Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Presidential Powers

  1. #1

    Default Presidential Powers

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...powers/576418/

    What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency

    From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.




    The last paragraphs paint an extreme hypothetical, but it's a good article. Especially since Trump has already used "national security" to justify steel and aluminum tariffs....and is threatening to declare a state of emergency in order to build The Wall. Yikes

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...powers/576418/

    What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency

    From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.




    The last paragraphs paint an extreme hypothetical, but it's a good article. Especially since Trump has already used "national security" to justify steel and aluminum tariffs....and is threatening to declare a state of emergency in order to build The Wall. Yikes
    Presidential emergency powers can be curtailed by a congress that is willing to recognize they are being misused.
    .

  3. #3
    So not this Senate then?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    So not this Senate then?
    Apparently not any Senate, if what the article says about the failure to review is true.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  5. #5
    Even if the new Senate did a full review and proposed legal changes that limit Presidential powers....wouldn't an authoritarian like Trump demand 'his' Attorney General and DoJ challenge it in court, eventually ending in a SCOTUS decision?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Even if the new Senate did a full review and proposed legal changes that limit Presidential powers....wouldn't an authoritarian like Trump demand 'his' Attorney General and DoJ challenge it in court, eventually ending in a SCOTUS decision?
    Probably not. I'm not terribly worried about it so far even if it did happen. You're not getting a 5/4 decision upholding Trump doing that kind of thing, or even a mere 5/4 decision against him. Gorusch and Kavanaugh are just too new and unfamiliar to predict but Roberts and Thomas wouldn't be upholding action like that anymore than Ginsburg would. Alito's more questionable, would kinda depend on just how flimsy the excuse used was and just what area it was coming from.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #7
    Doesn't have to win at SCOTUS to fulfill his objectives tbh.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Probably not. I'm not terribly worried about it so far even if it did happen. You're not getting a 5/4 decision upholding Trump doing that kind of thing, or even a mere 5/4 decision against him. Gorusch and Kavanaugh are just too new and unfamiliar to predict but Roberts and Thomas wouldn't be upholding action like that anymore than Ginsburg would. Alito's more questionable, would kinda depend on just how flimsy the excuse used was and just what area it was coming from.
    Plus like Bush v Gore it depends surely upon whether it sets precedent or is a one off?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Doesn't have to win at SCOTUS to fulfill his objectives tbh.
    No, he doesn't. He COULD just call all Republican voters to take their guns and shoot dead every single Democrat who tried to enter a polling station and achieve his objective that way, or by any other number of fairly unlikely scenarios. And unlikely scenarios DO happen. But stealing an election he would have lost be resorting to fraud is much more likely. And efforts there are something he's much more likely to get past challenges to SCOTUS, objections by Congress, etc. rather than trying to use the military and federal police powers.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  10. #10
    Easy there, captain crankypants. All I meant was that Trump doesn't have to win a court case on eg. the wall to score points with his supporters; he just has to show he's a fighter, and a loss can be spun as a win or as injustice that further undermines the legitimacy of the court. As a bonus, it lets complacent idiots maintain their delusional belief in the strength of US institutions, so that they can continue to spin their two-year-long retreat as #winning.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Easy there, captain crankypants. All I meant was that Trump doesn't have to win a court case on eg. the wall to score points with his supporters;
    O. . .k. . .

    And how does that have anything at all to do with what I was replying to and talking about? I was already talking to GGT, Aimless. Don't turn into another of her, please. The topic I was discussing was efficacy of states of emergency and the use of emergency powers to subvert US democracy in the next election, as per the linked article from The Atlantic.

    he just has to show he's a fighter, and a loss can be spun as a win or as injustice that further undermines the legitimacy of the court. As a bonus, it lets complacent idiots maintain their delusional belief in the strength of US institutions, so that they can continue to spin their two-year-long retreat as #winning.
    If your standard is him "losing points" with the people who delude themselves into loving him no matter what he does, than you're going to have to content yourself with #losing forever. I'm not concerned about the use of emergency powers from Trump. I am concerned with the consequences of him being able to get away with blatantly lying every time he opens his mouth. I am concerned with how his presence, attitude, and methods drove various experienced Republicans into just leaving Congress rather than forming a nucleus of opposition within the party as would have been better for the long-term health of the party.

    There is a danger of erosion which could lead to a collapse in the future (not this term, barring genuine emergencies leading to acute paradigm shifts, something that is impossible to predict and can happen even in well-rooted and healthy circumstances). But that's not the topic and concern which was raised here, was it? Furthermore, it's not something any amount of talking, acknowledging, ranting, etc. on here has the least bearing on. Other than Lewk and sometimes Dread we're all already reflexively opposing anything Trump says or does, and wanting him gone. So just what is it you're seeking from me here, Aimless? Am I not posting fresh links to vent outrage enough for you? Because it seemed to me like you and OG do enough of that to keep the forum pretty well covered as-is.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  12. #12
    I don't know who shat in your oatmeal this morning baby-Tear, but I don't believe team Trump actually "wants" to go for any of the extraordinary powers the Atlantic article brings up. It's not a realistic expectation and therefore I did not regard it as being likely to be one of his objectives. Making a show of fighting, endearing himself to isolationist xenophobes and distracting all observers in the process, is a more plausible objective, and he can successfully achieve that without actually winning a court case. The article focuses on unrealistic extremes but the mundane possibilities are more concerning right now: GOP congressmen playing right into Trump's hands by letting him start a fight that he can benefit from irrespective of outcome, further eroding the legitimacy of the institutions that are supposed to check him.

    And, while we're on that topic, it's interesting that you interpreted that specifically as an attack directed at you rather than at unspecified complacent moderate & centrist US commentators. I couldn't remember whether or not you were one of those who, around the time of the election, expressed a naive faith in the power of US institutions to curtail Trump—and pooh-poohed those who were more concerned—so I made sure not to refer to you specifically.

    As for what the standards should be, the standard should be to not give Trump stupid fights. In this case, congress can end the shutdown, instead of playing into his hands by giving him a harmful fight that he can keep spinning unchallenged.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #13
    As for outrage, what's outrageous is not Trump—it's how eagerly the US is implementing Trumpism, and the human cost of the nation's surrender. If I post a link to an article about an immigrant who gets fucked over by govt officials, it's not a criticism of Trump—it's a story about how ordinary Americans, under Trump, have willingly caused vulnerable people to suffer. Everyone knows Trump is a crook, but I didn't know the US govt would fuck toddlers over the way it has.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    As for outrage, what's outrageous is not Trump—it's how eagerly the US is implementing Trumpism, and the human cost of the nation's surrender. If I post a link to an article about an immigrant who gets fucked over by govt officials, it's not a criticism of Trump—it's a story about how ordinary Americans, under Trump, have willingly caused vulnerable people to suffer. Everyone knows Trump is a crook, but I didn't know the US govt would fuck toddlers over the way it has.
    Government shutdown is very simple to end. The house bill just needs to be voted up again in House and Senate and President signs and we can kick the can on presidential powers down the road again.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Government shutdown is very simple to end...
    Senate veto override.
    .

  16. #16
    This (R) held senate doesn't seem to view itself as a co-equal branch that's supposed to be a check on the executive. Not even for expansion and/or abuse of presidential powers which used to be a 'conservative' principle. Maybe they only care when there's a Democrat in the WH.

    Lindsay Graham is now telling Trump to declare a National Emergency (along with conservative TV and radio commentators) just to get The Wall built, saying the window for legislative solutions has probably closed. Never mind that congress controls the purse....they'll stand by while Trump diverts funds set aside for real disasters, uses the military for construction, and confiscates private land using eminent domain?

    It's understandable that a president should have the power to declare a National Emergency, but it's disturbing that Trump might actually create a disaster and call it "national security crisis" just to get his way, or fulfill a campaign promise that was based on lies -- with no push-back from his own party.

    I don't know how (or if) we can continue to give such broad discretion to presidential powers in the post-Trump era, especially since congress has exposed its vulnerabilities and political weakness. It doesn't make sense to assume that Trump is a one-time anomaly and leave it to the next election, does it?

  17. #17
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,025
    I haven’t had enough coffee, but it comes down to what POTUS has Constitionally for power and what Congress has kept handing over.

    Congress needs to grow a pair.

    If the State of Emergency is within POTUS’s purview, we are stuck with it.

    And looking at the last poll results of who the Democrats are favoring for the next run...say hello Trump 2020.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  18. #18
    Are the Democrats favouring anyone yet? Looks like theres at least a dozen plausible names which is better than the coronation that Clinton got last time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  19. #19
    Agreed that congress needs to step up! McConnell is treating the senate like an extension of the presidency, and Republican senators don't seem to mind.

  20. #20
    Well, he did it. Trump declared a National Emergency just to build the damn wall. He's bypassing congress, and will take money appropriated to military projects and drug interdiction (possibly from disaster funds too) totaling $8 billion.

    How can Republicans continue to support this abuse of power? First congress cedes its power to the executive, then passes it off to the judiciary. What a joke.

  21. #21
    Don't have anything in your mouth when you read this; Ann Coulter said "The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot". What!


    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...neJ?li=BBnb7Kz
    .

  22. #22
    And everybody knows...

    Trump is an idiot, a fucking moron. What's even more disturbing are the sycophants and power mongers that enable him, while claiming to be 'conservatives' that want a small federal gummint and luv the US Constitution.

    The WH press sec. Sarah Huckabee Sanders believes God wanted Trump to be president. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/polit...ump/index.html so she continues to lie on his behalf. His VP and cabinet are just as eager and willing to twist the truth, and praise Trump's leadership and vision to MAGA! We're stuck in a full-blown political twilight zone. Pathetic

  23. #23
    PS to Fuzzy: this thread isn't limited to the OP article, or the "....efficacy of states of emergency and the use of emergency powers to subvert US democracy in the next election, as per the linked article from The Atlantic".

    It's also about abuse of power -- how to define, identify, and expose it; then to discuss how to prevent and/or remedy those abuses. None of this tangled web could have happened without the help (and active promotion) from elected Republicans and the GOP leadership. You're right about the 'health' of the party when experienced (and moderate voices) decide to leave/retire/not run for re-election instead of "forming a nucleus of opposition within the party".

    But I don't think this is "just" ranting, or hating on Trump, or ultimately a waste of time (even tho it feels that way, most days). We can actually learn a lot about our systems, and our own political beliefs. I was hoping you'd bring your knowledge about law and SCOTUS into this discussion. Since that's obviously the track we're on now, do you have some insights to share?

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Are the Democrats favouring anyone yet? Looks like theres at least a dozen plausible names which is better than the coronation that Clinton got last time.
    I think there is going to be a huge amount of shyness from the Democratic establishment to be viewed as backing a favorite early on. There are a lot of hard feelings on the Left about Bernie v Clinton. (At least among those who vote in primaries)

  25. #25
    I'm aghast Mitch McConnell is going along with this. On the bright side, now that a Republican president is pushing the envelope of the executive branch, maybe we'll finally have some real pushback on this kind of stuff across the media and elected representatives.

  26. #26
    "pushing the envelope"

    Come on man, it's not like he wore a tan suit.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #27

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I'm aghast Mitch McConnell is going along with this. On the bright side, now that a Republican president is pushing the envelope of the executive branch, maybe we'll finally have some real pushback on this kind of stuff across the media and elected representatives.
    McConnell has 'gone along' with Trump's agenda for 2 yrs now, ceding congressional authority so often it makes the senate look like a subsidiary of the executive (instead of a co-equal separate branch of government).

    But maybe McConnell is willing to look like a puppet in the short-term, because he's been focused on re-configuring the judiciary and filling courts with 'conservative' judges for the long-term? Could that be his strategy?

    If these multiple state law suits make it to the supreme court, which is now friendlier to presidential powers and the Unitary Executive Theory, Article 1 gives the 'power of the purse' to congress. No president should use appropriated tax dollars as an executive slush fund. Seems to me McConnell (and Republicans in general) are hoping the courts will solve their political problems and hypocrisies....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •