posted by ptown_trojans_1

Normally, Rs have gone along with whatever Trump ultimately decides. This will be a fascinating case study to see how the Rs respond, given the issue and precedent it does set.  

1) I'm pretty sure this will be a SCOTUS, not a Congress, issue

2) Everyone should thank their lucky stars that this is being tested by a Republican POTUS before a conservative SCOTUS.....because that should properly set the precedent in the right direction

3) How the Republicans respond really won't matter....it will be like it always is, when one party cries foul only when the other party controls the WH

Me:
"Executive orders are highly problematic, because they remove the checks and balances of the branches of government."

Supporters of Obama using executive order to push the ACA:
"But this is good, and the executive order will just keep those bad Republicans from stopping a good thing."

Me:
"But the reason we HAVE the checks-and-balances system is to prevent that ability from being abused. The executive order is for declaring federal holidays, calling for the flags at half mast, or for imminent crises."

Supporters of Obama using executive order to push the ACA:
"This IS a crisis. People are dying in the streets because they don't have health insurance. It will help people. And you can keep the same plan and doctor, if you want to. It'll be fine. We just have to never have a bad president."

*ACA raises my healthcare costs, worsens the coverage, and changes the network, and Trump uses exact same power to build the wall

Me:
"Damnit, you dumb motherfuckers."

posted by O-Trap

Me:
"Executive orders are highly problematic, because they remove the checks and balances of the branches of government."

Supporters of Obama using executive order to push the ACA:
"But this is good, and the executive order will just keep those bad Republicans from stopping a good thing."

Me:
"But the reason we HAVE the checks-and-balances system is to prevent that ability from being abused. The executive order is for declaring federal holidays, calling for the flags at half mast, or for imminent crises."

Supporters of Obama using executive order to push the ACA:
"This IS a crisis. People are dying in the streets because they don't have health insurance. It will help people. And you can keep the same plan and doctor, if you want to. It'll be fine. We just have to never have a bad president."

*ACA raises my healthcare costs, worsens the coverage, and changes the network, and Trump uses exact same power to build the wall

Me:
"Damnit, you dumb motherfuckers."

It's all so simple and so clear.  Thank God there is a wise person such as you who can fight the good fight and fend off this mob of liberals you seem to be engaged with.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It's all so simple and so clear.  Thank God there is a wise person such as you who can fight the good fight and fend off this mob of liberals you seem to be engaged with.  

You really, really, really missed the actual point being made.

@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/535441553079431168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>" />@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/535441553079431168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>">http://

Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2014

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It's all so simple and so clear.  Thank God there is a wise person such as you who can fight the good fight and fend off this mob of liberals you seem to be engaged with. 

If bitching at random acquaintances is "fight[ing] the good fight," then cool.

But don't you worry.  The Republicans who follow Trump down this inane "national crisis" path will be setting a spectacular new bar for abuse of the executive order.
 

posted by geeblock

@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2014

What is that insane mess at the beginning of your post?  Yeesh.

posted by O-Trap

If bitching at random acquaintances is "fight[ing] the good fight," then cool.

But don't you worry.  The Republicans who follow Trump down this inane "national crisis" path will be setting a spectacular new bar for abuse of the executive order.
 

posted by geeblock

@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2014

What is that insane mess at the beginning of your post?  Yeesh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol IDK i was trying to post a tweet right from twitter. 

posted by geeblock

lol IDK i was trying to post a tweet right from twitter. 

Yeah, I pieced together what it was supposed to be.  Just wasn't sure how you made it all show up like that.  lol

I agree with the sentiment, though.  Trump is rapid-firing rocks in the glass house he's built over the last decade or so.

posted by Heretic

You really, really, really missed the actual point being made.

My bad then.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Normally, Rs have gone along with whatever Trump ultimately decides. This will be a fascinating case study to see how the Rs respond, given the issue and precedent it does set.  

“precedent”??  There are 31 ‘national emergencies’ currently in effect issued by past presidents.  Since the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976, presidents have declared at least 58 states of emergency (not including weather-related events).

THere was a national emergency declared for something going on in central America that had nothing to do with the US.  I think the precedent has been set for these to be declared for some dumb shit.  This is not one of those cases.  THe southern border is a national security threat

I'd be interested to know just what those past emergencies were.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693posted by CenterBHSFan

I'd be interested to know just what those past emergencies were.

After reading that list.......it pisses me off that people think this isn't qualifying as an emergency.  Obama signed some that never should have been donee

posted by Spock

After reading that list.......it pisses me off that people think this isn't qualifying as an emergency.  Obama signed some that never should have been donee

The definition of emergency in this context is that something came up so quickly that there wasn't time for congress to act. Clearly not the case here.

posted by queencitybuckeye

The definition of emergency in this context is that something came up so quickly that there wasn't time for congress to act. Clearly not the case here.

Did you look at that list?  Most of those are foreign policy issues that had nothing to do with a "national" security.

Unlike this one that actually is taking place here

posted by Spock

Did you look at that list?  Most of those are foreign policy issues that had nothing to do with a "national" security.

Unlike this one that actually is taking place here

Was there something in my post that was confusing?

posted by queencitybuckeye

Was there something in my post that was confusing?

 

Yea.....regardless of how fast something comes up in the middle of Africa......its not a national emergency to the US.  This action has been abused a lot.

posted by Spock

Yea.....regardless of how fast something comes up in the middle of Africa......its not a national emergency to the US.  This action has been abused a lot.

All well and good, but the fact remains that "emergency" has a specific meaning in government (the one I gave). Using the legal definition, those are emergencies, this is a petulant man-child not getting money from mom and dad, and shoplifting the item he wants.

posted by queencitybuckeye

All well and good, but the fact remains that "emergency" has a specific meaning in government (the one I gave). Using the legal definition, those are emergencies, this is a petulant man-child not getting money from mom and dad, and shoplifting the item he wants.

what dont you understand about the word "national"?  Declaring a national emergency when something is happening in another country is not an emergency.  It is not putting in danger US citizens.  What Trump is declaring one for is way more of an emergency for the people in this country then almost everything on that list

posted by Spock

what dont you understand about the word "national"?  Declaring a national emergency when something is happening in another country is not an emergency.  It is not putting in danger US citizens.  What Trump is declaring one for is way more of an emergency for the people in this country then almost everything on that list

We're going nowhere. You're on board with the cheeto. Rule of law doesn't matter as long as you get the "win".

posted by Spock

what dont you understand about the word "national"?  Declaring a national emergency when something is happening in another country is not an emergency.  It is not putting in danger US citizens.  What Trump is declaring one for is way more of an emergency for the people in this country then almost everything on that list

Trump admitted he didn’t need to do this literally minutes after signing it. So how much of an emergency is it?

posted by queencitybuckeye

We're going nowhere. You're on board with the cheeto. Rule of law doesn't matter as long as you get the "win".

Look at the list of former national emergencies and decide for yourself how much of an "emergency" any of them are?  At least Trumps has something to do with the actual US

posted by wildcats20

Trump admitted he didn’t need to do this literally minutes after signing it. So how much of an emergency is it?

To many it is a legit emergency.  millions of people breaking the laws of this country yearly and the government unable and unwilling to fix it.  Hence an emergency.

posted by queencitybuckeye

We're going nowhere. You're on board with the cheeto. Rule of law doesn't matter as long as you get the "win".

The case will most likely be tested in a court of law, so we will see where the ‘rule of law’ falls.  Regardless, it is about time a disrupter came to town to kick swamp in the ass and expose their lack of legislation to deal with a major problem.

If the fucker wanted to drain the swamp, he wouldn’t fill it with felon associates and build a wall to keep the shit from draining