The Trump Presidency

Question, aren't emergency powers subject to legislative and judicial oversight . In addition wouldn't they have to be declared as,such ?
 
Of the articles of impeachment against Nixon one centered around the misuse of EO

In defiance of legilative restriction.

Sucks that 10 days into Trump the history of Nixon is meaningfull
 
57Brave said:
Question, aren't emergency powers subject to legislative and judicial oversight . In addition wouldn't they have to be declared as,such ?
Click to expand...

Well, technically, we've been in a continual state of declared emergency (as it relates to terrorism) since 3 days after 9/11. Obama renewed it in September.
 
jpx7 said:
And, in that example, one might be arguing in either frighteningly-unsubstantiated paranoia or hilariously bad-faith.
Click to expand...

Unbenownst to most Americans, the United States is presently under thirty
presidentially declared states of emergency. They confer vast powers on the Executive
Branch, including the ability to financially incapacitate any person or organization
in the United States, seize control of the nation’s communications infrastructure,
mobilize military forces, expand the permissible size of the military without
congressional authorization, and extend tours of duty without consent from service
personnel. Declared states of emergency may also activate Presidential Emergency
Action Documents and other continuity-of-government procedures, which confer
powers on the President—such as the unilateral suspension of habeas corpus—that
appear fundamentally opposed to the American constitutional order. Although the
National Emergencies Act, by its plain language, requires Congress to vote every six
months on whether a declared national emergency should continue, Congress has
done so only once in the nearly forty-year history of the Act.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2056822

---

Here's a good argument from the Obama administration for recently extending an emergency: "the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Belarus and other persons continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."

So, yes, frightening and hilarious - but also de rigueur ...
 
Hawk said:
Well, technically, we've been in a continual state of declared emergency (as it relates to terrorism) since 3 days after 9/11. Obama renewed it in September.
Click to expand...
Hawk said:

Unbenownst to most Americans, the United States is presently under thirty
presidentially declared states of emergency. They confer vast powers on the Executive
Branch, including the ability to financially incapacitate any person or organization
in the United States, seize control of the nation’s communications infrastructure,
mobilize military forces, expand the permissible size of the military without
congressional authorization, and extend tours of duty without consent from service
personnel. Declared states of emergency may also activate Presidential Emergency
Action Documents and other continuity-of-government procedures, which confer
powers on the President—such as the unilateral suspension of habeas corpus—that
appear fundamentally opposed to the American constitutional order. Although the
National Emergencies Act, by its plain language, requires Congress to vote every six
months on whether a declared national emergency should continue, Congress has
done so only once in the nearly forty-year history of the Act.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2056822

---

Here's a good argument from the Obama administration for recently extending an emergency: "the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Belarus and other persons continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."

So, yes, but frightening and hilarious - but also de rigueur ...
Click to expand...

I've been pretty consistently critical of the former President's posture and actions in that regard.
 
jpx7 said:
I've been pretty consistently critical of the former President's posture and actions in that regard.
Click to expand...

To be fair, both Bush Jr. and Clinton also have fresh blood on their hands in relation to egregious use of "emergency" powers -- but it goes way back.

It's a problem that we won't recognize as a problem until something truly unconstitutional happens.
 
Hawk said:
To be fair, both Bush Jr. and Clinton also have fresh blood on their hands in relation to egregious use of "emergency" powers -- but it goes way back.

It's a problem that we won't recognize as a problem until something truly unconstitutional happens.
Click to expand...

This is true, and a general commentary on how little resistance there's been to the general drift towards the "unitary executive" (to borrow a Bush 43 term).
 
How do we get the people that created this mess to clean it up ?

The 15-20 of you here that voted and supported a Trump Presidency, what are you going to do about this ?
This is on you
 
Donald Trump has chosen a white nationalist as his chief strategist and a white-nationalist sympathizer as his pick for Attorney General. Like the Confederate general he is named after, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has long been a leading voice for the Old South and the conservative white backlash vote Trump courted throughout his campaign. Sessions, as a US senator from Alabama, has been the fiercest opponent in the Senate of immigration reform, a centerpiece of Trump’s agenda, and has a long history of opposition to civil rights, dating back to his days as a US Attorney in Alabama in the 1980s.

https://www.thenation.com/article/j...general-is-a-fierce-opponent-of-civil-rights/
 
57Brave said:
Donald Trump has chosen a white nationalist as his chief strategist and a white-nationalist sympathizer as his pick for Attorney General. Like the Confederate general he is named after, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has long been a leading voice for the Old South and the conservative white backlash vote Trump courted throughout his campaign. Sessions, as a US senator from Alabama, has been the fiercest opponent in the Senate of immigration reform, a centerpiece of Trump’s agenda, and has a long history of opposition to civil rights, dating back to his days as a US Attorney in Alabama in the 1980s.

https://www.thenation.com/article/j...general-is-a-fierce-opponent-of-civil-rights/
Click to expand...

Sessions is monstrous. I have been focusing on the issue of his nomination in particular when calling and emailing my Senators.
 
I think that the President should have pretty wide latitude on his cabinet appointments. That said, if I had a vote, a no vote on Sessions would be a no-brainer. It's a horrible choice.
 
"We must go beyond criticizing Trump" and the nature and language of his travel-ban, if we are truly seeking security:

To prevent and defend against violence targeting Americans will require understanding and addressing the larger context in which opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East arises. This requires taking a wider view of the region to include not only the Islamic State’s atrocities but also the equally pernicious efforts by Assad and his supporters to generate deep social and political fault lines that correspond with ethnic and sectarian identities—and thus exploit them relentlessly. It requires recognizing that the vicious proxy war in Syria is fueled by outside interests, including arms industries and the deeply interdependent as well as competing military and security establishments in the United States, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states. It requires accounting for the dramatic state failure in Iraq and Afghanistan resulting from U.S. invasions and occupations. It requires that the United States find constructive ways to address escalating tensions between an increasingly authoritarian Turkish government and its terrorized citizenry. It requires listening to political dissidents from all of these places.
Click to expand...
 
what violence against Americans?
That is what I don't see

I am more afraid of the Dylan Roof's in my neighborhood or a Sandy Hook type shooter than a random fanatic.
And that is really what it is , random
 
57Brave said:
what violence against Americans?
That is what I don't see

I am more afraid of the Dylan Roof's in my neighborhood or a Sandy Hook type shooter than a random fanatic.
And that is really what it is , random
Click to expand...

58 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. A lot higher if you are black. So I agree.
 
57Brave said:
How do we get the people that created this mess to clean it up ?

The 15-20 of you here that voted and supported a Trump Presidency, what are you going to do about this ?
This is on you
Click to expand...

The way I see it this is most people getting a taste of their own medicine. They were perfectly fine selling me down the river, now its payback time. Nothing Trump is doing is any different than previous presidents. He just doesnt care about trying to hide it.

The way you view Trump is how Libertarians view most of the politicians. We fix this by the rest you realizing that you have no right or authority over my body or what I do in my own home and voting accordingly.

Cry all you want about how much about how mean Trump is to immigrants while knowing the alternative you wanted champions mass incarceration of minorities. Sure, you might not say you support prohibition but your vote says otherwise.
 
jpx7 said:
I've been pretty consistently critical of the former President's posture and actions in that regard.
Click to expand...

Don't you thing that 'posture' was as much to do with placating under the radar and already in progress military, CIA and state department actions than it was with new policy from the President? Not saying the President isn't ultimately responsible but there's just a lot going on that we don't know about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top