Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Iznogoud

What is Wrong With the United State?

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Iznogoud said:

Typical stupid answer, but once again a complete failure to address the topic.  But here, I'll give you a chance.  Refute just one of these problems.

 

The topic has been addressed at the state and federal level for decades, with inspections and risk protocols already in place.   They don't need your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019 at 3:57 PM, Boges said:

Really? so it hasn't been floated that Trump could declare an Emergency and use DOD funding to get a wall built. 

You'd think it'd get challenged in court immediately but many seem to think that's the only way out of this issue. 

No he can't. There are no "emergency powers" in the constitution that would enable him to make laws without the permission of Congress. The only real emergency powers he can use are for natural disasters, and the authority to execute those powers lie, not with the federal government, but with the governor of the affected state. Trump can try, but he has no authority to do so.

Unfortunately, this thread seems to have drifted into the territory of personality conflicts (by the way...)

Edited by JamesHackerMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The authority "to unilaterally order military action in defense of the United States pursuant to a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces" is under;

Joint Resolution

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President

7 November 1973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of the War Powers Act 1973, but I wasn't aware that immigrants hopping over the fence to come into the U.S. counted as an "attack upon the United States." Maybe Trump might think so, and maybe you're right about him trying to bend its purpose, but the courts, as you pointed out, could reverse such a decision. There have been several executive orders by the president that were shot down by federal courts. It was my understanding that the Act related only to war powers, not a perceived (or trumped-up) National "emergency".

I was under the impression that the Act was meant to LIMIT the president's ability to unilaterally make war or use the military, not ENABLE him to go further. It was, after all, passed after Vietnam war officially ended, likely in response to the hubbub over the Tonkin incident.

Edited by JamesHackerMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article Two, Section 2, Clause 1 "The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and the Navy"

So, in 1973, the Joint Resolution of Congress gave the authority to respond to an imminent threat.

Then, the Article Two CinC authority imparts the President with the mandate to decide what is a threat and what is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I was under the impression that the Act was meant to LIMIT the president's ability to unilaterally make war or use the military, not ENABLE him to go further. It was, after all, passed after Vietnam war officially ended, likely in response to the hubbub over the Tonkin incident.

 

True, but the WPA was carefully written to not impede a president's immediate responsibility and duty to engage threats to U.S. or allied interests while limiting the duration of such action without review by Congress.  

The U.S. already has a previous history with "attacks" from Mexico (e.g. Pancho Villa ) in the early 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but Congress was given the power to actually declare war AND make peace. It's just that after Korea and Vietnam, Congress got fed up what with those two wars being started without a proper declaration of war, or congressional consent of some sort, which is how it is SUPPOSED to work, according to the constitution. Do you have a copy of the War Powers act handy? I'd be interested to read the exact language used in the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

True, but the WPA was carefully written to not impede a president's immediate responsibility and duty to engage threats to U.S. or allied interests while limiting the duration of such action without review by Congress.  

The U.S. already has a previous history with "attacks" from Mexico (e.g. Pancho Villa ) in the early 20th century.

I admit that presidents have abused the original intent of the constitution over the years. I'm not arguing with that. The Act was meant to clear that up somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I admit that presidents have abused the original intent of the constitution over the years. I'm not arguing with that. The Act was meant to clear that up somewhat.

 

Since 1973, Congress has demanded little more than a supporting resolution for major actions by presidents, and even less for the covert stuff (just briefings for the Armed Forces and Intelligence committees).   As you know, it is all part of the historical tension between Executive and Congressional branches of government, tilting a president's way for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Since 1973, Congress has demanded little more than a supporting resolution for major actions by presidents, and even less for the covert stuff (just briefings for the Armed Forces and Intelligence committees).   As you know, it is all part of the historical tension between Executive and Congressional branches of government, tilting a president's way for now.

Well if it's covert you can't really tell 535 members of congress and expect them to keep their mouths shut, lol.

OK, my mistake, I'm obviously wrong.

Edited by JamesHackerMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Well if it's covert you can't really tell 535 members of congress and expect them to keep their mouths shut. My mistake, I'm obviously wrong.

 

That's a good superficial reason, but in reality there is a standing expectation that the president continue to exercise the duties of his office, including the use of military power that the Congress has openly (and not so openly) funded.    It is more difficult to hide such things today,  and we still have "hawks" and "doves" in D.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JamesHackerMP said:

OK.

But I'm still not clear on something. How could he use that to build the wall?

 

He could declare a national emergency and use the military to guard/augment border security, including barrier engineering and construction.

Congress could challenge the president, but it is not clear they would win a Supreme Court showdown.

Hence the funding battle currently underway...Congress' only real power on the ground.

The money Trump is asking for right now isn't much more than a rounding error in the total federal budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Yes, but Congress was given the power to actually declare war AND make peace. It's just that after Korea and Vietnam, Congress got fed up what with those two wars being started without a proper declaration of war, or congressional consent of some sort, which is how it is SUPPOSED to work, according to the constitution. Do you have a copy of the War Powers act handy? I'd be interested to read the exact language used in the resolution.

Since the inception of international law and the laws of armed conflict, the only declaration of war to be made is under the Hague Convention, but was not required for action in Korea which was United Nations Chapter 7 Resolution use of force, America was leading the UN force, but it was not declaring war on Korea, nor even China.

Vietnam was Gulf of Tonkin resolution in aid to allied Republic of Vietnam, but again, not declaring war on Vietnam therein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gulf War - UNSC resolution

Yugoslavia - UNSC resolution

Afghanistan - UN Article 51

Iraq War - Gulf War UNSC resolution failure to comply with terms of surrender

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 11:31 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The topic has been addressed at the state and federal level for decades, with inspections and risk protocols already in place.   They don't need your input.

Interesting these problems have been discussed, but nothing has been done about them.  Sort of proves a couple of my points doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Iznogoud said:

Interesting these problems have been discussed, but nothing has been done about them.  Sort of proves a couple of my points doesn't it?

 

No, it proves nothing.   The United States isn't more or less "wrong" because it has or has not maintained its infrastructure to your liking, just like any other nation.

U.S. federal, state, and local jurisdictions fund projects based on many different criteria and priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

United States Army Corps of Engineers.

I meant legally. Not how to actually build the thing, lol. But Bush-Cheney answered that question.

Certainly such a move would be terribly controversial. 

Edited by JamesHackerMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

?

I don't find it controversial when the Executive defies the Legislature by exercising every constitutional authority available, just as the Legislature can do and does, that's how America is supposed to work, what's the controversy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I meant legally. Not how to actually build the thing, lol. But Bush-Cheney answered that question.

Certainly such a move would be terribly controversial. 

I don't know, consider the tone of the times. We're in a classic wag-the-dog moment - a near rogue shit disturbing President with the hounds closing in.  If he can see fit to declare a national emergency over an amount of money that's equal to a rounding error in the rest of the country's budget imagine how far he might go in the face of a galvanizing event al la 9/11?  I doubt suspending Congress or putting future elections on hold would be any more controversial to lots of people.

They'll still be cheering and lining up to get their MAGA hats autographed.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't find it controversial when the Executive defies the Legislature by exercising every constitutional authority available, just as the Legislature can do and does, that's how America is supposed to work, what's the controversy?

His abuse of power will be controversial. What did you think I meant??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...