National Emergency Gun Control

[T.Lex]

The power to appropriate was given to Congress and Congress alone, and quite explicitly can only be done by an act of Congress. Art. 1 Sec. 9. This appears to me to be a constitutionally non-delegable power, especially to a branch of government that it is constitutionally withheld from.

So, to flip the script on the querying, what should Congress do? Refuse to appropriate any money to the executive until he gets back in line? Shut the government down?

Or, worst case scenario, go to court?

 

[Ingomike]

The power to appropriate was given to Congress and Congress alone, and quite explicitly can only be done by an act of Congress. Art. 1 Sec. 9. This appears to me to be a constitutionally non-delegable power, especially to a branch of government that it is constitutionally withheld from.

We are in complete agreement and yet to date all three branches disagree with us. Therefore under the current rules of engagement what the President did is considered Constitutional.

BTW, congress did appropriate the money, most likely in the form of rainy day funds. You know they might be busy sucking up to a donor or campaigning when the rainy day comes and cannot be bothered to come vote.

MM

 

[Fargo]

So, to flip the script on the querying, what should Congress do? Refuse to appropriate any money to the executive until he gets back in line? Shut the government down?

Or, worst case scenario, go to court?

I doubt SCOTUS would actually uphold this delegation of appropriating power, but who knows.

We already know what Congress has done, and likely will continue to do. At this point the solution does not lie with Congress. It lies with the people who elect the members of Congress.

 

[Fargo]

We are in complete agreement and yet to date all three branches disagree with us. Therefore under the current rules of engagement what the President did is considered Constitutional.

BTW, congress did appropriate the money, most likely in the form of rainy day funds. You know they might be busy sucking up to a donor or campaigning when the rainy day comes and cannot be bothered to come vote.

MM

Off the top my head, there is a pretty decent amount of supreme court case law on which powers may be delegated and which may not. I'm not so certain that all three branches are in agreement as to the constitutionality of this action.

 

[Ingomike]

So, to flip the script on the querying, what should Congress do? Refuse to appropriate any money to the executive until he gets back in line? Shut the government down?

Or, worst case scenario, go to court?

How the heck is "he" out of line? Congress is out of line and simply needs to assert their Constitutional authority and repeal the Emergency Powers act. Wala, "he" then cannot do it.

MM

 

[Fargo]

How the heck is "he" out of line? Congress is out of line and simply needs to assert their Constitutional authority and repeal the Emergency Powers act. Wala, "he" then cannot do it.

MM

Congress' dereliction of its oath to upload the Constitution does not excuse the executive for doing the same.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm seeing a lot of blame being put on the government for allowing this to happen rather than the person that's doing it. Not just you.

Sort of a "aw man, if only we wouldn't have made this possible... shucks... but oh well he's doing it anyway." I have a hard time believing anyone would feel that way if the parties involved were reversed.

How the heck is "he" out of line? Congress is out of line and simply needs to assert their Constitutional authority and repeal the Emergency Powers act. Wala, "he" then cannot do it.

MM

 

[Ingomike]

Off the top my head, there is a pretty decent amount of supreme court case law on which powers may be delegated and which may not. I'm not so certain that all three branches are in agreement as to the constitutionality of this action.

I agree, but until the Emergency Powers act itself is ruled on it is by default the law of the land.

MM

 

[JettaKnight]

As with many of these things there is a kernel of truth here that has been extrapolated. The caravan he's been spotted with UN support and UNsupplied aid bags. Soros is an open borders guy and financialy supports UN efforts to move migrants from the third world to the west.

MM

So, you're saying Soros is working with Trump...

 

[T.Lex]

How the heck is "he" out of line? Congress is out of line and simply needs to assert their Constitutional authority and repeal the Emergency Powers act. Wala, "he" then cannot do it.

MM

Other than the appropriation part, I'm not convinced Congress had most of those powers anyway. Those were already held by the executive, at least at some level. Lincoln certainly pushed past the boundaries on some of those items without any delegation from Congress. There are other examples, but I'm more concerned of a SCOTUS decision that confirms the POTUS already could do those things (to some extent).

 

[Ingomike]

Congress' dereliction of its oath to upload the Constitution does not excuse the executive for doing the same.

The Executive IS following a law written and passed by Congress. Exactly what is the executive doing that is a dereliction of his oath?

MM

 

[GIJEW]

And Trump and construction companies.

If we use the "follow the money" rule, the winners here are Trump, and Trump loyalist. They get their wall, they win. Ergo, the money leads to them.


The caravans, and all the hype around it, creates a sense of urgency to build the wall. Trump needs this urgency to garner support. Trump needs the caravans. The caravans need money. So, if we follow the money, then it came from Trump.

That's one conspiracy theory. On the other hand, these caravans seem to get organized just before elections and the democracts try to exploit them to present republicans as heartless and even evil, while they posture as compassionate and talk about civil rights for people who are trying to get into the country illegally.

They do it because they think it will help them win elections.

NGOs like 'nations without borders' operate with other people's money which pays for their salaries as part of operating expenses.

socialist power broker george soros has a history of throwing his fortune around in order to influence current events and is known to be a large contributor to leftists, their organizations, or their elections.

 

[Ingomike]

Other than the appropriation part, I'm not convinced Congress had most of those powers anyway. Those were already held by the executive, at least at some level. Lincoln certainly pushed past the boundaries on some of those items without any delegation from Congress. There are other examples, but I'm more concerned of a SCOTUS decision that confirms the POTUS already could do those things (to some extent).

A very real concern, so we whistle by the graveyard and hope it will not be thought of and used in a way we will not like?

MM

 

[Fargo]

I agree, but until the Emergency Powers act itself is ruled on it is by default the law of the land.

MM

No, the executive exercises his own judgment on the constitutionality of an act of Congress. Each of the branches of government has its own will in this regard. Congress has the ability to judge the constitutionality of what it enacts, the executive has the ability to judge the constitutionality of what it executes, and the courts have the ability to judge the constitutionality of laws they will enforce with the judicial power.

The history of this country has many many examples of the executive not exercising a power it deems unconstitutional.

The judicial power generally only comes in to play after the legislative and executive power have been exercised in unison. This, plus the binding nature of the rule of precedent, is why the courts are considered the last word, not because they have exclusive power to judge constitutionality.

 

[Ingomike]

No, the executive exercises his own judgment on the constitutionality of an act of Congress. Each of the branches of government has its own will in this regard. Congress has the ability to judge the constitutionality of what it enacts, the executive has the ability to judge the constitutionality of what it executes, and the courts have the ability to judge the constitutionality of laws they will enforce with the judicial power.

The history of this country has many many examples of the executive not exercising a power it deems unconstitutional.

The judicial power generally only comes in to play after the legislative and executive power have been exercised in unison. This, plus the binding nature of the rule of precedent, is why the courts are considered the last word, not because they have exclusive power to judge constitutionality.

It will be interesting to see this shake out...

MM

 

[Fargo]

It will be interesting to see this shake out...

MM

If you go back and read through the "signing statements" of most modern presidents, they explicitly layout which portions of legislation they do not deem to be constitutional and will not execute. (Never mind how shameful it is that they are signing legislation they explicitly believe violates the Constitution.)

 

[T.Lex]

Hey... in the spirit of Everything Old is New Again.... all of a sudden, I thought of the Posse Comitatus Act.

I wonder if that'll start getting popular again.

 

[Fargo]

Hey... in the spirit of Everything Old is New Again.... all of a sudden, I thought of the Posse Comitatus Act.

I wonder if that'll start getting popular again.

Since the Republicans seem to have fallen in love with FDR style executive action, I doubt they have an interest.

If memory serves, I don't think it would apply to construction projects. Beyond that, I am sure that there is some sort of delightful argument that you can use the military to enforce laws in the 4th Am. free zone around the border.

 

[JettaKnight]

Hey... in the spirit of Everything Old is New Again.... all of a sudden, I thought of the Posse Comitatus Act.

I wonder if that'll start getting popular again.

#JadeHelm

 

[bwframe]

Sooooo...

Perish the thought, but say Trump isn't reelected in 2020. Say a president Harris, Booker, Sanders, whatever declares climate change a national emergency and seizes "the means of production" for power generation, oil refineries, etc. and " commences to "regulate the operation" of them?

How will INGO feel about it?

They'll do it anyway. They don't need an excuse. They have proven they will take any available route to their agenda.

This is why we need to make sure they never get elected.