at least from a legal standpoint. From my understanding, the president could legally declare a national emergency over not liking his breakfast cereal. The purpose of the act, as I understand it, was not to define what an emergency constituted (which makes sense, such a thing is extremely difficult to nail down a precise definition for) but to define what powers the president had under an emergency and how congress could override it.

The question is really not whether there is an emergency or not--it's whether Trump's actions exceed the powers granted by the Act and/or Constitution.

Indeed! I take your point. But it assumes that some sort of national emergency exists over and above the equivalent of the president “not liking his breakfast cereal”, which is more or less what we’re dealing with now. If nothing else the National Emergency Act needs reviewing.

[Starlight]

If nothing else the National Emergency Act needs reviewing.

Well one of the clearest failings of it is that it gives congress the power to un-declare a national emergency through a Joint Resolution... but a Joint Resolution needs to be signed by the President.

The National Emergency Act should have been written to say a Concurrent Resolution (both houses, but not President) could stop a national emergency not a Joint Resolution.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, I have similar reservations. But, as I say, even an ultra-conservative court must attempt to legally justify how it arrives at its conclusions.

My best guess: the courts will bow to the authority of the executive in matters of "national security." Given the absence of a definition for "national emergency" and the precedence for EOs that deal with national security, and looking at their decision around the travel ban, I suspect they will rule in Trump's favor.

Well certainly, it requires clarification. But, even so, declaring a National Emergency when there manifestly isn't one, makes it own case in my view.

Yours and mine. I doubt it will in the view of the courts. Or, more specifically, I suspect the sequence will be pretty much exactly what Trump predicted: the lower courts will rule against Trump, and then SCOTUS will rule in favor. But, as I said, we shall see.

[carpedm9587]

Indeed! I take your point. But it assumes that some sort of national emergency exists over and above the equivalent of the president “not liking his breakfast cereal”, which is more or less what we’re dealing with now. If nothing else the National Emergency Act needs reviewing.

An THAT we agree completely, but it is also something I consider highly unlikely. It would require a significant part of a party to join in a vote against a president of their own party, given that any such bill would very likely be vetoed by any sitting president.