Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emergencies Do Not Trump the Constitution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Emergencies Do Not Trump the Constitution

    Emergencies Do Not Trump the Constitution
    By Ron Paul
    Ron Paul Institute
    February 26, 2019

    After Congress rejected President Trump’s request for 5.7 billion dollars for the border wall, the president declared a national emergency at the southern border. Present Trump claims this “emergency” gives him the authority to divert funds appropriated for other purposes to building the border wall.

    President Trump’s emergency declaration is not just an end run around Congress. It is an end run around the Constitution. Article One of the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to allocate federal funds.

    While President Trump’s order may be a particularly blatant abuse of power, it is hardly unprecedented. Most modern presidents have routinely used so-called national emergencies to expand their power, often at the expense of liberty. For example, Present Franklin Delano Roosevelt used “emergency powers” to justify internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two.

    President Trump, like other recent presidents, is relying on the 1976 National Emergencies Act for legal justification for his emergency declaration. This act gives the president broad powers to declare national emergencies for almost any reason. All the president need do is inform Congress he has declared an emergency. Once the emergency is declared, the president simply needs to renew the declaration once a year to maintain a state of emergency. Since this act passed, 59 emergency declarations have been issued, with 31 of those still in effect.

    Another statute giving the president broad “emergency” powers is the Defense Production Act. Under this law, the president can force private businesses to produce goods for the military. The law also enables the president to impose wage and price controls and even make loans to private businesses. All a president need do to invoke these vast powers is submit “findings” to Congress that “national security” requires the president seize near-dictatorial control of certain industries or even the entire economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, some presidents have invoked the Defense Production Act without making the required findings to Congress, and the act has been used to justify federal interference in areas having little or nothing to do with national defense.

    Section 606(c) of the Communications Act gives the president “emergency” power to seize control of every television network, radio station, smartphone, laptop, and other electronic devices.

    Emergency powers are not the only means by which presidents violate the Constitution. The 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF), which only authorizes the president to use force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks, has been used to justify military interventions that have no relationship to those attacks. The 2001 AUMF has been used to justify mass surveillance, indefinite detention, and even “kill lists.” Fortunately, Representative John Garamendi has introduced the Walter B. Jones Restoring Power to Congress Act that would pay tribute to a true champion of peace by repealing the 2001 AUMF.

    Many neoconservatives and progressives who defended prior presidents’ abuses of power are critical of President Trump’s emergency declaration. These “never-Trumpers” will no doubt resume their love affair with the imperial presidency when the Oval Office is again occupied by someone who shares their agenda.

    This week, the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution terminating President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency. Hopefully, this precedent will be used against all future presidents who use spurious claims of national emergencies to expand their powers and shrink our liberties.
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  • #2
    Mark Levin, Constitutional Expert:
    'I Don't Need Lectures on the Constitution': Levin Blasts Congressional Opponents of Trump Nat'l Emergency Declaration
    https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/03/...mergencies-act

    "Life, Liberty & Levin" host Mark Levin said Saturday that the National Emergencies Act, among other statutes, give President Trump the power to declare a national emergency on the border and react accordingly.

    During a CPAC forum moderated by his wife, attorney Julie Strauss Levin, Mark said that the Act, introduced by former Rep. Peter Rondino (D-N.J.) and signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976, has been utilized "over 50 times by presidents of both parties."

    "There are parts I don't like, but so what, that's the statute," Levin said. The event was streamed on Fox Nation.

    He said that Trump also has authority over financial levers that integrate with powers given to him by the Act.

    Levin blasted Democrats for trying to stop Trump's actions, and singled out three top Republicans who are siding with them.

    "I dont need lectures from [Sens.] Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) or Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) about the Constitution," Levin, a Constitutional attorney and former Reagan DOJ official said.

    "I don't need lectures from the phony experts that you put on your cable shows," he said, addressing the media in the back of the room in National Harbor, Md.

    Levin said Democrats' threats to use the Act to institute gun control are hollow, because no statute can "change the Second Amendment."

    "That same bill of rights that protects [the media] protects us too," he said.

    I repeat: "He said that Trump also has authority over financial levers that integrate with powers given to him by the Act. Levin blasted Democrats for trying to stop Trump's actions, and singled out three top Republicans who are siding with them. "I dont need lectures from [Sens.] Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) or Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) about the Constitution," Levin, a Constitutional attorney and former Reagan DOJ official said. "I don't need lectures from the phony experts that you put on your cable shows," he said, addressing the media in the back of the room in National Harbor, Md.

    I would add that this forum doesn't not need anti-Trump falsehoods from false conservatives in this forum. Trump is 100% withing his rights to do what he is doing. Ron Paul is a has been who never passed one piece of legislation in his life.

    Comment


    • #3
      Trump is in violation of his oath of office that is all you need to know.
      "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
        Trump is in violation of his oath of office that is all you need to know.
        That is an absolutely false statement, plain and simple.
        Last edited by TrumpTrainCA; March 3rd, 2019, 11:22 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
          That is an absolutely false statement, plain and simple.
          Wrong and I like trump. I want him to succeed. But for some reason, he has as aligned himself with liberals disguised as conservatives...

          Here is my observation:

          On the economy, Trump is a Keynesian.

          On foreign policy, he is becoming more neoconservative.

          On social issues, he is liberal, esp. when he deals with homosexuality. Abortion, he is a personhood never guy. He talks a great game, I am open to correcting on this point.

          Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
          The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
            Trump is in violation of his oath of office that is all you need to know.
            Ok, see if that will gain any traction as far as impeachment

            Otherwise, you're just flapping your gums

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by drbrumley View Post
              Wrong and I like trump. I want him to succeed. But for some reason, he has as aligned himself with liberals disguised as conservatives...

              Here is my observation:

              On the economy, Trump is a Keynesian.

              On foreign policy, he is becoming more neoconservative.

              On social issues, he is liberal, esp. when he deals with homosexuality. Abortion, he is a personhood never guy. He talks a great game, I am open to correcting on this point.

              Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
              For the moment lets leave out social issues. He is great on the Life issues, and the other issues are not currently of supreme importance at this time.

              I have heard enough experts on the wall issue say that Trump is NOT violating the constitution here. At the very least, and I am being fair, there is enough of an argument on both sides that it can go to SCOTUS for a decision. But I cannot accept anybody just flat out saying he is violating the constitution. Nobody here is knowledgeable enough to make a flat out absolute statement like that. My money is that he would win with SCOTUS.


              As for economics, his tax policies are very Reaganesque, and they are working wonders, so we should all be happy with that. Same goes for his massive deregulation. As for tariffs, he does not like or dislike tariffs, he just sees them as long overdue against China since China has had them on us for decades, under various disguises. On that I agree.

              As for spending, I would agree that he is not addressing that well, but he has a ton of stuff on his plate, and he needed to get the economy booming first so that people would pay taxes so that the deficit would go down. Congress did not help him much on this issue either.

              But foreign policy? A necon? He is withdrawing troops, not getting us into more wars, so I don't see how you can say that.

              And I think Korea was a success, which I posed about in another thread.

              Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
              ....Let's compare what Trump did to what Obama did.

              Obama gave away truck loads of cash in the middle of the night to the number one terrorist nation in the world, and all he got for it was a fake treaty that was unenforceable.

              But Trump? He did not give away one single thing. Trump DID manage to obtain a few takeaways, getting prisoners returned and stopping nuclear missile testing. Not quite what we wanted but it's something. But what did he give away? Nothing, not a darn thing,

              Unlike the buffoon Obama who gave away the store, Trump gave away nothing and at least got a few things anyway. That makes him a winner. That alone makes this thread ridiculous.

              But let's look at the wider picture and get out of the OP's shallow thinking. Trump is already winning for the upcoming China negotiations. By walking out of the North Korea negotiations he already laid down the marker for China and told them in no unmistakable terms that he will not be satisfied with a few peanuts. He is a man who gets everything he wants or else he walks away, and now China knows it. China is bleeding money right now from every vein thanks to Trump and they need Trump to stop what he is doing. If they come to him with a few little peanuts the negotiations will fail and they know it. Right now we are hurting China in Trump will get what he wants at the China negotiation.

              Smart people are seeing this North Korea visit in The Wider context. Trump is a million moves ahead of never-Trumpers and is already looking at China.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                Ok, see if that will gain any traction as far as impeachment

                Otherwise, you're just flapping your gums
                Lol, the democrats are too stupid to know

                Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
                The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
                  That is an absolutely false statement, plain and simple.
                  Did Trump sign into law a budget that said NO to his border wall? Yes
                  Did Trump then violate his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the balance of powers, by abusing his emergency powers to subvert that law? Yes.
                  Plain and Simple.
                  "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                    Ok, see if that will gain any traction as far as impeachment

                    Otherwise, you're just flapping your gums
                    Sadly that the Congress is willing to shoot itself in the head over party loyalty is true.
                    "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                      Did Trump sign into law a budget that said NO to his border wall? Yes
                      Did Trump then violate his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the balance of powers, by abusing his emergency powers to subvert that law? Yes.
                      Plain and Simple.
                      Apparently you do not seem to understand that THE LAW says he can call this emergency and fund it too. You seem to be in denial about quite a few things, whether it be this issue, or the fact that Democrats now embrace killing babies after they are born.

                      I have no time to discuss things with people who are detached from reality. Such a discussion is pointless since I am arguing against things that does not exist.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
                        Apparently you do not seem to understand that THE LAW says he can call this emergency and fund it too. You seem to be in denial about quite a few things, whether it be this issue, or the fact that Democrats now embrace killing babies after they are born.

                        I have no time to discuss things with people who are detached from reality. Such a discussion is pointless since I am arguing against things that does not exist.
                        I know what the excuse that is being made because the Emergency Powers Act is poorly written.

                        I ask you can the Congress pass a simple law that invalidates the Constitution in part or in whole short of an amendment? No, they cannot.
                        So this excuse is invalid.
                        "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                          I ask you can the Congress pass a simple law that invalidates the Constitution in part or in whole short of an amendment? No, they cannot.
                          sure they can - they do it all the time

                          those are the laws that keep the scotus busy

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                            sure they can - they do it all the time

                            those are the laws that keep the scotus busy
                            Which is the reason we have a SCOTUS.
                            "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                              sure they can - they do it all the time

                              those are the laws that keep the scotus busy
                              That's right, they do....thereby unconstitutional. Dont need 9 black robed Gods to tell the rest of yall.

                              Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
                              The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X