Will trump be forced to use national emergency to build wall

[Siete]

I think it will happen because democrats hate american values

Forced? For a made up “emergency” that is nothing but a lunatics ego trip?

Why wasn’t there an emergency when the rightwingnut teumpacum had bothhousss of Congress?

Pathetic little trumpkins

Clearly, you have no idea how Congress works. To pass legislation the Democrats opposed in the Senate would have required 60 votes and the Republicans never had 60 votes, so your claim the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress is false.

114th Congerss ... Republican majority in the House & Senate -- CLEARLY.

 

[playtime]

The only thing the court can do (legally) is decide whether he used proper procedure or not. If he does (and I"m sure his team will) they really can't stop Trump because there is no definition of a national emergency--only procedural processes.

You said it, so it MUST be true then

Seems the courts don't care about "legally" anymore. They only care about Political Agenda.
If they always followed the law, would we really be having all these problems?

I think Ray's biggest problem is that he has not yet realized who Trump really is....A New York DEMOCRAT....working primarily for the Establishment.

And possibly the greatest Reality TV actor of all time. "It's gonna be a beautiful wall....beautiful I tell ya".

It's not what I say that matters.

Does a president have legal authority to declare a national emergency?

Yes. A relevant law is the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

The act itself did not give a legal definition for a national emergency, nor did it set specific criteria for declaring one. Rather, it created procedural requirements.

It requires a president to formally submit to Congress and to the Federal Register a declaration of the national emergency; to specify the statutory authorities he or she is invoking; and to renew the declaration every year, or it will automatically expire.

"Even though the Constitution itself grants the president very little in the way of emergency authority, Congress has ceded broad powers to the president that he can invoke merely by claiming that an emergency exists," said Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Could Trump declare a national emergency for a border wall?

& it goes on to say it will go to the federal courts.

What it said about going to the courts is that it will likely fail. You're too used of your activist judges legislating from the bench, and they may try again, but the end result is it would only be a stall tactic. From the article:

"Even if the federal courts hear the matter, they may defer to the president's invocation of emergency power," Massaro said, noting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Trump administration in the travel ban case. "Courts are especially deferential when a president claims something is a matter of ‘national security.'"

that is a possibility, i never said it wasn't. howeverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr............... we shall see. oh - & trump appointed judges have ruled against him 5x on various issues so far, so you can't say anything just yet, ray ray.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually there has been an emergency for several years now, except nobody wanted to acknowledge it. Just ask any Angel family. Trump wanted to get this matter settled last month, it was by force he reopen the government and show restraint.

he had 2 years to do it. that will be taken into account.

Taken into account by whom? One more time, the courts do not have the ability to rule whether something is an emergency or not. They can only rule on the constitutionality of the issue or if if the law was followed properly.

correct. & if they decide his 'national emergency' really isn't - based on constitutional law --- like his abuse of power --- then that will be that, won't it? & he might even be gone by the time the courts decide anyhow.

There is no constitutional law when it comes to declaring a national emergency. It was a law passed by Congress many years ago that gave the President (not Congress, not the court) explicit power to decide what an emergency was. As long as Trump did it by the procedure outlined in the law, there is nothing a court can do. The law did not give the power to the courts to decide what an emergency was--only a President.

 

[playtime]

trump underestimated the speaker. oh - & he is a business man who had several business' go bankrupt - including casinos, that by their very nature, are designed to be a very easy profit making venue.

Really? Trump is the only one to file bankruptcy for a casino.......especially in a recession?

Donald Trump has owned or operated over 500 businesses in his life. He had five bankruptcies; two of them for one business. That means he filed less than one bankruptcy for every 100 businesses he owned or managed. I would call that a pretty good record, and Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy.

uh-huh. his casinos went belly up 4 times, ray ray. casinos don't do that. AND back in the 90s he had to be put on an allowance by wall street because he was outa control... & anybody with a very rich daddy giving out millions of dollars to start out life with should have an edge. trumpco is all brand & not much more. where's trump steaks? trump airlines? vodka? etc etc etc...........all gone.

 

[playtime]

Actually there has been an emergency for several years now, except nobody wanted to acknowledge it. Just ask any Angel family. Trump wanted to get this matter settled last month, it was by force he reopen the government and show restraint.

he had 2 years to do it. that will be taken into account.

Taken into account by whom? One more time, the courts do not have the ability to rule whether something is an emergency or not. They can only rule on the constitutionality of the issue or if if the law was followed properly.

correct. & if they decide his 'national emergency' really isn't - based on constitutional law --- like his abuse of power --- then that will be that, won't it? & he might even be gone by the time the courts decide anyhow.

There is no constitutional law when it comes to declaring a national emergency. It was a law passed by Congress many years ago that gave the President (not Congress, not the court) explicit power to decide what an emergency was. As long as Trump did it by the procedure outlined in the law, there is nothing a court can do. The law did not give the power to the courts to decide what an emergency was--only a President.

oh so if he said he wanted to declare a national emergency based on his very real belief that mars IS attacking, then he can?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only thing the court can do (legally) is decide whether he used proper procedure or not. If he does (and I"m sure his team will) they really can't stop Trump because there is no definition of a national emergency--only procedural processes.

You said it, so it MUST be true then

Seems the courts don't care about "legally" anymore. They only care about Political Agenda.
If they always followed the law, would we really be having all these problems?

I think Ray's biggest problem is that he has not yet realized who Trump really is....A New York DEMOCRAT....working primarily for the Establishment.

And possibly the greatest Reality TV actor of all time. "It's gonna be a beautiful wall....beautiful I tell ya".

It's not what I say that matters.

Does a president have legal authority to declare a national emergency?

Yes. A relevant law is the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

The act itself did not give a legal definition for a national emergency, nor did it set specific criteria for declaring one. Rather, it created procedural requirements.

It requires a president to formally submit to Congress and to the Federal Register a declaration of the national emergency; to specify the statutory authorities he or she is invoking; and to renew the declaration every year, or it will automatically expire.

"Even though the Constitution itself grants the president very little in the way of emergency authority, Congress has ceded broad powers to the president that he can invoke merely by claiming that an emergency exists," said Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Could Trump declare a national emergency for a border wall?

& it goes on to say it will go to the federal courts.

What it said about going to the courts is that it will likely fail. You're too used of your activist judges legislating from the bench, and they may try again, but the end result is it would only be a stall tactic. From the article:

"Even if the federal courts hear the matter, they may defer to the president's invocation of emergency power," Massaro said, noting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Trump administration in the travel ban case. "Courts are especially deferential when a president claims something is a matter of ‘national security.'"

that is a possibility, i never said it wasn't. howeverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr............... we shall see. oh - & trump appointed judges have ruled against him 5x on various issues so far, so you can't say anything just yet, ray ray.

I'm pretty confident. I mean, the law is the law, and judges on the right don't practice judicial legislation. Only judges on the left do that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually there has been an emergency for several years now, except nobody wanted to acknowledge it. Just ask any Angel family. Trump wanted to get this matter settled last month, it was by force he reopen the government and show restraint.

he had 2 years to do it. that will be taken into account.

Taken into account by whom? One more time, the courts do not have the ability to rule whether something is an emergency or not. They can only rule on the constitutionality of the issue or if if the law was followed properly.

correct. & if they decide his 'national emergency' really isn't - based on constitutional law --- like his abuse of power --- then that will be that, won't it? & he might even be gone by the time the courts decide anyhow.

There is no constitutional law when it comes to declaring a national emergency. It was a law passed by Congress many years ago that gave the President (not Congress, not the court) explicit power to decide what an emergency was. As long as Trump did it by the procedure outlined in the law, there is nothing a court can do. The law did not give the power to the courts to decide what an emergency was--only a President.

oh so if he said he wanted to declare a national emergency based on his very real belief that mars IS attacking, then he can?

Legally, yes he can. The law has no oversight on what a President is allowed to declare an emergency. Democrats may be able to remove him from office because he lost his mind, but not because what he declares an emergency.

 

[playtime]

The botox bitch Nancy and her Democrat hoard won't change and the deadline will pass without giving the American people their Wall.

So our beloved Pres.Trump will have no choice but to declare a National Emergency and have the Wall built.

Which is absolutely fine with me. ...

Unfortunately this is correct. The Dems will not negotiate in good faith in the next 3 weeks because they lack any real integrity. Trump will have to declare a national emergency in which case the SCOTUS will ultimately decide just like they did on the Obamacare mandate.

The only thing the court can do (legally) is decide whether he used proper procedure or not. If he does (and I"m sure his team will) they really can't stop Trump because there is no definition of a national emergency--only procedural processes.

he has to justify the reasoning. one problem that he will run into is the amount of time. he had 2 years to push it thru. he never really tried to do that...

Where does it say he has to justify the reason? To whom?

america, congress, the courts............... he is 'president' of the US , not dear leader of NK.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I'm pretty confident. I mean, the law is the law, and judges on the right don't practice judicial legislation. Only judges on the left do that.

THERE ya go
I knew you'd come around.

 

[playtime]

You said it, so it MUST be true then

Seems the courts don't care about "legally" anymore. They only care about Political Agenda.
If they always followed the law, would we really be having all these problems?

I think Ray's biggest problem is that he has not yet realized who Trump really is....A New York DEMOCRAT....working primarily for the Establishment.

And possibly the greatest Reality TV actor of all time. "It's gonna be a beautiful wall....beautiful I tell ya".

It's not what I say that matters.

Does a president have legal authority to declare a national emergency?

Yes. A relevant law is the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

The act itself did not give a legal definition for a national emergency, nor did it set specific criteria for declaring one. Rather, it created procedural requirements.

It requires a president to formally submit to Congress and to the Federal Register a declaration of the national emergency; to specify the statutory authorities he or she is invoking; and to renew the declaration every year, or it will automatically expire.

"Even though the Constitution itself grants the president very little in the way of emergency authority, Congress has ceded broad powers to the president that he can invoke merely by claiming that an emergency exists," said Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Could Trump declare a national emergency for a border wall?

& it goes on to say it will go to the federal courts.

What it said about going to the courts is that it will likely fail. You're too used of your activist judges legislating from the bench, and they may try again, but the end result is it would only be a stall tactic. From the article:

"Even if the federal courts hear the matter, they may defer to the president's invocation of emergency power," Massaro said, noting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Trump administration in the travel ban case. "Courts are especially deferential when a president claims something is a matter of ‘national security.'"

that is a possibility, i never said it wasn't. howeverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr............... we shall see. oh - & trump appointed judges have ruled against him 5x on various issues so far, so you can't say anything just yet, ray ray.

I'm pretty confident. I mean, the law is the law, and judges on the right don't practice judicial legislation. Only judges on the left do that.

It's not just 'Obama judges'. Here are Republican appointees who have ruled against Trump

 

[playtime]

he had 2 years to do it. that will be taken into account.

Taken into account by whom? One more time, the courts do not have the ability to rule whether something is an emergency or not. They can only rule on the constitutionality of the issue or if if the law was followed properly.

correct. & if they decide his 'national emergency' really isn't - based on constitutional law --- like his abuse of power --- then that will be that, won't it? & he might even be gone by the time the courts decide anyhow.

There is no constitutional law when it comes to declaring a national emergency. It was a law passed by Congress many years ago that gave the President (not Congress, not the court) explicit power to decide what an emergency was. As long as Trump did it by the procedure outlined in the law, there is nothing a court can do. The law did not give the power to the courts to decide what an emergency was--only a President.

oh so if he said he wanted to declare a national emergency based on his very real belief that mars IS attacking, then he can?

Legally, yes he can. The law has no oversight on what a President is allowed to declare an emergency. Democrats may be able to remove him from office because he lost his mind, but not because what he declares an emergency.

republicans wouldn't join in on the straight jacket thing?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It's not just 'Obama judges'. Here are Republican appointees who have ruled against Trump

If these are true republicans, I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger

I maintain that DC is owned by the Establishment, and everyone in DC is forced to abide by Establishment rules....regardless.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The botox bitch Nancy and her Democrat hoard won't change and the deadline will pass without giving the American people their Wall.

So our beloved Pres.Trump will have no choice but to declare a National Emergency and have the Wall built.

Which is absolutely fine with me. ...

Unfortunately this is correct. The Dems will not negotiate in good faith in the next 3 weeks because they lack any real integrity. Trump will have to declare a national emergency in which case the SCOTUS will ultimately decide just like they did on the Obamacare mandate.

The only thing the court can do (legally) is decide whether he used proper procedure or not. If he does (and I"m sure his team will) they really can't stop Trump because there is no definition of a national emergency--only procedural processes.

he has to justify the reasoning. one problem that he will run into is the amount of time. he had 2 years to push it thru. he never really tried to do that...

Where does it say he has to justify the reason? To whom?

america, congress, the courts............... he is 'president' of the US , not dear leader of NK.

Okay, where in the law does it say he has to get approval from Congress or the courts? I don't see that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Taken into account by whom? One more time, the courts do not have the ability to rule whether something is an emergency or not. They can only rule on the constitutionality of the issue or if if the law was followed properly.

correct. & if they decide his 'national emergency' really isn't - based on constitutional law --- like his abuse of power --- then that will be that, won't it? & he might even be gone by the time the courts decide anyhow.

There is no constitutional law when it comes to declaring a national emergency. It was a law passed by Congress many years ago that gave the President (not Congress, not the court) explicit power to decide what an emergency was. As long as Trump did it by the procedure outlined in the law, there is nothing a court can do. The law did not give the power to the courts to decide what an emergency was--only a President.

oh so if he said he wanted to declare a national emergency based on his very real belief that mars IS attacking, then he can?

Legally, yes he can. The law has no oversight on what a President is allowed to declare an emergency. Democrats may be able to remove him from office because he lost his mind, but not because what he declares an emergency.

republicans wouldn't join in on the straight jacket thing?

I forgot now what the name of the proceedings were called, so I don't know how it would be exercised since it's never been done before (I don't think). I would guess Congress would have to lead the way.

 

[playtime]

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

Recognizing the need for the President to take action when Congress cannot act effectively on an issue the Congress passed laws in 1979 that in effect have Congress rubber stamping whatever the President does under a declaration of national emergency. Certainly, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from doing that. If a President abuses this authority, Congress still have the power to impeach him and convict him, hence removing him from office.

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

Well misdemeanors do have a definition, but I don't know if there is a legal definition for high crimes. You are correct, the Congress may try it anyway, but Piglosi herself said she's not anxious to exercise impeachment unless it's a good enough reason. She may get her girdle in a bunch, but I don't think she'd get pissed off enough to try an impeachment over a wall.

not over a wall but

conspiracy to defraud the united states
obstruction of justice
witness tampering
witness intimidation
violating the emoluments clause
dereliction of duty
abuse of power

might do it. however, impeachment starts with jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee.

 

[ph3iron]

I think it will happen because democrats hate american values

Medicare and SS are devilish.
Keep the gov out of my Medicare as the trump gal said
Sucking off them darlin?

 

[kyzr]

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

The president has very broad powers to declare emergencies
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg1255.pdf

You are talking about statutes. They do not take precedence over the Constitution.

Please link to the article of the Constitution that specifically covers national emergencies.
If you can't, then you can stop posting bullshit.

 

[playtime]

Unfortunately this is correct. The Dems will not negotiate in good faith in the next 3 weeks because they lack any real integrity. Trump will have to declare a national emergency in which case the SCOTUS will ultimately decide just like they did on the Obamacare mandate.

The only thing the court can do (legally) is decide whether he used proper procedure or not. If he does (and I"m sure his team will) they really can't stop Trump because there is no definition of a national emergency--only procedural processes.

he has to justify the reasoning. one problem that he will run into is the amount of time. he had 2 years to push it thru. he never really tried to do that...

Where does it say he has to justify the reason? To whom?

america, congress, the courts............... he is 'president' of the US , not dear leader of NK.

Okay, where in the law does it say he has to get approval from Congress or the courts? I don't see that.

i'm talking about the concept that the vast majority of public opinion & judicial opinion & congressional opinion against such a thing should carry weight with the 'president' of this country. not just what a rw tranny & oxy laden draft dodging radio talker has to say.

 

[playtime]

correct. & if they decide his 'national emergency' really isn't - based on constitutional law --- like his abuse of power --- then that will be that, won't it? & he might even be gone by the time the courts decide anyhow.

There is no constitutional law when it comes to declaring a national emergency. It was a law passed by Congress many years ago that gave the President (not Congress, not the court) explicit power to decide what an emergency was. As long as Trump did it by the procedure outlined in the law, there is nothing a court can do. The law did not give the power to the courts to decide what an emergency was--only a President.

oh so if he said he wanted to declare a national emergency based on his very real belief that mars IS attacking, then he can?

Legally, yes he can. The law has no oversight on what a President is allowed to declare an emergency. Democrats may be able to remove him from office because he lost his mind, but not because what he declares an emergency.

republicans wouldn't join in on the straight jacket thing?

I forgot now what the name of the proceedings were called, so I don't know how it would be exercised since it's never been done before (I don't think). I would guess Congress would have to lead the way.

25th Amendment

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only thing the court can do (legally) is decide whether he used proper procedure or not. If he does (and I"m sure his team will) they really can't stop Trump because there is no definition of a national emergency--only procedural processes.

he has to justify the reasoning. one problem that he will run into is the amount of time. he had 2 years to push it thru. he never really tried to do that...

Where does it say he has to justify the reason? To whom?

america, congress, the courts............... he is 'president' of the US , not dear leader of NK.

Okay, where in the law does it say he has to get approval from Congress or the courts? I don't see that.

i'm talking about the concept that the vast majority of public opinion & judicial opinion & congressional opinion against such a thing should carry weight with the 'president' of this country. not just what a rw tranny & oxy laden draft dodging radio talker has to say.

No matter what a President does or says, he will always have critics. So what? If he doesn't declare a national emergency he's going to have harsh critics anyway, just different ones.