Executive Power

Senators Rand Paul and Ron Wyden Pitch New Limitations on Presidential Emergency Powers

The United States is currently operating under 32 different national emergencies. This proposal would require Congress approve those declarations within 72 hours, and again after 90 days.

|

The United States is currently in a state of emergency. Thirty-two of them, actually.

The two most recent ones have received most of the attention. President Donald Trump declared one earlier this year in order to justify building a wall at the southern border, and he declared the other to block Huawei, a Chinese telecom company, from doing business in the United States. But the longest-running national emergency dates back to 1979, declared by President Jimmy Carter in response to the Iranian hostage crisis. The hostages were released in 1981, but the "national emergency" continues.

These days, the National Emergency Act of 1976 mostly serves as a way to bulk up executive power in order to accomplish such goals as banning trade with Sudan—a national emergency declared under President Bill Clinton in 1997 that's still ongoing—or as a way to get around Congress when it won't approve billions of dollars in spending. It's a convenient tool for ticked off executives, in other words, not the last resort for addressing acute national crises.

Congress can respond to presidential emergency declarations by disapproving of them after the fact, which Congress did earlier this year in response to Trump's border wall emergency. But the president only has to veto those resolutions of disapproval, as Trump did, to keep the emergency in place.

Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) say that should change. Under a bill the two introduced Wednesday, all presidential emergency declarations would expire after 72 hours unless Congress voted to allow them to continue. In the event of a true national emergency, a president would still be empowered to respond quickly, but passage of the Reforming Emergency Powers to Uphold the Balances and Limitations Inherit in the Constitution (REPUBLIC) Act would transfer ultimately authority back to Congress, the senators say.

"Congress fails its responsibilities to the American people and the constitution when it leaves the executive virtually unchecked to unlock and exercise emergency powers in perpetuity," Paul said in a statement.

In addition to the automatic 72-hour sunset on emergency declarations, the bill would also set an automatic 90 day limit on congressionally approved national emergencies, thus forcing lawmakers to continually renew declarations and allowing older, no-longer-relevant declarations to expire. Paul's and Wyden's bill would also establish an expedited process for Congress to approve presidential emergency declarations and would repeal statutory authority empowering a president to unilaterally control communication technology in the event of an emergency without congressional approval.

Importantly, the bill would not affect presidential powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Trump threatened to use recently to unilaterally impose tariffs on Mexican imports. That law is meant to allow presidents to respond to foreign adversaries with economic sanctions—legally, it is unclear whether tariffs could be part of that response—in the event of a national emergency, and the REPUBLIC Act specifically exempts it from congressional oversight.

Still, Paul and Wyden's proposal would be a step towards reversing the decades-long trend of handing congressional powers over to the executive branch. It's a welcome signal that at least some members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are interested in restoring a semblance of balance to the federal government's distribution of powers.

"Presidents have run roughshod over the constitution for far too long because Congress keeps shirking its obligations," Wyden said in a statement about the bill's introduction. "Checks and balances are more than pretty words on a page; they're a bedrock principle of our democracy."

Advertisement

NEXT: Asset Forfeiture Funding Has Little Impact on Solving Crimes, Says New Study

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.

    1. Never clears the House. They don’t want their powers back.

      1. So … Trump declaring a bogus national emergency somehow empowers House Democrats. And if Congress gains the power to overrule a reckless (and feckless) President, that actually means less power for Congress.

        Oh.

        1. It isn’t a bogus national emergency. You just don’t believe in sovereign borders.

          1. That’s right! If you don’t support putting children in cages, then you just hate America and the entire concept of borders! What are you, some kind of commie?

            1. Commie is too extreme.
              The Authoritarian Right is closer to fascism.

                1. Which proves my point.

                  1. Which one?

                    1. There was only one.

                      The Authoritarian Right is closer to fascism.

                      Now it’s your turn to prove my point. Again.

          2. Non-responsive diversion

            It’s hysteria to equate sovereign borders with national emergencies. You don’t believe in limited government and our balance of powers between three co-equal branches.

            Trump’s actions have made things WORSE at the border. The surge in migrants is caused by coyotes telling people to go NOW, before Trump shuts down the border.

            The dumbass even cut the spending in those countries, to alleviate their misery and threats to life.

            And why did Trump break his own agreement that included $25 million for a wall and border security. Does HE oppose sovereign borders?

            Ad an aside, do you also believe only “unelected rogue judges” would overturn the will of the people?

            1. Fuck off Hihn. Stew in your irrelevance.

              1. If I’m irrelevant, why are you stalking me down the entire page? And why another cowardly an evasion?.

                And why did Trump break his own agreement that included $25 million for a wall and border security.

                Fuck off Hihn. Stew in your irrelevance.

                NOW do you feel manly?

                1. You aren’t Hihn. So he’s not stalking you.

                  1. (sneer)
                    Calling me Hihn is part of the stalking.
                    Still confused? I’ll dumb it down to your level, if possible.

                    I say YOU are total dumbass, Trumpard, Hihn.
                    I wasn’t attacking YOU, because you said so … which is WHY you are a dumbass Trumptard … as you stalk me down the page, tripping over your own feet.

                    Anything else?

  1. Ok. So long as it doesn’t just hamstring Trump. Or stop the wall.

    1. Umm, if it’s an emergency, why did he break his own negotiated deal with $25 billion for a wall and border security? President Pussy CAVED when his base complained about the Dreamers part of the deal. So even HE said it was not that bad.

      His base controls him, because HE refuses to broaden his support .. which is always opposed by Hannity, Ingraham and his base of know-nothings.

      1. Can I get a chortle?

        1. To prove your ignorance?
          Did you giggle when posting that?

          1. No but I laughed hysterically at your response.

          2. Explain the connection between appreciation of chortles and ignorance?

            1. Another cowardly evasion

              Umm, if it’s an emergency, why did he break his own negotiated deal with $25 billion for a wall and border security? President Pussy CAVED…

              So did his puppet, thus also a pussy.

              1. President pussy is sophomoric language. I just want to know how appreciating a good chortle makes me ignorant. Seriously. I don’t understand this.

                1. I was thinking about making my screen name “Sir Chortles A-lot” but it seemed irrelevant by the time I got around to making an account. Really screwed the pooch on that on that one.

                2. Seriously. I don’t understand this.

                  You’re way above your class.

                  And you reversed your dumbfuck assault, when called out!

                  1. Still wondering why appreciating a good chortle indicates ignorance.

                    1. (sneer)

                      Still wondering why appreciating a good chortle indicates ignorance.

                      Depends what you chortle at, Sparky.
                      And you already confessed, BEFORE you asked. (snort)

                      R Mac
                      June.12.2019 at 10:29 pm
                      No but I laughed hysterically at your response.
                      https://reason.com/2019/06/12/senators-rand-paul-and-ron-wyden-pitch-new-limitations-on-presidential-emergency-powers/#comment-7816853

                      YOU BRAGGED THAT YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THIS

                      Umm, if it’s an emergency, why did he break his own negotiated deal with $25 billion for a wall and border security? President Pussy CAVED when his base complained about the Dreamers part of the deal. So even HE said it was not that bad.

                      A sneer trumps a chortle, thug.

                      For the clueless.
                      Libertarians oppose aggression, as a core principle.
                      Trumpsters LOVE aggression and stalking, as their core principle.
                      They shout down disagreement exactly like Berkeley snowflakes — but more viciously (and dumbly)
                      For proof, do a page search for “R Mac” (no quotes needed)

                      (AGAIN posted in defense of ANOTHER unprovoked aggression, by a typical, self-righteous, stalking cyber-bully. See proof)

                    2. P.S. Also another PROVEN lie — for R Mac’s harassment purposes.
                      Shameless. Like Trump.

  2. “This proposal would require Congress approve those declarations within 72 hours, and again after 90 days.”

    The US is operating under 32 different emergency declarations? How many of them are under 90 days old?

    Is this in the Constitution somewhere? Is Congress enumerated the power to declare the president’s emergency declarations null and void?

    If this is constitutional, what’s to stop Congress from declaring these emergency declarations null and void now?

    If the Constitution needs to be amended to allow for this, there’s a constitutional way to do that. I respect the Constitution (and the rights it protects) well enough that I think we should abide by it–even if violating it might achieve some short term goal that we like.

    But then I’m a principled libertarian, where Rand Paul is just a politician.

    1. “The US is operating under 32 different emergency declarations? How many of them are under 90 days old?”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

      Some folks are blowing on cheap plastic flutes w/o proper permission!!! I think THAT should be a national emergency!!!

      1. To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

          1. (again in defense of a stalking aggressor)

            HE NOW FANTASIZES FIVE HIHNS …. because only one person on earth would DARE to NOT be a totally subservient Trumptard, right..

            His day job is as a 12-year-old playground bully, who logs in for the sole purpose of punishing dissidents … with childish insults … like his Orange God..

    2. Is Congress enumerated the power to declare the president’s emergency declarations null and void?

      Umm, it was Congress who gave Presidents the power.

      But then I’m a principled libertarian,

      ? And I’m a suede jacket.

      1. Never a squawk from Congress before about this power they delegated. Then bad Orange Man shows up and two show horses gallop to get some teevee time. Where were these guys before on this suddenly urgent matter?

        1. Evasion and diversion on Schultz’s HUGE fuckup .

          According to your ilk, we lose any rights that we don’t exercise regularly.

          Read Learn the Constitution

          1. I want to respond, but curious who’s driving the bus at the moment, you or Nolan?

            1. That’s R Mac’s third cowardly evasion. So far.
              (added to Homple’s

              I want to respond, but curious who’s driving the bus at the moment, you or Nolan?

              I defended Nolan, for the same reason you defended Homple. I did not bully you, and every adult knows why I didn’t!

              Anything else?

              (Posted in defense of aggression)

              1. I’ve never defended anything said by Homple, so I don’t know what that reason is.

                1. Like I said, you’re way above your class.

        2. Maybe they are hypocritical here. But I’d still rather see the right thing done for the wrong reason than stick with the status quo for the wrong reason.

      2. “The President [has] no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer#Majority_opinion

        I appreciate that some of these states of emergency are a result of powers given by Congress, but some of them are a function of the Constitution and the separation of powers. For instance, once Congress declares war, they’d be outside the boundaries of the separation of powers to interfere with the presidents decisions as Commander-in-Chief. I believe a lot of “emergency powers” stuff is tied to the Constitution itself that way.

        If Rand Paul is talking about curtailing the president’s ability to declare national emergencies because of flooding, earthquakes, and hurricanes, I suppose that might be useful in theory. Are those the kind of abuses Rand Paul is targeting? How many natural disaster type emergencies has Congress opposed the president declaring? When was the last time Congress decided not to authorize spending on an emergency?

        I think this is really about funding for the wall, and I think Rand Paul doesn’t want to make his fellow Republicans seem pro-immigration in an election year, so it’s being couched in terms of out of control “emergencies”–of which Trump’s wall funding might be an excellent example. I’m just not willing to play along with bullshit. And I think this is bullshit.

        Congress already has the authority to end emergencies when they deferred the ability to declare them to the president. If Rand Paul isn’t going after the emergencies that are couched in the president’s constitutional powers, then why pretend that Congress doesn’t already have the authority to end these statutory emergencies whenever they want?

        1. THAT’S EVEN CRAZIER!
          THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS NO SUCH POWER.
          WHICH IS WHY CONGRESS HAD TO PASS THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY ACT IN 1976. … AS YOU ADMIT!

          Congress already has the authority to end emergencies when they deferred the ability to declare them to the president

          Now you agree with me!!!!!
          And call yourself a liar!
          And commit a massive logical fallacy.

          On, It’s Shultz. : -)

          1. Did they let Hihn out of the rubber room again?

            1. (boldface in defense pf aggression, on a libertarian web site0

              Goober is called out for saying
              1) The Constitution grants Trump the power
              2) Then saying Congress gave it to him (agreeing with me!)
              3) Both on one comment!

              So … goober punishes me with an infantile personal insult.
              Did this Hihn guy or gal humiliate you also?

              Can you make a decision yet, Constitution or Congress?
              Do you understand the question?

              .,

              1. I’m happier right now than I should be right now.

                1. Also I’m drunk

                  1. And still more coherent than Hihney.

                    1. Yeah all I did is say right now twice. I would say that if there was an edit button I wouldn’t have to admit that but It’d be a lie.

            2. Ken,

              I just checked HinnyBinny’s enemies list and you’re not on it. I don’t think it’s fair of you to be excluded from the Hihn Bihn.

              1. They travel in a pack, like wild dogs, The authoritarian right.
                Let’s count the assaults, punishing me because I documented Shultz’s hysterical blunder.
                R Mac
                Tulpa
                Unicorn Abattoir.

                Posted in defense of multiple aggressions by a roving pack of wild-dog bulllies

                There will be more, They can’t help it.

                1. I’m this makes me fastest on the list ever. Suck it trolls.

                  1. Thinking. Lol

                    1. Burp. Chortle.

                2. Seriously though I’m the most right wing person I know. Also sarcasm is aggression! Argh!

                  1. Posted in defense of multiple aggressions by a roving pack of wild-dog bulllies.
                    There will be more, They can’t help it.I’m this makes me fastest on the list ever. Suck it trolls.
                    Thinking. Lol
                    Burp. Chortle.Proves me right AGAIN. Then…

                    Seriously though I’m the most right wing person I know.

                    You seem proud of it.
                    But it’s probably why you gurgle shit like THIS

                    I’m this makes me fastest on the list ever. Suck it trolls.

                    (sneer)

                    Left – Right = Zero

        2. The answer to your final question is that Congress passed legislation, which was signed by the President, that gave the President the authority to declare them. So Congress can’t end these statutory emergencies whenever they want, because they’ve already passed legislation that authorizes them. In order to end them “whenever they want” they need enough votes to overcome a veto. This legislation returns the authority to Congress that they had previously delegated to the President, while recognizing that emergencies, by their nature, may need a response quicker than Congress can deliver, but that the President shouldn’t be able to use that delegated authority against the will of a Congress who wouldn’t have authorized the emergency in the first place.

          1. Unnecessarily convoluted. Easier response:

            Congress passed an act 40 something years ago which deferred some Congressional powers to the office of the President in case of emergencies. Since then, these powers have been used by Presidents to, predictably, make an end-run around Congress for political purposes.

            Congress still recognizes the importance of having the President maintain the power to act in response to an actual emergency and just wants to sunset-clause the emergency. They want to pass a new bill which is basically an amended version of the old bill. This is completely in line with the constitution, and it helps reduce some of the bloat of the Presidency.

            This is a good thing. This conversation may only be happening due to a President who is unliked by much of the political establishment, but anything that reduces the power of the office of the Presidency is A+ legislation in my book. I don’t require 100% pure motives for reasonable actions.

            1. If this doesn’t pass during bad orange man’s administration but the people who support it keep supporting it, I’ll agree with you. Do you think that after this administration everyone who ends up supporting it will continue to? Cuz I got Florida land to sell. DM me for deets.

              1. Of course they’re doing this to stick it to the Orange Man. I just don’t care because it’s an unambiguous good, in my book. Just like Thomas Jefferson’s opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts was largely because he distrusted John Adams (since he later snuck through a few crackdowns of his own when he was in office before the bill expired), he was still correct in that case.

          2. The answer to your final questionThere is no question, final or anywhere in the comment,

            Now, lemme ‘splain it to you Lucy,
            They WANT Trump’s lackey’s to support his dictatorial power grab. Then bash them in the election. That’s how they got Nixon.
            Will it work? You are their first victim.
            There will be more,

            1. I can’t find Lucy’s comment anywhere above. Sucks being slow like that. But I’ll persevere.

              1. (lol) That’s what Ricky Ricardo said to HIS Lucy, when she couldn’t grasp the obvious. .

                It’s a form of ridicule, for … Lucy equivalents.

                ‘splain was your clue.
                whoooooooooooooosh

                1. I love Lucy ended in 1957.

      3. And I’m a suede jacket.

        Out of style and probably moldy?

        1. Shultz:
          But then I’m a principled libertarian,

          And I’m a suede jacket.

          Out of style and probably moldy?

          (lol) That was Nolanlib ridiculing Shultz
          For the same reason I’m now ridiculing you … again … as you stalk me down the page

          Any more opportunities for me?
          Do you feel manly NOW?

          </blockquote

          1. My bad. I thought you and Nolan were the same person. Won’t make that mistake again, after you embarrassed me like that!

            (Chortles, pisses pants, in embarrassment)

        2. More like a Members Only jacket.

  3. Because, of course, Congress would never decide not to extend an emergency just because they don’t like whoever’s president.

    1. When you have an actual emergency, it’s pretty much defined by everybody recognizing it as such.

      If you have to run around trying to persuade people there’s an emergency, there’s no emergency.

      1. ^^This.

          1. ^THIS THUG (12 years old)

      2. America has a lot of treasonous subversives within. That is the problem. Not the president’s correct declaration of a real emergency.

        1. America has a lot of treasonous subversives within. That is the problem. Not the president’s correct declaration of a real emergency.

          Wow. You really are a walking punchline.

          1. You have to give Shithead a break. A long day of murdering Democrats can take its toll on anyone!

            1. ^THIS!
              (pees pants laughing)

        2. ALSO clueless on what treason is!!!

            1. Treason can occur only if we are at war, or if it causes a war.
              Hysteria requires only ignorance. Which s why you assaulted for calling you out, (My name is not Hihn, so another false conspiracy by you.)

              1. Definitely not Hihn. Definitely his doppelgänger.

                1. That’s your fifth assault, stalker. So far. Still more to scroll.

                  Adults post facts.
                  Children post childish insults … hoping to feel manly … and obviously failing.

                  (Posted in defense of aggression and bullying, by Trump wannabes)

                  1. This really is too good to be true. #libertarianmoment

                    1. You refuse to accept that treason cannot be done unless there is a war. or the action leads to one.

                      Their emphasis

                      https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
                      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

                      The part about an action causing a war is a judicial ruling .. and common sense.

                      If you’re still confused, I can’t dumb it down any further,

                      My attitude is more self-defense, of yet more aggression, by a stalking cyber-bully and Trumpster (the same thing)

                      P.S. If there was a war, Trump would be guilty of treason. He has repeatedly given aid and comfort to our worst enemies. We are not at war, but a high risk he will stumble into one.

  4. It will be interesting to see who opposes this.

    1. I’m guessing two groups: republicans, because their guy is in power, and democrats, because they assume their guy will be in power next.

      1. And also the invertebrates who refuse to take a stand on this or anything else that would give more power to Congress, because responsibility is hard.

  5. Hmm, it must be time for Rand Paul’s once-a-year action for liberty.

    1. Sounds like something Hihn would say. Your handle is along the lines of his sock puppets too.

      1. Prove him wrong and stop yet non-stop whining.

        Rand shut down the federal government momentarily, protesting the impact of higher taxes on the deficit.

        Then voted FOR tax cuts with MORE damage to the deficit.

        Alt-right goobers say “tax cuts are letting me keep more of my own money.” Too stucking fupid to know they stole that money from their own children and grandchildren.

        LIBERTARIANS KNOW THAT DEFICITS ARE UNVOTED TAX INCREASES ON OUR CHILDREN.

        Liberals borrow trillions to pay for free stuff.
        Conservatives borrow trillions to pay for free tax cuts. (along with faux libertarians)

        1. ” non-stop whining.”

          You’re right, non stop whining is your gig Hihney.

          1. (SNEER) I post facts.
            You just whined … again … because you LOST … again

            1. I’m getting aroused.

              1. But not as aroused as I’d be with a chortle.

                1. Alt-right goobers say “tax cuts are letting me keep more of my own money.” Too stucking fupid to know they stole that money from their own children and grandchildren.

                  LIBERTARIANS KNOW THAT DEFICITS ARE UNVOTED TAX INCREASES ON OUR CHILDREN.

                  Liberals borrow trillions to pay for free stuff.
                  Conservatives borrow trillions to pay for free tax cuts. (along with faux libertarians)

        2. Dude, seriously just stop. It’s embarrassingly transparent that you’re Nolan and that Nolan is Hihn. If you have to shit up every thread on every article, at least be forthcoming about it.

          1. Look gain. I RESPOND to UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION.
            As I have done here. You owe me an apology. I won’t hold my breath with your ilk.

  6. I’m sure it is a good plan that has no chance of passing into law. About as much chance as Kamala Harris winning the election and prosecuting Trump.

    1. He’ll likely already be in jail by then.

      1. No he won’t.

        1. So you don’t know what “likely” means either!!

          (Advice to newbies: the bullies who stalk you down the page, are no more intelligent than this one.)

          1. Not likely. Not even probable! I post facts! Chortle.

  7. Sadly, a complete waste of time.

    1. The House and Senate do not want that responsibility. They like being in a position to criticize and grandstand because they’re letting someone else make the hard decisions – and even better that there’s a legal fig leaf to hide behind when people point out that they should be making those decisions.

    2. None of them want the powers of the President limited because they a) know that no matter how bad this guy is, his actions will expand the scope of power of their guy when he’s in power next, b) gives them an excuse to get their name in front of the cameras, and c) they like to pretend when their guy is in office that this state of affairs will continue permanently.

    1. And Obama’s a Muslim
      Hundreds of Muslims cheered the attack on 9/11
      Trump’s (failing) tax cuts are the largest in history.
      Trump’s Electoral victory was the largest in history. (39,000 voters!)

      That’s why we need an entirely new Constitution. Regularly
      That’s both Jeffersonian and Randian (Jefferson originated it)

      1. Don’t know if Obama’s a Muslim
        More than 100’s of them cheered 911. But since there’s almost 2 billion of them in the world, that’s a tiny number. Probably hundreds of Muslims committing murder right now. Also probably hundreds of Christians, atheists, Hindus, etc committing murder. Hundreds is a ridiculously small number.

        The 200 bucks a month in my pocket from the tax cuts is significant to me. And if $200 means something to me, I’m clearly not in the tippy tippy top.

        The rest of your post is nonsense. (And yes I know what that means to how you will respond)

        1. Don’t know if Obama’s a Muslim

          ADMITS HE DOESN’T KNOW! (ROFLMAO)
          Then THIS

          More than 100’s of them cheered 911.

          (smirk)

          The 200 bucks a month in my pocket from the tax cuts is significant to me.

          WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
          Non-responsive to anything you responded to.

          The rest of your post is nonsense.

          Made a fool of you THREE times!.
          1) You don’t know if Obama’s a Muslim.
          2) Your comment on cheering Muslims reveals your total ignorance of that issue.
          3) Your laughable blunder on the tax cut (I said it was failing and it is, but you’re SO out of touch on the issues.)

          READY … FIRE …. AIM

          PLEASE stop stalking me. I don’t feel right ridiculing the handicapped … feels like I’m kicking a cripple.
          Or a kitten

          1. If you respond to my post, then I respond back, that’s not stalking. Whoosh!

            Did any Muslims cheer 911? Whoosh!

            If you say that tax cuts are failing, but here I am as an individual (I hear that’s an important part of libertarianism) saying that the government is taking less of my money, that’s worthy of refuting. Whoosh! Chortle! Whoosh!

            How do I know if Obama is a Muslim or not? Especially since I don’t give a fuck, but I know he’s a liar about things I do give a fuck about? Triple whoosh!

            Also, am I the fastest person to make your list?

            1. If you respond to my post, then I respond back, that’s not stalkingInitiating 23 aggressions on a page is stalking,.

              AND YOU FUCKING LIAR, YOU RESPONDED TO ME AND THIS WAS YOUR AGGRESSION.

              The rest of your post is nonsense.

              Which I jammed up your ass!
              Mess with the bull; get the horns.

              If you can’t take it, stop starting it.

              (flush)

  8. Always good to come to a libertarian site to see everybody properly slagging the stupid idea of limiting the power of government. Keep fighting the good fight!

    1. Like I said above, if this is sincere and the sentiment continues after Trump, I’ll be glad. But since I’m not stupid I don’t believe it will. (By the people in Washington not you).

      1. Who cares about sentiment in congress? Expecting congress to be consistent isn’t terribly reasonable. The best we can expect is that they do the right thing by accident from time to time.

    2. Not everybody. Just the non-Libertarians. Having a nearly un-moderated forum attracts all types.

      1. It rewards and defends the very worst.
        One reason why the libertarian brand is now rejected by 91% of libertarians (A professional Brand Survey by Cato)

        Ask any marketing professional, that means a brand is “toxic” — a threat to its product or service, which here is ‘liberty.”

        The libertarian label is thus THE worst threat to individual liberty.
        The is caused, almost entirely, by the dominance of anti-government libertarians … today’s libertarian ideology … at a time when over 60% of Americans self-identify with libertarian values, and are EAGER for a revolution.

        Modern libertarianism, on the proven facts, is as successful as George Custer.

        With no change, 2020 will see a fascist vs a socialist on the ballot … with ANOTHER libertarian suffering NO policy reforms, not one, on anything, Nothing on taxes, Nothing on jobs and the economy, Nothing on health care. Nothing on governance.

  9. […] the National Emergency Act of 1976 “a convenient tool for ticked off executives,” Reason said its primary value now is to expand presidential power to do end-runs around […]

  10. […] the National Emergency Act of 1976 “a convenient tool for ticked off executives,” Reason said its primary value now is to expand presidential power to do end-runs around […]

  11. It is a very bad and dangerous thing to let the powers of the president keep growing this way. I don’t mean just this one.

    Another example is this emergency arms sale to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. I am not against selling to them but it has always gone through Congress. There is no emergency and most of this stuff will take months or years to deliver.

    The airlift of weapons to Israel in 1973 was an actual emergency. They were near out of everything and more near defeat than most people know today. Nixon did go to Congress.

    Story was the American f-4s landed at Lod. The Israeli pilots would just swap out for the American pilots. Crews would slap on some insignia paint, arm and fuel and they would be in the air in an hour or less. I digress.

    I blame Congress more than the executive who will always try to rule by decree. Don’t let that happen.

    1. Trump is buddies with every dictator on the planet.
      Insults his one FBI and Intel. But believes Putin WITH NO EVIDENCE,
      Because :Deep state conspiracy!
      Trumpbots = Berniebots.

      Authoritarians always admire their ilk. Sees them as “strong and decisive” which is how they justify their own sick minds.

      1. That is your 1st act of aggression towards Echospinner! Also my 6th towards you! I just shit my pants! Then I ate it! Top that! (Chortles).

        1. sneer

          That is your 1st act of aggression towards Echospinner!

          I AGREED WITH HIM … AND SUPPORTED HIM … AND YOUR CLOWN CAR CRASHED AGAIN.

          1. Honk honk.

            1. I topped it, thug.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.