emergency declaration

Trump's Emergency Declaration May Be Legal, but It's an Affront to the Constitution Anyway

It's an attempt to make an end-run around congressional spending authority.

|

Kevin Dietsch/SIPA/Newscom

Today, the House is set to vote on a resolution, drafted by Democrats, to overturn President Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, which Trump put in place after Congress declined to provide $5.7 billion for the construction of hundreds of miles of border wall. The House vote will force the Senate to weigh in on the measure.

Trump has framed the dispute as an argument about border security. He wants a wall, but Congress won't fund it. Yet in many ways, the border wall itself is a secondary issue. This is a constitutional conflict between co-equal branches of government over the nature of the relationship between the executive and the legislature.

To understand what's at stake in these votes, it's worth going back several years to a dispute between House Republicans and the Obama administration over the funding of Obamacare.

That part of the health law called for a series of subsidies to be paid to health insurers. Known as cost-sharing reduction subsidies, these payments were worth billions of dollars each year. But although the law called for these payments to be made, it did not designate any source of funds from which to do so. For that, Congress would need to make an appropriation.

In 2014, the Obama administration's budget requested that appropriation, seemingly acknowledging that an appropriation was necessary. Congress, however, declined to provide it.

The Obama administration decided to pay the subsidies anyway. And House Republicans, in turn, decided to sue. The particulars of the legal argument delved into questions of standing and whether the text of the Affordable Care Act had tacitly created a permanent appropriation to fund the law's tax credits and subsidies. Obamacare proponents argued that there would be negative consequences for the functioning of the law if the subsidies were cut off.

But although the health law was the proximate issue, the core of the case revolved around a larger constitutional question: Can the executive spend money that the legislature has not explicitly appropriated? The House GOP's position was simple: Only Congress has the power of the purse.

In May of 2016, a federal judge sided with the House. "Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer. At the time, Republicans hailed the decision as a victory for bedrock constitutional principles. Then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said the court showed that the Obama administration "overreached by spending taxpayer money without approval from the people's representatives." House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady called Collyer's ruling "a critical step in protecting Congress' power of the purse from an administration that has repeatedly ignored a fundamental principle of our Republic: the separation of powers."

Collyer stayed the decision pending appeal, and the Obama administration kept making the subsidy payments. After the 2016 presidential election, the Trump White House initially did too. But in October 2017, the administration ended the payments, citing the court ruling that the payments "were not lawful."

The details of the debate over Trump's border wall are obviously different. The legal requirements for declaring a state of emergency are sufficiently vague that one can mount a plausible argument that Trump's move is at least tenuously legal. (Although law professor Ilya Somin, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy, makes a strong case that it is not, since the point of a national emergency is to allow the president to respond in the event of a sudden crisis, and whatever your opinion of what's happening at the border, it's not a sudden event.)

But the fundamentals of the dispute are the same: Trump asked Congress for money to fund a presidential priority. Congress declined. And by declaring a state of emergency, Trump is making an end run around Congress in order to spend money that the president is not authorized to spend. Trump's move may or may not be technically unconstitutional, but it is certainly anti-constitutional, a presidential action intended to flout the framers' design.

A handful of Republican lawmakers have offered principled objections to Trump's emergency order, but Republican leaders in Congress have supported the president's move and attempted to quell dissent amongst GOP lawmakers. In doing so, they not only undermine the co-equal authority of their own branch of government, they signal their willingness to back an affront to America's constitutional order in service of cynical partisan gain.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

265 responses to “Trump's Emergency Declaration May Be Legal, but It's an Affront to the Constitution Anyway

    1. He’s a big meanie too!!

      1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
        >>>>>>>>>> http://xurl.es/jobsnet

    2. Heretics, apostates and unbelievers. Our Lord and Savior Donald J Trump shall not be mocked.

      1. Poor open border people lost the vote in the House to end Trump’s Emergency powers to build more border fence.

        1. 229 to 193, not 2/3 of the House to override a Presidential veto.

      2. Brothers and Sisters, Saints and Apostles, Trump is Satan and we must drive this Devil out! – t. Jerryskids

        1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

          click here ======?? http://www.payshd.com

          1. I am making easily persistently $15k to $20k simply by doing direct work at home. Multi month again i have made $45890 from this movement. amazing and smooth to do work and standard pay from this is bewildering. i have propose each final one of you to join this progress right directly as low protection and get than full time salary through take after this association.

            Just Visit Now…… http://www.SalaryHD.Com

      3. “The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media, and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”
        Stephen MIller, Feb 2017
        Hail to victory Steve 🙂

      4. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
        >>>>>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

    3. Suderman has a mad.

      1. “Obamacare May Be Legal…”

        Headlines that Suderman never offered.

        The only question is: Who does he think is still buying the bullshit?

    4. He’s just so….icky that my synapses misfire and I can focus on public policy in a rational way

  1. At least Suderman admits that its legal (Constitutional).

    I have just not been convinced that a Constitutional law that gives the Executive branch the ability to protect the US border, is an affront to the Constitution.

    Letting illegal immigration become the festering gangrenous wound that it is, is the affront to the Constitution. Congress and past Presidents have sat by while illegals have made a joke of our immigration system.

    1. For Suderman, and his ilk, giving TRUMP the unilateral authority to protect the border is an affront.

      1. They cannot concieve of securing the border being a national defense issue.

        1. The question is whether it’s an emergency sufficient to override the basic Constitution, not whether it’s a national defense issue.

          1. No. The question is whether it is an emergency as defined by the Statute. The Constitution doens’t say anything about emergencies. It just says all money that is spent must be approved by Congress. Whether this has been approved by Congress is a question of whether this is an emergency as defined by the statute.

            You people just fucking emote talking points. You can’t think through anything.

            1. Notice these people never bitched about these DoD funds appropriated by Congress September 2018.

              To be fair, many of us did bitch about the size of the defense appropriations for FY2019 but I do not remember a single person saying, hey Congress should never have appropriated those billions for vague drug enforcement, border security, etc that Trump can now use.

              1. And they never bother to notice that Trump said he was going to do this and Congress, had they chosen to, could have inserted language into the last spending bill that preventing him from reprograming money to build a wall. That would have stopped him dead.

                1. They couldn’t do that, because it’s a matter of political survival for many of them to pretend that they aren’t determined to keep the border insecure. Outright prohibiting a wall would have been just too hard to spin as something other than keeping the way open for illegal aliens to enter.

            2. Your argument might not be about unappropriated funds, but mine is, Suderman’s is, and plenty of other people care about it. All you have been doing is answering an unasked question which is not the issue in TFA.

              Fuck off, slaver.

              1. All of the funds at issue here are appropriated funds. The statute in question says the President can use military construction funds to do other things when he declares an emergency. It doesn’t say he can spend money that hasn’t been appropriated.

                All I am doing is explaining to you what is happening here. Make all of the claims you want about the president not being able to spend money unless its appropriated by Congress. I won’t disagree with you. But that will have nothing to do with what is going on here.

                So just admit you didn’t know what you were talking about and move on.

                1. He won’t. Alphabet idiot stays stuck on stupid.

                2. John is always happy to refute your point by answering a completely unrelated question.

                  1. Poor McGoop troll.

                    Scripted to protect other Reason staff sock puppets.

              2. “fuck off slaver”

                Who says irony is dead?

              3. Hello! Trump is CIC. He can assign military funds within reason :-b to whatever he wants. Waves of thousands of South Americans heading for our border is an emergency, so thank you Mr. President for securing my border, your fulfillment of your executive branch powers is much appreciated!

            3. And Congress, in various laws, allowed for money already appropriated to be shifted in case of emergency. Given the vagueness of the emergency statute, its likely the declaration itself is legal; therefore any exercise of other statues that permit monies to be redirected is probably also legal.

              Not saying his declaration wasn’t idiotic, “to be sure”.

            4. The money has already been approved by congress. It’s too late to complain about how this money is spent in defence of the country. There can be no better use of defence funds than to shore up and protect the border of your country.
              When you compare Trumps use of the defence budget spending to Obama’s.
              Obama used the DOD to invade Syria and destroy a large part of the M.E. Trump uses the same funds to actual DEFEND America’s borders.
              Exactly who is using these funds for the purpose they are supposed to be used for.
              Congress has no more say since they have already signed off on the defence bill.
              The only argument now is how those funds are used, and that is down to the Executive branch.
              It amazes me how anyone in congress can complain about Trump building a wall to defend the border, but are more than happy to allow Obama to start several wars in the M.E., an action which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the defence of America. It’s called the Department of Defence, not the Department of War.

              1. Well said. If he used the money to carpet bomb Syria, these same democrats wouldn’t be bitching.

                Fuck them.

                Build the wall

                No more illegals.

          2. The question of interpreting if it is sufficient to qualify as a national emergency is at the discretion of the executive.

            1. There’s also this. US v Bishop, 1976. Not sure if it has any potential to be binding.

              “In 1976, a new National Emergencies Act ended all previous proclamations, although not before the Court wrote:

              “A national emergency must be based on conditions beyond the ordinary. Otherwise, it has no meaning. The power of the Soviet Union in world affairs does not justify placing the United States in a constant state of national emergency.”

              1. One simply has to look at the declared emergencies that are still in effect to realize that immediacy and urgency are simply not part of the requirements.

              2. A non sequitur, but I sure miss the good old Evil Empire days!

              3. You make our point for us. It isn’t ordinary for multiple caravans to continually bring groups of,thousands of people illegally across our border.

                Glad you’re finally on board Jizzboy.

                1. Glad to be in your good graces, Shitstain.

        2. Their mere existence of foreigners in the world is a national defense issue. If we don’t have the political will to bomb Canada then at least we can build a bubble around ourselves to keep their whiteness and (indigenous peoples) out!

        3. Article One is all about the legislative branch. Section 8 item 15 assigns to Congress the duty “to provide for the calling forth of the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”

          Congress must have funded our military, and for the purposes stated above.
          Article Two is all about the “executive”, or president, Section two starts out by stating “he (president) shall be the Commander in CHief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when called into the sactual service of the United States;

          Looks like Congress have provided for the military (since we HAVE one), part of whose job it is to repel invasions. This madness on the southern border IS nothing less than invasion. Unauthorised individuals and groups are entering our sovereign territory without complying with the laws enacted by Congress regarding entry and residence. The President does not even NEED to resort to “emergency powers” to perform his designated function as Commander in Chief of that military.

          Sorry kids, (no, not really) but Mr. Trump IS about doing his assigned job, as promised during his campaign and his oath of office. Remove his power under “emergency powers act”, and he STILL is obligated to deploy military to repel invasions.

          1. “Unauthorised individuals and groups are entering our sovereign territory without complying with the laws enacted by Congress regarding entry and residence.”

            Why do you neglect the fact that these groups are actually complying with federal and international law by claiming asylum?

            1. Many are not. Also, there is a correct legal process for claiming asylum, and that involves presenting yourself at a legal point of entry, not just illegally crossing the border and claiming asylum when you get caught. America will not turn anyone away. The only reason anyone crosses the border illegally is to hide within the country and attempt to get work. When you have a situation where the same person is getting deported 3/4 times and still keeps getting in, then you know you have a problem.
              If a prisoner keeps repeatedly escaping from jail, then you review your security procedures and improve the walls and prison guard numbers.
              You do not do, as stupid Beto suggested’ and tear down the wall. What a complete moron

              1. “Many are not” but the vast majority of them are. So the defensive process, still compliant with federal law and requires an individual to actually set foot on American soil to claim asylum is not correct? I’m glad we have individuals like yourself on here to educate us on asylum laws and procedures!

                http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

            2. I can claim that the money, I took from the bank, at gunpoint, was an authorized withdrawal. It doesn’t make it so.
              These invaders are nowhere near qualified to request asylum, according to federal and international law – that’s why the vast majority of them are rejected, and the ones that aren’t are being getting very liberal interpretations.

            3. Nobody cares that they comply with the laws you are talking about.

              If I comply with ‘no rape’ laws while murdering you, there is no sensible reason to talk about the laws that I AM complying with. “What a great guy, didn’t even rape that guy while he hacked his head off, swell chap”.

              The only relevant part is criminality. If some is occurring that is relevant.

              For issues where law-breaking isn’t relevant, bringing up the issue is a redherring. It is fake news propaganda.

              Are you evil or retarded?

      2. For Suderman, and his ilk , giving TRUMP the unilateral authority to protect protecting the border is an affront.”

        1. That about covers it.

    2. *This* is not what you claim it is.

      The legal requirements for declaring a state of emergency are sufficiently vague that one can mount a plausible argument that Trump’s move is at least tenuously legal.

      1. Yes it is. And it is within Congress’ power to give the exectutive that kind of leeway in spending appropriated money. The Constitution only says money must be appropriated by Congress. It doesn’t say Congress has to specify the purpose it is to be used. Congress could pass a budget that said “3 trillion dollars is appropriated this year for the President to use as he likes” and it would be valid under the Constitution. So this issue is about statutory interpretation. It has nothing to do with the Consititution. Those who say it does are either lying or fucking morons who don’t undestand what they are talking about.

        1. +1000

        2. No, that statement is incompatible with “At least Suderman admits that its legal (Constitutional).”. If you can’t see that clear a distinction, why would any of the rest of your ramblings carry any weight?

          1. I am claiming this is legal. There is nothing incompatable about it at all. What the hell are you talking about?

            1. Alphabet troll and his friends have lost this issue. The border fence is being extended as we speak.

              The madder it gets, the more the troll train derails into insanity.

              1. The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets. Hulk is the strongest one of all!

                In their case, the madder progtards get, the dumber progtards get. Progtards are the dumbest ones of all!

    3. At least Suderman admits that its legal (Constitutional).

      I’m not so sure. It says “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

      Nowhere “herein” (namely in Section 8) does it expressly grant Congress the legislative power to delegate away its legislative power.

      You could argue that it’s “necessary and proper” to tell the executive that they can make new laws as they see fit, but has that ever been disputed in the federal/supreme court?

      1. This isn’t legislateive power. This is Congress allowing the President to change the purpose of previously appropriated money. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress must specifiy the purpose for which money is appropriated. It only says congress must appropriate it before it can be spent. Yes, Congress does specifiy the purpose and it has the power but it is not required by the Constitution to do so. Therefore, it can give that authority back to the President as it sees fit, which is what it did when it passed the emergency statute.

        This debate is about whether Trump is violating the statute. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

        1. And CONGRESS have specifically assigned the authority to determine WHO may enter our sovereign territory and on what basis. I believe that law was enacted about 1965 or so. Congress have authority to establish a uniform rule on naturalisation, that is, how a non-citizen resident can become a citizen. Part of that process is GETTING HERE in the first place. Congress have assigned that part of their job to President. The bogus two bit lower courts that never had any jurisdiction to take up these cases have wrongly attempted to deny Mr. Trump that specifically assigned power. Securing our borders is part of that… we cannot control WHO enters without first raising a barrier to entry for all, and then allowing entry only those who are qualified to enter. Letting everyone in at will prevents raising any conditions to entry.

  2. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. So by definition something that is legal cannot be an affront to the Constitution. If this violates the Constitution, it isn’t legal. If it doens’t, then it isn’t an affront to the Constitution whatever that means.

    Like every argument about immigration both sides of this argument are talking past each other. Whether you think this is a proper action or not depends on whether you think border security is a national defense issue or not. Imagine if Trump used this authority to build homeless shelters because he considered homelessness to be a national security issue. That would be I think by anyone’s estimation absurd and a clear abuse of power. On the other hand, if Trump used this authority to build an airbase on the Mexican border to stop incursions of hostile aircraft, I don’t think anyone could reasonably say he was abusing the authority.

    So whether you think this is an abuse comes down to whether you think buildign a wall on the border is closer to building homeless shelters and completely outside of any national defense concern or closer to building airstrips to stop hostile aircraft and undeniably a natonal defense concern.

    1. If the security and defense of our national borders are not national defense issues, then nothing is, period.

      1. Correct. And the fact that they don’t think it is shows that they don’t recogonize national sovereighnty and puts lie to any claim they make denying they are for totally open borders.

    2. This is not a question of borders. It is a question of violating the Constitution’s appropriations diktat. Your shifts do not change the core argument.

      1. The Congress did appropriate the money. The question is whether this fits into the appropriation law as it is written. And that depends on whether this is national defense and whether this is an emergency. And those two things are defined by the statute not the Constitution.

        You really have no clue even what the issues are in this case. Just type ORANGE MAN BAD!! next time. It will easier to type and be no less relevent to the debate than what you are saying.

        1. Appropriation is for both an amount and a purpose. Repurposing an appropriation is up to Congress, not the President,

          1. Yes, And Congress in this case gave the President the authority to repurpose the money. It can do that under the Constitution. The only issue is whether this is appropriate under the statute. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

            1. You’re wasting your time. He’s just going to engage in more circular logic and ignore what you said. Kind of like a slightly less retarded version of wat Little Jeffy does.

      2. 10 U.S. Code ? 2808 – Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency

        a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

        1. “Citing relevant law so racist!”

      3. Your argument eliminates an invading army as a example of an emergency or even a security issue. Hence it fails prima facie.

    3. Trump played the other side like a fiddle.

      He needed Congress to appropriate at least $1 to a border fence. This assured his position that even Congress agrees that border security is important enough to appropriate money. He knew that they would cave on border fence funding if he kept the federal government shutdown. 35 days is all it took.

    4. 0blama never even tried to claim rewarding the DACAsses was a national security issue, and didn’t bother with a declaration of emergency before he re-purposed funds for the administration, record-keeping and issuance of work permits that exceeded his phony claim of invoking blanket “prosecutorial discretion” by EO.

  3. What this argument reveals is that the people who are outraged by this just cannot concieve of border security being a national defense issue. And those who are not can. The difference of opinion really has nothing to do with one’s view of the exectutive or the Constitution. People are just claiming it does because it makes them feel righeous and they don’t really understand their own position.

    1. What your comment reveals is that you cannot rebut the real argument of whether Congress’s power of the purse can be overridden by the President.

      1. Congress approrpiated the money and created a means by which its purpose could be changed. This isn’t violating their appropriations power. The money was already appropriated you fucking moron.

        1. +100

        2. No, Congress did not, and the Constitution doesn’t allow that.

          1. Yes Congress does. Read the emergency statute. Now you can claim that what Trump is doing is not consistent with the statute. But what you can’t claim is that what he is doing violates the Constitution. This is an issue of how you interpret that statutue. The Constitution has nothing to do with it. No matter what your opinion of the issue, either way it is constitutional.

            1. The statute specifically mentions expenditures by the executive.
              All that is required is reporting those to Congress, nothing about getting Congress to approve them, which would have been the case if they didn’t intend there be re-purposing.

          2. OMG, it’s a bot!!

      2. Alphabet troll, this has been explained to you. Best that you thank John for his patience and time, and walk away.

        He has the facts, you don’t.

    2. The open border people (except Ken Schultz) cannot simply argue that they disagree with restricting immigration and leave it at that.

      They have to throw ‘racism’, ‘affronts to the Constitution’, and other nonsensical hyperbole into the mix.

      Many Americans are sick of that bullshit, so we are simply pushing ahead with our agenda to make the US-Mexican border more secure. The time for compromise and good faith discussions about how much is good immigration past as of Nov 8, 2016.

    3. “What this argument reveals is that the people who are outraged by this just cannot concieve of border security being a national defense issue.”

      Bullshit. What it reveals that many people don’t believe there is an emergency at our southern border and corrupting the definition of “emergency” to achieve campaign promises is a potential constitutional crisis.

      1. Bullshit. Emergency is defined by the statute. It is perfectly within Congress’ power to say “here is some money, spend it on military construction, but if there is an emergency as you see it, spend it on something else”. That is all that is happening here.

        The problem is that fiscal law and how Congress appropriates money is very technical and something few people know anything about. So, like most people talking about this, you have no idea what is actually happening. So, your statements and appeals to the Constitution are absurd to anyone who does understand what is happening.

        1. These people lost the border fence issue and not want Congress to go back to line item appropriations because its their last hope.

          I would actually welcome line item appropriations but the border fence is being built, just as Trump promised in his campaign.

          Trump 100- Lefties 0

        2. McJizz just wants a never ending supply of illegals. No matter how much it hurts the country. People like him want to see America destroyed.

          1. Ooohh…….Little Shitty is now a mindreader. All hail the great and powerful Shitferbrains. Seriously, all you little dumbfucks can do is go around and comment +100_ to anybody actually capable of formulating a sentence you agree with. You’re like John’s little minions. Maybe someday you’ll be able to think for yourselves, but I’m not counting on it.

            1. I don’t even want to waste my time giving trolls like you Mcgoop a -10000 because I would be doing that for all your posts.

              1. Hahaha…..it’s all you’re capable of.

                1. Says the troll which is incapable of forming sentences.

            2. Jizzfag, I don’t need to read you tiny little mind. You telegraph your treason and sedition every day.

              I back John up because he is correct, and attack you because you are a progtard traitor. That should be simple enough even for your little turd brain.

              You just can’t stand it, because it is dissent against what the progtard hive mind has ordered you to think.

          2. “People like him want to see America destroyed.”

            Or just like their produce and services inexpensive. I guess, as you say, if the free movement of labor will “destroy America”, then we were never much of a country to begin with.

            1. I guess, as you say, if the free movement of labor will “destroy America”, then we were never much of a country to begin with

              Quite the parroting of the Marxist approach to human society you did there.

            2. You know, there is a faction that sincerely would back you if it was just free movement of labor. But it isn’t. And when that faction says “we would like to address the stuff that comes along with the labor” they get painted as racists by people who don’t want to deal with the follow-on consequences of their freely available immigrant labor. And I’m not talking about Trumpian stupidity like “rapists and murderers” either, but genuine issues like the cost of educating immigrant children who are ESL, housing, providing medical care, etc. It’s impossible to get an honest accounting of these costs. All sides are entrnched and willing to spin the data. And the data is understandably incomplete anyway.

              But no one on the pro free flow of labor side has any interest in finding common ground with this faction.

              1. Once we have real border securityrity and sort out this illegal business then we can have a proper guest worker VISA program and modernize our immigration system. But for once border security has to come first, or it won’t come at all.

            3. “Or just like their produce and services inexpensive”

              So you want slaves right? I mean I’m sure your paying them the 15 dollars an hour they deserve.

              1. I’m willing to pay what the market will bear. If they are willing to work for that market price, then it’s a win-win. If not, then wages will rise until an equilibrium is found and it’s a win-win again.

                1. On that note….Wage arbitrage occurs, legally, all the time. No-one complains when it’s within the borders of the U.S. because that’s “Us”. But when someone ships a job overseas, or hires an immigrant it’s suddenly a problem because the job went to “them”. Globalization is happening whether no-nothings in this country want it to or not. We can embrace change or stagnate and fade. Trump and his apologists here don’t understand economics. Neither do the neo-socialists, but that’s nothing new.

                  1. Eric, why do you endorse black maket labor being paid less than the legal minimum? I noticed you stole about a dozen bases with your arguement, and I’m wondering if it’s because you’re a liar or an idiot.

                    If you cared about the issue, one might talk about getting rid of OSHA and the minimum wage, just for starters, yet you did not. Why?

                    1. BYODB – Logical fallacy much? You missed the slippery slope and appeal to authority. Keep trying buddy.

                    2. Wage arbitrage with entities who are an end run around American labor law is usually called something else. A citizen would be in prison for it last I checked.

                    3. There’s your appeal to authority. Well played.

                    4. I don’t think you understand appeals to authority in relation to your argument.

                    5. There’s your appeal to authority. Well played.

                      You appear to understand logical fallacies as much as you do human nature.

                    6. And… I ask you again to change your handle to something that doesn’t besmirch such an amazing venue.

                      How about ‘Comfort Dental Ampitheatre White Privilege’? That fits you so much better.

                    7. And… I ask you again to change your handle to something that doesn’t besmirch such an amazing venue.

                      You mean a venue that was built by CCC workers?

                      How about ‘Comfort Dental Ampitheatre White Privilege’? That fits you so much better.

                      “The Ludlow Commies Deserved It” has a nice ring to it.

                    8. And… I ask you again to change your handle to something that doesn’t besmirch such an amazing venue.

                      How about ‘Comfort Dental Ampitheatre White Privilege’? That fits you so much better.

                    9. How strange that democrats oppose increased work visas AND opposed legalizing all of DACA and then some. It’s almost as if they are as disingenuous on the topic as you are.

                  2. Eric, you’re the one who is ignorant. Your kind of thinking will only bring our wages and standard of living to the lowest common denominator. Please educate yourself.

                2. You aren’t paying s##t. What was your tax bill last year? $10?

            4. Yes, cheap produce through de facto slave labor derived through the erosion of basic constitutional rule of law. Yes, that’s clearly libertopia.

              You do understand that these illegals are largely co opted to vote for democrats, right? And that importing enough of them will put slaver socialists firmly in power?

              If you support that Eric, you are cutting your own throat, and the throats fo every person that wants to be free.

      2. Then Congress shouldn’t have written a law that says an emergency is whatever the President says is an emergency, plus several statues that give him the authority to shuffle money around in case of emergency.

        At least Congress had the good sense to remind themselves in the law that they have a fast-track way to end the declared emergency.

      3. Is there any number of illegal invaders that would constitute a national emergency to you?

    4. People are just claiming it does because it makes them feel righeous and they don’t really understand their own position.

      As exemplified by the fact that the immediate retort was “What if a democrat president declares it a national emergency to seize guns or combat AGW?”

      There’s no mandate in the Constitution to combat AGW and there is specifically a mandate against the executive (or anyone else) seizing guns (alone). The fact that these two were cited and cited together pretty much acknowledges that you don’t care whether Trump is violating the constitution or not as much as highlighting the fact that you (and/or your team) intend to.

      Like arguing whether you can double-jump in checkers and countering the “Yes, you can.” side by saying “Well then, there’s nothing in the rules that says you have jump diagonally or that you can’t just flip the board.”

      1. “Rising tides will inundate our coastal bases while catastrophic changes to the climate will cause increasingly violent conflict over scarce resources. Therefore Climate Change is the greatest National Security Threat we face today.”

        See how easy that was? Just as easy as campaigning on raising the price of native-born labor by restricting immigrant labor and then re-dubbing the immigrant labor an ‘invading army’ in order to bring it under the umbrella of “National Security Issue.”

        1. See how easy that was? Just as easy as campaigning on raising the price of native-born labor by restricting immigrant labor and then re-dubbing the immigrant labor an ‘invading army’ in order to bring it under the umbrella of “National Security Issue.”

          You’re an idiot.

          I’m not saying they can’t do it. I’m saying that the logic by which they’re doing it is idiotic and faulty. The if conditional is a one-way operation and there isn’t some manner of prior distribution with regard to morality or constitutionality. So, when I hypothesize “If X is ‘legal’, then Y is ‘legal’ too.” the whole reason I selected Y is because it’s widely, conventionally, regarded as being more illegal than X.

          Trump campaigned on an issue. He didn’t campaign on an abuse of the authority because Barack Obama got to do it. You don’t have to propose an actual plan for a second wrong to say “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” and the fact that you propose a second, greater wrong indicates that, fundamentally, you’re logically, morally, and technically the greater wrong.

          1. You’re an idiot.

            Fuck off, shit-for-brains. I used to respect you even though I often disagree with you, but you’re working pretty hard to disabuse me of that.

            I’m not saying they can’t do it. I’m saying that the logic by which they’re doing it is idiotic and faulty.

            Not at all like the sooper-dooperly brilliant logic by which we pretend that immigrant labor is an invading army. That’s totally not at all idiotic and faulty logic.

            But just go ahead and call people who disagree with you idiots – it feels way more satisfying than presenting an actually fucking coherent argument.

            #Libertarians-for-Unilateral-Executive-Action

            Dipshit.

            1. You’re both right. The fact is that the constituion itself is a dead letter of law and has been for at least 100 years. Congress has ceded virtually all of it’s authority to the President or the executive branch, and this is but one facet of that action.

              The fact is, the left doesn’t need this as precedent to do anything. No one would bat an eye if they kill this exercise of the statute and turn around to leverage it themselves tomorrow.

              So we’re left with a baseline argument: how much of congresses power can they give away legally? Sadly, our answer doesn’t matter since congress has already said the answer is essentially ‘all of it’.

              1. The fact is, the left doesn’t need this as precedent to do anything. No one would bat an eye if they kill this exercise of the statute and turn around to leverage it themselves tomorrow.

                ^ This.

                how much of congresses power can they give away legally?

                Which is really the core of what Suderman is saying: “Trump’s Emergency Declaration May Be Legal, but It’s an Affront to the Constitution Anyway”

                As Gilmore has pointed out in theses pages many times, the framers’ intent wrt needing Congressional authority to declare war is very clearly tied to the temptations that accompany empowering an executive to declare war unilaterally.

                BUT – if the President does wage war unilaterally and Congress does nothing to stop him, he is not acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, and in this case Congress has in fact authorized Presidents to declare vague emergencies and fund them. But he is acting outside the bounds of the clear intent of the Constitution.

                And BTW, you saying we’re both right is you saying I’m right, because I’m simply countering the assertion that only one side here is using faulty logic ; )

                Saying “b-b-b-but this is different than that would be” is just a desperate effort by the Trump-worshippers here to avoid being confronted with their naked hypocrisy. I expect that shit from lc1789, but not from mad.casual, who’s usually better than that.

                1. Agreed, the argument boils down to Congress ceding power then trying to claw it back along partisan divides selectively. I don’t agree with Trumps methods, since at least in this case it’s simply more of the same. It’s remarkable that anyone at all thinks it’s different from past Presidents to me.

                  1. I don’t agree with Trumps methods, since at least in this case it’s simply more of the same.

                    Right, I don’t agree with Trump’s methods either. But he’s working with/from the fiction that is the Constitution and reality rather than the bizarre notions not bound to reality by legitimate and earnest gun control and climate change activists. Trump’s fevered dreams of immigration control amount to $5B (originally $12B) relative to gun control legislation which already costs various states that much each year and climate change policies that see $5B as an insulting starting off point. None of it justifies Trump’s projected/expected spending just that, empirically, his leftist non-libertarian opposition is explicitly setting themselves up to be worse.

                    1. I would not assume you would agree with that, honestly.

                    2. his leftist non-libertarian opposition is explicitly setting themselves up to be worse.

                      That’s exactly the point. We stop this shit now because what’s coming is much worse. We don’t say “people who want to curb Trump’s power are stoopid because libruls suck.”

                2. And BTW, you saying we’re both right is you saying I’m right, because I’m simply countering the assertion that only one side here is using faulty logic ; )

                  That’s not my assertion.

                  “I should steal.” is faulty logic. “We should shoot people who steal.” is both a greater fault of logic and a more severe abrogation of the Constitution, moral code, liberty, libertarianism, and is more empirically bordering on a violation of the NAP to a broader swath of human beings. This stance, does not intrinsically endorse theft or the notion of theft.

                  “We should keep immigrants out at all costs.” is faulty logic. “We should take the guns away from everyone within our borders and/or/then tax them for healthcare *and* carbon.” is a greater fault of logic and a more severe abrogation of the Constitution, moral code, liberty, libertarianism and is more empirically bordering on a violation of the NAP to a broader swath of human beings. This stance does not intrinsically endorse the any pro-/anti-immigration stance made by any President, Administration, or Congress.

                  More actively violating a more passive right vs. more passively violating an more active right. A departure from the more implicit race to the bottom while looking backward to an explicit race to the bottom looking forward.

                  1. “We should keep immigrants out at all costs.” is faulty logic. “We should take the guns away from everyone within our borders and/or/then tax them for healthcare *and* carbon.” is a greater fault of logic

                    Is it? Really? They both seem perfectly idiotic to me.

                3. No, this isn’t the core of what suderman is saying. He ostensibly cared about the illegal Obamacare subsidies. And given his full throated defense against any barrycare reform you should be skeptical about just how much he really cared. But where was his concern when barry issued DACA or illegally entered into global warming treaties and deals with Iran? The fact that he liked those outcomes and didn’t protest the blatant unconstitutionality shows just how “principled” he really is.

                  1. I don’t really care about Suderman’s principles, and agree that he’s a pretty darned wobbly libertarian. I substantially agree with him here. This needs to result in the nation deciding that this is not an acceptable power for the president to have. I don’t really care about their motives or their hypocrisy.

                4. Saying “b-b-b-but this is different than that would be” is just a desperate effort by the Trump-worshippers here to avoid being confronted with their naked hypocrisy.

                  As opposed to the “Orange man bad” arguments that are currently flooding the comments? Pot meet kettle.

                  1. And the Congressional votes that say “We must stop anything Bad Orange Man wants” despite voting for the same thing in the past.

            2. Not at all like the sooper-dooperly brilliant logic by which we pretend that immigrant labor is an invading army.

              A bunch of non-citizens walking up to the border of a foreign country en masse, waving the flags of their home countries, demanding asylum, and telling Trump to pay them $50K to go back to said home country is hardly “immigrant labor.” That’s what’s been known for thousands of years as a hostile invasion and demand of tribute to not do so.

              1. That’s what’s been known for thousands of years as a hostile invasion and demand of tribute to not do so.

                I have no problem with Trump having responded to that in a quasi-military fashion.

                Note that we had a good long time to discuss nationally what was going on and what we might do about it, and that the presence or absence of a wall really had fuck-all to do with the whole situation.

                The Wall is supposed to keep out immigrant labor to drive up the price of native labor. Explicitly. Trump campaigned on it. It’s been pretty much the one consistent theme of his campaign and presidency. He’s not trying to stop a foreign invasion. He’s trying to stop migrant labor. He’s not been keeping it a secret. He didn’t campaign on “I want to build a wall to keep out foreign armies,” because that would be absurd. No one seriously fears a military invasion from Mexico. You don’t, yourself – admit it.

                This is political fiction. The Emergency Green New Deal will be, too.

                1. The Wall is supposed to keep out immigrant labor to drive up the price of native labor. Explicitly. Trump campaigned on it. It’s been pretty much the one consistent theme of his campaign and presidency. He’s not trying to stop a foreign invasion. He’s trying to stop migrant labor

                  He also explicitly said that it was meant to keep out immigrant criminals as well. In fact, his bluntness about it is what made him the frontrunner.

                  And until the welfare state is effectively abolished, the question of “cheap labor” is moot. I’d rather pay another $10 for my restaurant chicken-fried steak and $2/lb. for a bag of apples than have my health insurance rates continually jacked up to treat illegal immigrants in emergency rooms, or have the schools feed their kids 2-3 meals a day.

                  1. He also explicitly said Mexico was gonna pay for it. You might not like your healthcare going up because some illegals are using emergency services (ironic), but I don’t like flushing my taxes down the shitter on a useless fucking iron curtain across our southern border.

                    1. I have been asured that Mexicans pay more in taxes than they receive.

                      Thanks for the border wall money Mexicans.

                    2. He also explicitly said Mexico was gonna pay for it.

                      And?

                      You might not like your healthcare going up because some illegals are using emergency services (ironic), but I don’t like flushing my taxes down the shitter on a useless fucking iron curtain across our southern border.

                      You do realize that there’s walls already down there, right? I guess if your point is, “A wall doesn’t work because we already have millions of Central American parasites crossing the border anyway,” then you’re not exactly making an argument for a liberal immigration policy.

                    3. Yea. That’s not my point.

                    4. Then you’re not making much of an argument to begin with.

                2. This is political fiction. The Emergency Green New Deal will be, too.

                  It’s not even a comparison. It’s like saying Fredrik Ebert or Paul von Hindenberg were bad guys and their successors were too.

                  I said/repeated/agreed as much when Trump ran. Nothing Trump does will be near as scary as his successor and the Emergency Gun Control/GND crowd is pretty much laying their cards on the table in a bid to make it true.

                  Trump was vilified as wanting to put people in cattle cars and nothing even close came true. His opposition’s plan literally wants to pack people on to trains and give them jobs to set them free. Literally. Unequivocally. As policy.

              2. It would be so much better if we didn’t have to contend with the enemy within, AKA the democrat party. Plus all the subversive RINOs.

  4. I can’t shake the feeling that 99% of the people who make this argument are acting in bad faith.

    1. When you consider that most of the people making this argument, Suderman included, thought it was okay for Obama to create a quasi legalization scheme in violation of federal law, your feeling is pretty spot on. They absolutely are arguing in bad faith.

      1. Of course it’s bad faith. They believe in imposing THEIR will on the masses. They are against the actual legitimate exercise of executive authority from someone like Trump, whom they deem to be unworthy. Even though he was legitimately elected to the presidency. These people are barely restrained tyrants and slavers.

        Which is exactly why I am so militantly opposed to their existence, and advocate potentially extreme action against them should they make it necessary.

        1. They believe in imposing THEIR will on the masses.

          Leaving people alone is an imposition?

          These people are barely restrained tyrants and slavers.

          Wait. The people who are against a 1000 mile wall patrolled by men with rifles and tactical gear are the tyrants?

          1. The people who are against a 1000 mile wall patrolled by men with rifles and tactical gear are the tyrants?

            I know it might be hard to consider, but to some of us, walls, rifles, and tactical gear aren’t the hallmarks of tyranny/forfeiture of democracy the same way statements like “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill.”, “basket of deplorables”, and “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion” are.

            Sure, tyrants have used walls, rifles, and armor to effect their policies, but liberty has also benefited from and been proliferated by those tools but statements like the latter are rather overt and quintessential signposts of a political class dictating policy to their subordinates.

          2. Leaving people alone is an imposition?

            Forcing people to buy health insurance is leaving them alone?

          3. Wow Juice, way to twist and sit out what I said to mean something completely different. Are you this obtuse, or just disingenuous?

            The progtards are desperate to bring in illegals to turn them into New Democrat voters to swell their ranks and flip Texas so on,y democrats will ever control the presidency. These people are slavers and tyrants.

            By supporting their efforts, you are one of them, or a useful idiot.

            And it is NOT tyrannical to defend your own borders from hordes of interlopers.

      2. Consistency is not your strong point.

        1. It absolutely is. Thinking is not your strong point. If it were, you wouldn’t think I was being inconsistent. Life is hard when your stupid I guess.

          1. Your only consistency is Trump the Great. Your complaints about Constitutional violations evaporated the day Obama lost the election.

            1. Trump is pretty great.

              Unfortunately we don’t have much of alphabet troll’s history on here since you’re a new troll. Your script does not have you very pro-Constitution, so there’s that.

              1. Apkhadouche clearly doesn’t understand the constitution.

          2. Now John, get your sayings correct. The correct saying is “Life is hard; it’s harder when you’re stupid.” I have heard this attributed to John Wayne, but I believe it came from elsewhere.

      3. The hate HATE Hate the Constitution. Its slows down all their plans.

        It becomes super clear when a President like Trump uses the Constitution against their positions and gets his way.

        These people hate that Trump could use a federal shutdown to get border wall money and then use more money appropriated to DoD for drug interdiction, border security, etc to build even more border security. That and even the RINOs in both houses of Congress wont give the Lefties the veto override votes needed.

    2. “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.” –Thomas Sowell

  5. Fortunately Drumpf’s racist wall agenda is causing more and more voters to realize open borders is the only sensible, humane policy. Studies show the percentage of Americans who agree with the statement “immigration is a good thing” has been increasing. I predict the 2020 Democratic nominee will campaign and win on an open borders platform.

    #NoBanNoWall
    #AbolishICE
    #OpenBorders

  6. Trumpist dingleberry munchers incoming in 3–2–1

    1. If it is such dingbattery, you should have no problems refuting it. Oddly, you seem lose almost every argument you are in. funny that.

      1. I forget, is Jfree, an anarchist, a progtard, or just a garden variety idiot? I lose track sometimes.

        1. JFree’s not convincing with his ‘arguments’ that’s for sure.

          1. “I forget, is Jfree, an anarchist, a progtard, or just a garden variety idiot? ”

            Probably just not a boot-licker like you two shitheads.

            1. McJizz, why aren’t you dead yet? You have nothing to live for.

              1. I live to give Little Shitty a Hissy Pissy.

          2. Poor trolls. So ignored around here.

            1. Poor trolls. So ignored around here.

              Your lack of self-awareness is truly epic.

              1. Enter sock to defend trolls.

                Epic!

      2. Trump could rape a goat (bought with taxpayer funds) on the White House lawn in front of a visiting kindergarten class – and you’d find reasons why that is exactly what is needed for gummint to defeat the progtard-Muslim-Messican invaders and is constitutionally brilliant 15dimension chess to boot.

        1. So you are a fucking moron who has nothign to say about this issue and instead chooses to bray on about the big meanie Trump supporters. Good to know.

        2. Well Jfree, at least it would be a scam rip that would get you off.

      3. “If it is such dingbattery, you should have no problems refuting it. ”

        Refuting what? That there are a lot of dingleberry munchers in these threads? Seriously John, what are you even talking about?

      4. If it is such dingbattery, you should have no problems refuting it. Oddly, you seem lose almost every argument you are in. funny that.

        Again, their batshit crazy kneejerk is to say “What if a Democrat used this loophole to get around the Constitution?”

        It’s not a loophole, it’s there in writing and the fact that you see it as some sort of writ large free pass around the Constitution says way more about your fucked up world view than anything Trump is actually doing.

        1. It is something like a loophole, but the argument seems to be that only Democrats can use it. In fact, more correctly they’re saying only the embedded political class can use it. I don’t think anyone thinks Trump is a member of that club in good standing.

          1. It is something like a loophole,

            OK, it’s still goalpost shifting if you move both goalposts equally, right? Trump’s emergency is debatably covered. The statements about seizing guns and implementing the GND were explicitly made in the absence of any knowledge of any gray areas. Trump’s exploiting a loophole, his opposition said that if he can exploit this loophole then they can proceed with their plans to shred the whole Constitution.

        2. 0blama didn’t even bother to use an emergency powers declaration before he did the same thing with his rewarding of the DACAsses.
          So, if anything, you commies should have been warning about a Republican doing the same thing instead of being enraptured by the messiah’s brilliant, but illegal move.

    2. Dingleberries were my favorite part of Captain Crunch.

      1. I prefer the newer Admiral Crunch, or Archduke Chokula..

        1. Admiral Akbar cereal.

          “Your tongue can’t repeal flavor of this magnitude”!

          1. *repel

    3. “I have no actual arguments, but MUH FEELZ!”

      1. That is how you typically argue.

  7. The correct argument is Congress needs to revoke the statute in its entirety. Override a veto and kill the NEA. That ends the issue forever for all presidents. If an emergency is taking place, congress can vote to give specific powers, on a time limited basis, to the president if necessary. Having an open ended law is just ridiculous

    1. But they don’t have the votes. All the RINOs know what will happen to them if they give Lefties the votes for a veto override.

    2. You are right. But understand that the law isn’t unconstitutional. All the Constitution says is that all money that is spent must be approved by Congress. It doesn’t say Congress has to specifty the purpose of the money. So there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress saying “use this money for this purpose unless there is an emergency and then use it for another purpose”. The law doesn’t allow the President to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated. It only allows him to change the purpose that money has been appropriated for. It is absolutely within Congress’ power to let the exectutive determine the purpose of money it has appropriated.

      1. Exactly. It’s not like he could take a trillion dollars and spend it on climate change bullsit or impose new taxes under an emergency scenario.

        1. Yup. I am amazed at how stupid and dishonest even people on the Right who should know better are being.

      2. Its a little more fine tuned than that. What the law indicates is that money appropriated for the like purposes can be re-appropriated under the NEA by the admin. So there must be appropriated but unspent construction funds available to re-appropriate to construction for the emergency. If there are no such funds, no re-appropriation may occur.

        I am also not 100% convinced that this is actually within the power of congress to transfer those powers. INS vs. Chada could give the courts the spine to say that appropriating these rights via statute was unconstitutional on its face.

  8. I see we’ve moved on from Denial to Anger. Next up is Bargaining…

    1. +10000

    2. Like when my date won’t put out?

      1. Time to change batteries?

      2. *pull out. FTFY

        1. Yes, McJizz, I’m sure you hate it when Tony doesn’t pull out. It opens the possibility of you two making a shit baby together.

    3. I look at Election 2020 as the Lefty’s way of bargaining with the American public to keep Socialism alive.

      Lefties are gonna have a tough time with that acceptance stage.

      1. Socialism is a hard sell when Venezuela is in the news.

        1. The MSM have that covered. Or technically speaking, not covered.

          1. I am always impressed at how the propaganda machine takes the fantastic and violent collapse of some Socialist ‘paradise’ about every decade and twists it or mostly hides it….while still saying that they are unbiased journalists only giving the news.

            How a Socialist state like Venezuela over the last 20 years and its implosion under Socialism does not deserve at least as much media coverage as Climate Change, is beyond me.

            1. Europe will be harder to hide

              1. Sadly, by the time Europe is going down the drain, we’ll be circling it.

                My real fear here is that, by the time the problem becomes politically impossible to pretend away, it will have long since passed the point of no return, and nothing short of a civil war to take back the country would be sufficient. And taking back the country by civil war would only get us back a broken country.

                We’ve got sanctuary jurisdictions benefiting from apportionment based on illegal populations, and experimenting with giving them the vote. It’s only a matter of time before these places “flip”, and end up controlled by illegal aliens instead of citizens, and going back stops being politically possible.

                1. The USA survived the last time Europe circled the drain because of Socialism (WWII).

                  1. “The USA survived the last time Europe circled the drain because of Socialism (WWII).”

                    It’s always interesting to see the contortions you go through to claim the Nazi’s were left-wing socialists….just like Timothy McVeigh was a left-wing terrorist. You are quite the revisionist.

                    1. It’s always interesting to see the contortions you go through to claim the Nazi’s were left-wing socialists

                      Nazis didn’t become “right-wingers” until they attacked the Soviet Union. Our modern “left/right” distinctions were barely relevant until after World War II.

                    2. Agreed. However, the only thing “socialist” about them was their name.

                    3. However, the only thing “socialist” about them was their name.

                      Wrong. The “fascist” governments were built around huge welfare states. Germany’s went back to the Bismarck era, and Hitler did nothing to roll that back.

                      The only difference between the fascists and the communists was that the former were nationalist in character, whereas the commies were globalists.

                    4. “Wrong. The “fascist” governments were built around huge welfare states. Germany’s went back to the Bismarck era, and Hitler did nothing to roll that back.”

                      Perhaps, but nothing in Bismark’s “huge” welfare state could be considered Socialist in the classical sense of controlling the means of production. They were mostly instituted to protect workers and provide a pension for retirement. Nearly every every modern western democracy has instituted something similar concurrently or nearly so.

                    5. Yes, Bismarck co-opted Marxist social leaders into supporting state “socialism” aka social democracy.
                      Nazism was indeed socialist. Look up the party platform.
                      The means of production are directed and controlled by the state in a fascist system. Saying that because they don’t “own” them means it’s not socialism is just a weak attempt to avoid “besmirching” socialism through accurately characterizing icky fascism.
                      Reflexively promoting progressive talking points is a good way to get labeled progressive.

                      And ultimately – whether called nazism, fascism, socialism, communism, or social democracy – we’re simply discussing flavors of progressivism.

                    6. And, what? They called themselves that because it was cool?

                    7. “And, what? They called themselves that because it was cool?”

                      Probably because ‘free shit’ is popular. Why is the DPRK named so?

                2. If we banded together to cleanse the progtards from America it would become very easy to fix problems like spending and the welfare system.

  9. The wall isn’t a secondary issue at all. The primary issue behind the wall is that many people in this country want physical barriers and reduced immigration to slow/stop cultural erosion and every time these people flex their political muscles, they’re condescended to and called ignorant bigots for wanting to keep people out who don’t share our values.

    1. The wall, which is intended to keep illegal invaders out, and immigration are two different things.
      The latter is not part of the need for the former.
      A discussion of levels of legal immigration cannot begin until the illegal invasion is stopped.

      1. Absolutely true. Unfortunately we have too many progtards and anarchists bent on destroying America.

  10. I’d say in general – and this is meant primarily as a criticism of Congress with its broad grants of emergency powers – that a *real* emergency would be something which can cause Really Bad harm before Congress can decide what to do about the situation.

    Thus, if Congress is to delegate emergency powers, it should specify that any emergency declaration cannot outlast the time between (a) when the emergency first arose and (b) Congress has had some time to consider the issue and come up with legislation if any.

    So there’s an invasion – OK, the President can use the armed forces and can be delegated the power to take money from the treasury to pay the armed forces, and to make decrees having the force of law in the affected zone. But after Congress has a chance to convene (if the members haven’t been vaporized) and has had a reasonable time to pass its own emergency legislation, the President’s emergency decrees would expire.

    The border emergency has gone along for such a long time that Congress has had opportunity to pass laws dealing with the situation. The problem is they haven’t. That’s bad, but not as bad as arbitrary executive power.

    But the laws I’m suggesting are narrower than the laws Congress actually passed. We can presume that the President will use the emergency powers Congress actually granted him, not just the more limited powers a more responsible Congress would have granted him.

    1. “The border emergency has gone along for such a long time that Congress has had opportunity to pass laws dealing with the situation. The problem is they haven’t. That’s bad, but not as bad as arbitrary executive power.”

      Same can be said about the thirty or so “emergencies” which have been “emergencies” for 10, 20, or 30 years.

    2. The border emergency has gone along for such a long time that Congress has had opportunity to pass laws dealing with the situation. The problem is they haven’t. That’s bad, but not as bad as arbitrary executive power.

      *applause*

  11. Can’t wait for President Harris to declare a state of emergency and watch all of you eat your words. Healthcare is an emergency because otherwise people will die which is the definition of an emergency therefore I am going to spend money to give people free shit. I don’t give too shits about Trump; I do care that every four years each president keeps grabbing more power while their supporters cheer only too whine later that the other guy is doing something illegal.

    1. Haha. Where is ‘healthcare’ mentioned in the Constitution?

      1. General Welfare Claim, Commerce Clause… You name it they will figure away. Just like drug war, Libya, illegal NSA domestic spying, USDA, Education Dept…

        1. So General Welfare means national healthcare?
          So Commerce Clause regulating interstate commerce means healthcare?

          1) The Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional too, just like forcing healthcare on Americans.
          2) Not sure what you mean by Libya, but Obama and Hillary letting 4 Americans get murdered was not unconstituitonal.
          3) Domestic spying without a warrant is unconstitutional too, just like forcing healthcare on Americans.
          4) USDA is a federal agency so its not prima face unconstitutional, like forcing healthcare on Americans.
          5) Dept of Ed is a federal agency so its not prima face unconstitutional, like forcing healthcare on Americans.

          1. So General Welfare means national healthcare?
            So Commerce Clause regulating interstate commerce means healthcare?

            Yes and yes if they want it too. Have you been living under a rock? Or did I not just live under enhanced interrogation tactics doesn’t equal torture and the War Powers Act doesn’t mean get Congress approval or get out after 60 days. 2 + 2 = 5

            1. I thought you had a reading problem, but never thought that you would admit to seeing “healthcare” in the Constitution.

              1. Didn’t say it was and am not argue for it. They will argue that General Welfare means National Healthcare, not me, I don’t want it and I certainly don’t want to give them any sort of precedent. But you’ll scream bloody murder when they do and when the courts – like Roberts court did with the tax issue f/ Obamacare was upheld as constitutional – I am going to laugh at your face and then cry for my own misery.

                1. They already did.

                2. So, you think Trump doing this awakened the communists to the fact that this law existed.
                  Shit 0blama used this law, as has every president since its enactment.
                  That is a vacuous argument.
                  0blama did the exact same re-purposing of monies with his rewarding of the DACAsses, and didn’t even bother with the emergency declaration.
                  Your concern sounds disingenuous.

                  1. Indeed. And the emergency powers are in fact quite limited.

                  2. Indeed. And the emergency powers are in fact quite limited.

    2. I’m sorry, I just got a mental image of Kabala smoking a joint while listening to Snoop Dog, and then taking another hit from a different fattie.

    3. Perhaps if leftists hadn’t turned politics into a zero-sum game, we wouldn’t have gotten to this point. Alas, that is where we are at.

    4. So ‘President Harris’ might be able to move a few billion dollars of appropriations around for her agenda. It doesn’t allow for a full rewrite of the federal budget, or the imposition of new taxes.

  12. “Oooh good idea Mr. Trump. Someone get me the numbers of deaths caused by gun violence over the past 10 years” – Kamala Harris – 1st day in office

    1. If Kamala Harris wants to start a no-kidding civil war, declaring a national emergency to grab guns would be a great way to kick it off.

      I doubt you or her have enough sense of future time orientation to consider that, though.

    2. I would love to see her try. Not even kidding, I would love to watch progressives scramble to create a federal program to confiscate 300 million guns, while all the red states smile, aim, and prepare to fire. Aiming the constitution, of course.

    3. I’m not saying it would be more than a speedbump, but the 2nd Amendment makes that a specious comparison.

      1. The alternative to hoping for the opportunity to go to war with your fellow American’s would be to support limited government, and the free flow of labor….Like supposedly good libertarians

        1. Libertarians also support national sovereignty so flow of labor via national policy.

          1. I would think that the vast majority of libertarians support individual sovereignty first. National Sovereignty would be way down the list.

            1. So, if a group of individuals buy all the land around your house and erect a fence so you can’t leave your property that’s ok? Let’s see if you’re able to understand the argument you’re making.

              1. Which argument? I’ve posted thrice in this thread and my arguments are as follows:

                – Libertarians would put individual sovereignty before national sovereignty?
                – Libertarians should favor mobility and small government?
                – The next president will use Trump’s power grab to grab more power?

                1. – Libertarians would put individual sovereignty before national sovereignty?

                  Few problems are so one dimensional and even libertarianism itself recognizes this. Would libertarians put individual sovereignty ahead of national sovereignty if doing so meant violating the NAP?

                  – Libertarians should favor mobility and small government?

                  Aside from railroads and ‘muh roads!’ my copy the tenets of libertarianism is silent on mobility, specifically ceding to the market on such issues. There is plenty of discussion of the interplay between immigration and the welfare state.

                  – The next president will use Trump’s power grab to grab more power?

                  More libertarian to oppose the relatively small-scale anti-market move in front of you or the explicitly larger and explicitly more threat of aggression behind it and to the left? If the counterpoint had been raised that the next President could use the same tactics to put funds towards tearing down the wall, then the libertarian stance is pretty clear, but that’s (idiotically) not the juxtaposition that was made.

                2. Nationally/individually, putting up walls has a legitimate purpose, keeping out the Mongol hordes or protecting your private property from theft and the elements is not an act of aggression. Nationally/individually, depriving someone of their property/right to defend themselves is an act of aggression. Nationally/individually, a relatively small group of individuals moving across a border is a relatively minor threat (to the point of being non-existent as immigrants don’t represent a nation) relative to seizing the guns of all citizens.

                3. I see now, you can’t reason. That, or you think you understand Libertarians which is pretty funny since they don’t even agree among themselves.

            2. I would think that the vast majority of libertarians support individual sovereignty first.

              Considering the fuller context of this thought is “before forcing it on their brethren at the point of a gun”, which is what the civil war would actually be, I’m pretty sure you haven’t thought about what you’re saying fully.

              Not even lots of libertarians support open immigration, but assuming they did, the fact that some significant portion of them would impose in on natives by force kinda undermines their libertarian bona fides intrinsically.

              Would you be willing to shoot a right-libertarian in defense of the idea that an “immigrant’s individual rights” supercede whatever concept of “native rights” they can dream up? How about if you’ve only got the one bullet and there’s a right libertarian, a leftist, a centrist, and a hardcore conservative each with a gun (OK, 3 of the 4) standing next to him?

              It’s dumb philosophically and pragmatically, in context.

    4. 2nd amendment, jackass.

  13. The House is voting on a declaration to end Trump’s Emergency declaration for border security.

    The House will consider a joint resolution to terminate the President’s national emergency declaration to build a southern border wall.

    Democrats don’t have the 2/3 House votes to override Presidential veto. 225 Yea, 191 Nay, 16 NV.

  14. Again, witness how animated border control makes the cryptos at Reason. Real frothing-at-the-mouth stuff, ain’t it?

  15. When the banks were paying their multi-billion dollar fines for their role in the last great recession it was reported that much of that money ended up in the hands of “community activists” (i.e. Democrat Party vote canvassers). Also there were reports of a large cash haul (from somewhere?) that Obama sent to Iran after they signed the agreement he so desperately wanted. The fact is that politicians have been stepping on the Constitution for at least the past 100 years.

  16. “since the point of a national emergency is to allow the president to respond in the event of a sudden crisis, and whatever your opinion of what’s happening at the border, it’s not a sudden event.”

    Neither were blood diamonds or 90% of the other “emergencies” as declared.

  17. The law Trump has invoked was not passed recently, and has been used 12-18 times by EACH of several prior POTUS since it became law. As the author admits, Trump’s emergency declaration IS legal.

    IF (as asserted by the author) this law “is an affront to the Constitution”, THEN the appropriate remedy is for the current Congress to stop whining and change the law. The Legislative Branch … should … Legislate! For them to assert that a Democrat POTUS may use this law (as many have) but a Republican POTUS may not is childish and silly. The notion should be ridiculed, and those positing it laughed off of the public stage.

    Obama chose to NOT enforce certain laws (illegally, and contrary to his oath of office); the Dems overwhelmingly approved of the POTUS and his unlawful actions.

    Trump chooses to invoke a law that every recent POTUS has used (including Obama), and the Dems scream bloody murder. They are like whiny children complaining about their sibling “looking at me” or “breathing my air”. They hate the man. Anything he is for, they are automatically against.

    1. The reason Republicans did not want him to do this is because this is a case where they may literally win the battle and lose the war. If Trump prevails in court, this is going to leave a HUGE loophole for a future Democratic president. They will bypass Congress and declare national emergencies for healthcare, climate change, and on and on.

      1. They already did. The CPP was no different, and Barry happily made illegal treaties on global warming and with Iran. The unaccountable administrative state is no less accountable now than before the declararion.

        1. Bingo.

          The “Oh noes, but the Dems will do it!” ignores the ocean of criminality of the Obama administration.

          “I’ve got a pen and a phone”.

          I’ll worry about the *legal* things the Dems might do in the future, when we’ve taken some action to stop their ocean of crimes *now*.

  18. IF (as asserted by the author) this law “is an affront to the Constitution”, THEN the appropriate remedy is for the current Congress to stop whining and change the law.

    It should be noted that this IF/THEN philosophizing because of Congressional inaction on this specific issue isn’t new either. The previous administration specifically usurped Congress’ authority because they chose not to act on the IF/THEN scenario his administration faced. The only thing that’s new is that one team has adopted one of libertarianism’s Iron Laws (a warning), ‘First you, then me.’ as a pledge, promise, or explicit operating principle.

  19. The author makes valid points about the Constitution, BUT fails to point out that the law that Trump used is pretty vague. At the end of the day, Chief Justice Roberts is going to make a political decision (yes, the SCOTUS is a political group): Does he want to give the President a huge win and leave a huge loophole that a future Democratic President will use to fund everything from healthcare to climate change initiatives.

    1. You mean like declaring the penalty a tax after ruling it wasn’t a tax and so didn’t trigger anti-injunction? This declaration changes nothing. Congress has already ceded its power to the executive.

  20. Trump asked Congress for money to fund a presidential priority.

    Duhhhhh.. this issue is NOT a “presidential priority”. READ your copy of the Constitution. It plainly states that one of the few and defined tasks assigned FedGov is to “repel foreign invasions”. It also places the Chief Executive in the position of Commander in Chief of military forces.

    While this border/invasion issue does fall under the bailiwick of the President, it is assigned to FedGov by the COnstitution. This it is a CONSTITUTIONAL matter, not merely a presidential matter.
    As CinC of military, the President certainly COULD, and probably SHOULD, do what is necessary to MAKE IT HAPPEN. To do otherwise would be dereliction of duty.
    I suppose an alternate plan, definitely within his assigned authority, would be to deploy troops the length of the border as necessary to “repel foreign invasion”.

    The petty foot stampers and tantrum throwers in Congress can wail and whinge all they want.. they forget it also falls to THEM to “repel foreign invaders” as well. It is assigned the whole of FedGov. To fail is to be derelict in one’s duty.

  21. The affront to the Constitution was the Uniparty conspiracy to invade America.

    Trump had all the authority he needed on day one to build the wall and deport the invaders.

    Article IV, Section 4
    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”

    The Constitution obligates the federal government to prevent invasion.

    The Constitution obligates Trump to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, including immigration laws.

    Trump is the first President in *decades* to actually even *attempt* to uphold the constitution with regards to immigration.

    1. Peaceful immigration is not invasion.

      1. Illegal invasion is *not* peaceful.

  22. The best outcome would be USSC finding the NEA unconstitutional from the get go. It is pure garbage legislation, with no time limit required for Congressional consent to a declaration of emergency.

  23. Perhaps Congress should have thought forward before giving the Executive that power.

  24. This outrage really pisses me off. Absolutely none of the disgusting Dems and their sycophantic media outlets ever complained when Obama declared his SOE.

  25. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  26. The “affront” to the Constitution is the democrat party giving aid and comfort to the enemy that are invading us.
    They have not been this guilty of treason since 1865.

  27. Congress misappropriated TSA taxes to pay down the debt, and cut off border funding it had previously approved. Maybe we should be more concerned about Congress adhering to their own legislature.

  28. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  29. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here……. http://www.2citypays.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.