Dangers of a Trump Presidency--Part 7

FiveRinger

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,128
Last I heard, he wouldn't say whether or not he would sign the agreement. What's the point of keeping it a secret?
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
47,513
I heard on msnbc that he is likely to sign the agreement to avoid a shut down, but he is likely to either take some kind of executive action or declare national emergency later. His lawyer traveled with him to El Paso. Speculation is that he was looking into the legality of such a plan.

Another guess is that he is creating suspense,
like a reality TV show. There is also a possibility that he wants to see the reaction on Fox News. It is a shame that important decisions are being made by a TV network.
 
Last edited:

BittyBug

And the band played on
Messages
21,686
I have seen various reports that the spending bill that was finalized last night includes prohibitions against building any border walls within specified sensitive environmental areas, including the Butterfly Center and the Santa Ana refuge. However, it seems to stiff private landowners in the Rio Grand Valley. I suppose they can launch challenges against eminent domain, and maybe some activist groups will step in to help them do that, but I'm sure they feel royally screwed.

Also screwed in the deal are government contractors - no back pay for them, at least for the moment.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,131
I haven't seen anything about it but have my fingers crossed that the National Butterfly Center will be exempted. It is private land so that is notable. Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge was exempted from last year's appropriations for not-Trumps-wall.

There are state parks which are also in the line of where the not-Trumps-wall is planned and likely to be given additional funding in this agreement.

There is a political victory in saying it is not Trump's wall but the practical difference is nil.

ETA: I think Dems will keep fighting for the back pay for contractors after this deal goes through.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,131
Agree but I feel badly for all of those people.
Oh its terrible. They are no different from government workers, just that they get paid by private companies who are paid by the government. They faced all the same circumstances and don't know if they'll ever get their back pay. Obviously they have bills to pay now and hope for legislation down the road doesn't pay them. :(
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,209
I haven't seen anything about it but have my fingers crossed that the National Butterfly Center will be exempted. It is private land so that is notable. Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge was exempted from last year's appropriations for not-Trumps-wall.

There are state parks which are also in the line of where the not-Trumps-wall is planned and likely to be given additional funding in this agreement.

There is a political victory in saying it is not Trump's wall but the practical difference is nil.

ETA: I think Dems will keep fighting for the back pay for contractors after this deal goes through.
How about trump's "not wall"
 

Buzz

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,115
I hope private land owners fight the Trump administration in court which will tie up the proposed wall until hopefully a new administration comes in and cancels it.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
47,513
The Senate has passed the anti-lynching bill (again). https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1096094235323977728

I doubt that it won't pass the House. Hopefully, Trump will sign it.
Depends on what Fox News says, right? :)

About the land/wall/property issue- Rachel had talked about a very old church in Texas that would become a part of Mexico if the wall was built. The people there were quite upset because the church provided them with a quiet place to pray.
 

Reuven

Official FSU Alte Kacher
Messages
15,385
Trump claimed again that the wall is being built. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-says-immigrants-would-have-be-able-climb-mt-everest-n971271/?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

("The wall is very, very on its way"? That doesn't sound like anything I learned in school :shuffle:)
And his slack-jawed, brain-dead cultists will believe it. In fact, I urge him to say the wall is complete, claim victory. That way we don't have to build the damn thing, his cult will believe it's there.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,131
The Guardian just now

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell just announced on the Senate floor that President Donald Trump will sign the government funding bill but will also immediately declare a national emergency in order to try to build a border wall at the same time.
Moronic.

ETA: from CNN
I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated that he's prepared to sign the bill. He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. And I've indicated to him that I'm going to prepare -- I'm going to support the national emergency declaration. So for all of my colleagues, the President will sign the bill. We'll be voting on it shortly."
McConnell knows perfectly well there is no emergency. What a dangerous road to go down.
 
Last edited:

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,081
How quickly can the House pass a resolution to end the emergency again? That's how soon they should do it! Trump should also be swamped with lawsuits the second he utters the words.

ETA: What scares me the most about a national emergency is all the other laws he has access to. What if he decides to invoke (some of) them?
 
Last edited:

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,131
The National Emergency is a limited process defined by previous legislation. It doesn't enable him to go beyond that.

But to overturn it would require the House and Senate to pass a resolution and presumably to vote to override a veto so its not likely.

Declaring a National Emergency is not declaring a state of emergency, the latter does not exist in US law.
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
29,363
Oh its terrible. They are no different from government workers, just that they get paid by private companies who are paid by the government. They faced all the same circumstances and don't know if they'll ever get their back pay. Obviously they have bills to pay now and hope for legislation down the road doesn't pay them. :(
I was a government contractor once. My contract said I didn't get paid if I didn't work. I had no vacation days or holidays and my sick leave was at the discretion of my manager (who was insane and belonged to some cult that thought people only get sick if they were weak minded). Many contractors do get paid for holidays and some even get vacation days. It depends on the contract.

So the issue here is that these people were furloughed and didn't work. If they were told to work without pay, then they would get back-pay because they worked but if they didn't work, and their contract says they only get paid if they work, there is nothing to pay them for because that's how being a contractor works.

I think Congress might be able to get around this somehow but I'm not sure how.

I hope private land owners fight the Trump administration in court which will tie up the proposed wall until hopefully a new administration comes in and cancels it.
Aren't there some eminent domain cases winding through the courts from the 80s? If so, I think that's very likely.

I am not against barriers in places that it makes sense to put them. I don't think they do a lot of good without cameras / drones and people to respond to incidents but it can make life easier for border patrol to not have access in a few places be quite so easy. But my understanding is that most, if not all, of the places that it makes sense to have walls already have them. And it makes no sense to have 2000 miles of continuous wall including through terrain that is barely accessible or has a river as the border (the river is a wall in that case).

What I'm trying to say is that there very well may be 55 miles somewhere that could use a wall without causing great harm and might even do some good. I doubt there is as much as 200 though and there definitely isn't 2000.

P.S. Just saw that about the National emergency. Looks like I'll be on a street corner protesting soon....
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,081
The National Emergency is a limited process defined by previous legislation. It doesn't enable him to go beyond that.
According to this, what he can do is bad enough. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/


But to overturn it would require the House and Senate to pass a resolution and presumably to vote to override a veto so its not likely.
But it will force Republicans' hands. It's easy to say one thing. But when they have to go on record it might be a different thing altogether.


ETA: But I do want to hear the administration explain how they can wait for two months before declaring the emergency to be an emergency and why he signed the bill without funding in the first place if it's an emergency. Also, how they'll explain away the statistics that say that it's not an emergency.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,131
That article is talking about extreme cases where the president already doesn't feel any constraints. Its highly inflammatory.



But it will force Republicans' hands. It's easy to say one thing. But when they have to go on record it might be a different thing altogether.
They won't vote against Trump in numbers sufficient to override a veto, unless they think he is really going to go out of control and I don't think that is the situation.


ETA: But I do want to hear the administration explain how they can wait for two months before declaring the emergency to be an emergency and why he signed the bill without funding in the first place if it's an emergency. Also, how they'll explain away the statistics that say that it's not an emergency.
Its such crap!!! This is the biggest joke, except its not a joke. It is the president overriding democratic process by falsely claiming emergency. It nullifies the decision of the Congress not to fund the wall.

And it sets a precedent of creating a process where for Congress to have a say it will have to go through the process of trying to vote down a national emergency declaration basically requiring the 2/3 vote Congress to have any authority.

If this precendent became regular practice (and why wouldn't it? A Democratic president may want to pass National Health Insurance or Climate change action that they will figure if Trump could have his wall, they are justified in using the process), it would downgrade Congress to no longer being a co-equal branch.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,081
That article is talking about extreme cases where the president already doesn't feel any constraints. Its highly inflammatory.
Trump is currently preparing to attack the constitutional process. And instead of doing their constitutional duty and threatening to remove him if he does, Republicans are encouraging him. So, if he decides to use any of the provisions who is going to stop him?
I think it's safe to assume that he doesn't feel constrained.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,131
Trump is currently preparing to attack the constitutional process. And instead of doing their constitutional duty and threatening to remove him if he does, Republicans are encouraging him. So, if he decides to use any of the provisions who is going to stop him?
I think it's safe to assume that he doesn't feel constrained.
He's following a process set out in legislation. He's misusing it by claiming an emergency where there is none, so yes he's starting down a road to violating the constitution but I don't think it is immediate. But yes, it needs to stopped now before it does go there.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,081
If this precendent became regular practice (and why wouldn't it? A Democratic president may want to pass National Health Insurance or Climate change action that they will figure if Trump could have his wall, they are justified in using the process),
Considering what climate change is doing if no action is taking, they'd probably be justified one way or another.

That said, I wish they wouldn't do it even if Trump sets the precedent precisely because it would downgrade Congress and the checks and balances. No President should ever rule by national emergency. Instead of invoking it, Democrats should make sure that it can't be abused in the future. Otherwise, no one knows where it'll lead but I doubt it'll lead to anything good in the longterm.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
47,513
And his slack-jawed, brain-dead cultists will believe it. In fact, I urge him to say the wall is complete, claim victory. That way we don't have to build the damn thing, his cult will believe it's there.
The Emperor’s new wall?
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,131
A national emergency should be used if we are militarily attacked or there is an outbreak of a dangeously contagious disease. Things where there needs to be immediate action.

Climate change, health care, political symbols of hate like Trump's wall, none of these qualify.
 
Last edited:

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,081
Climate change, health care, political symbols of hate like Trump's wall, none of these qualify.
I see climate change as a threat to our existence and time's running out. We may not be there yet but soon, we are at a point when we either need to take immediate action or no matter what we do, it won't matter anymore. That's why I consider climate change more of a national emergency than anything else. But that's just in comparison. As I said, no President on either side should ever rule by national emergency or invoke one to get what they want and Democrats should take the high road and not follow precedent but rather close all loopholes.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,131
The national emergency legislation should only be invoked when immediate action is necessary--immediate as in not next month, but within 24 hours. Bush invoked it on 9/11. Obama invoked it in regard to the swine flu. Of course, in neither of those cases was a nationwide mobilization needed, but the president needed to move resources quickly to respond.

I think we can pretty easily all agree when immediate action is needed and its very infrequent.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,131
As always Nancy Pelosi rocks:

Pelosi told reporters that Republicans should “have some dismay about the door that they’re opening” should they endorse Trump’s expected emergency declaration to fund his U.S.-Mexico barrier. She noted that a Democratic president could call the gun control epidemic claiming thousands of lives every year an emergency — a pointed threat on an issue Republicans hold dear: gun rights.

“You want to talk about an national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said, referring to the Parkland, Fla., shooting that left more than a dozen high school students dead. “That’s a national emergency …. A Democratic president could do that.”


She added: “So the precedent that the president is setting here should be met with unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-warns-trump-republicans-against-emergency-declaration-on-border-funding/2019/02/14/cf6f492c-3099-11e9-86ab-5d02109aeb01_story.html?utm_term=.403538496061
 

PrincessLeppard

Holding Alex Johnson's Pineapple
Messages
26,243
Nebraska farmers killed the Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska. They filed numerous imminent domain lawsuits and just tied it all up in court.

And then they all went and voted for Trump.

Le sigh.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 6, Guests: 9)

Top