Trump is rocking it!

[Fargo]

I was pretty much focused on the last part of the quote, which seems to me they have the power, as they deem necessary to make laws as concerns "and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Obviously, the President is a part of the government, or a department thereof, or an officer thereof. His powers are certainly part of "all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government". I'm not as well learned as you, and maybe I'm seeing it in simpleton terms, but the words above are what they are.

.

Where is the power to alter the constitutional framework of powers vested in the government by the constitution ?

The only place that power is vested in the government is in the provisions on how to amend the constitution.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There is a “standing” requirement in the constitution that does not allow the federal courts to consider issues that don’t have an actual case or controversy involved. Someone has to bring the case and it has to be someone actually affected.

I do not know if this particular version of the law has gone to the Supreme Court, I rather doubt it. The cases from early in the country‘s history were quite clear that the powers granted by the Constitution could only be exercised by those they were granted to. However, once FDR finally got a majority on the court they overruled most of those cases. Remember, FDR was allowed to issue an executive order to confiscate privately held gold and void all certificates of gold deposit.

Okay, so it sounds like it is as I suspected. Nobody in Congress is going to challenge it in court because they might want to use it themselves someday. But if as you say, someone has to be actually affected by the law in order to bring it to federal court, why is Minnesota one of the states threatening to bring suit for this? Seems to me the only ones directly affected would be the states along the southern border. Since the money is coming from the DoD budget (not new money - money that has already been appropriated for the DoD, which IS entirely within the purview of the CINC), how does that directly affect Minnesota, NY or any of the other states not bordering Mexico that are threatening to bring it to federal courts? I mean Hawaii is planning on joining the suit for crying out loud. Do they have a leg to stand on, legally speaking?

 

[Fargo]

Okay, so it sounds like it is as I suspected. Nobody in Congress is going to challenge it in court because they might want to use it themselves someday. But if as you say, someone has to be actually affected by the law in order to bring it to federal court, why is Minnesota one of the states threatening to bring suit for this? Seems to me the only ones directly affected would be the states along the southern border. Since the money is coming from the DoD budget (not new money - money that has already been appropriated for the DoD, which IS entirely within the purview of the CINC), how does that directly affect Minnesota, NY or any of the other states not bordering Mexico that are threatening to bring it to federal courts? I mean Hawaii is planning on joining the suit for crying out loud. Do they have a leg to stand on, legally speaking?

I am not certain whether those states would have standing or not, but if the changed appropriations somehow affects them or money that would have gone into their state, they might have standing.

Federal monies appropriated for National Guard units would be the first thing that comes to mind.

I would have to do a bunch of research to give you an educated answer.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I am not certain whether those states would have standing or not, but if the changed appropriations somehow affects them or money that would have gone into their state, they might have standing.

Federal monies appropriated for National Guard units would be the first thing that comes to mind.

I would have to do a bunch of research to give you an educated answer.

I was mistaken - it's not entirely from DoD, but the lion's share is.

• $1.375 billion from the Homeland Security appropriations bill
• $600 million from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund
• $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense's drug interdiction program
  
• $3.6 billion from the Department of Defense's military construction account

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/heres-where-the-money-for-trumps-border-wall-will-come-from.html

 

[Trigger Time]

I am still waiting for someone to point me out the enumerated powers of Congress to reframe the powers granted by the constitution via statute.

Yeah i thought it was supposed to be that way too but then we would have to shut down federal reserve too, which im all for

 

[Trigger Time]

One day the people are going to figure out that their smaller communities will still continue to run or not even without the incompetent, overreaching, and out of constitutional bounds federal government redistributing (stealing) their wealth. What happens next i don't even have to comment on

 

[jamil]

Does that count as one of those 'vision things'? Asking for a friend

“Vision things”? I have no idea what you’re getting at. I’m not saying that in terms of vision. I’m saying it in terms of this is how it is. That’s how he wants it. I don’t think it’s some kind of vision like progressives do in their grand utopian vision. It’s much simpler. You could probably grunt it. Illegals crossing border. Bad. Wall to stop illegals crossing border. Good.

 

[BigRed]

One day the people are going to figure out that their smaller communities will still continue to run or not even without the incompetent, overreaching, and out of constitutional bounds federal government redistributing (stealing) their wealth.

AMEN

 

[BugI02]

It is even easier to make everything be what you want by selectively ignoring differences that don't support your position. Labeling those differences as trivial or technicalities may help you feel better about ignoring them but it doesn't make for honest discussion. Such labeling is frequently intended to preclude actual discussion.

EOs should be judged by how they fit with the Constitution and to a much lesser extent, current law. Without getting into the weeds of each and every EO by every president and whether or not they were within bounds or an over extension of Executive Powers, it is not going out on a limb to conclude that no president ever batted a perfect 1000 or 0 and that trends exist when that metric is applied. Call it ideological if you like but that's really no different than how Laws are typically judged. Considering the limited scope and duration of EOs compared to Laws or even the bureaucratic rule making process that occurs during and after the enactment of Laws, the ado over most EOs seems overblown. We have 3 co-equal branches of government to settle these issues and elections to make changes if we don't like the results.

Democrats in office always employ a "by any means we can possibly get away with" strategy and when they are not in office they always employ a "you better not do that or when we get back in office we'll make it worse for you" strategy. When has a Democrat in office ever actually shown restraint? Instead, when Democrats are in control they wield their power like a club and when they are not in control they do everything possible to limit Republicans from exercising their power. Republicans are the ones that practice restraint and that restraint is a large part of why the Democrats have managed to bring us to where we are today.

Amen

 

[BugI02]

“Vision things”? I have no idea what you’re getting at. I’m not saying that in terms of vision. I’m saying it in terms of this is how it is. That’s how he wants it. I don’t think it’s some kind of vision like progressives do in their grand utopian vision. It’s much simpler. You could probably grunt it. Illegals crossing border. Bad. Wall to stop illegals crossing border. Good.

Think more GHWB

 

[BugI02]

What is this “ constitutionally recognized way” you speak of? I am really curious where the framers said you could void the constitutionally dictated separation of powers by statute?

Congress proposed the bill that became law, whether we speak of the INAs (52 and 65 I believe) or the NEA (1976), and those bills became law. That is how the legislative authority the constitution delegates to congress is wielded. The constitutionally recognized way to undo that ceding of authority would seem to be to enact additional legislation to repeal or modify these laws. A successful SCOTUS challenge will not revoke the authority, only prohibit the particular manner in which the president thought to make use of it - the law would still be on the books

Dude, it's me! If I seem like I don't understand something you're driving at, it's because I'm stupid - not that I'm trying to be deliberately vague so i can duck and weave if the discussion doesn't go the way I like. If you got something to say, have at it.

P.S. Could not congress pass a bill making the president Caesar, and if he signed it into law and absent a challenge with standing accepted by the supreme court, would he not in effect be Caesar

 

[mmpsteve]

Congress proposed the bill that became law, whether we speak of the INAs (52 and 65 I believe) or the NEA (1976), and those bills became law. That is how the legislative authority the constitution delegates to congress is wielded. The constitutionally recognized way to undo that ceding of authority would seem to be to enact additional legislation to repeal or modify these laws. A successful SCOTUS challenge will not revoke the authority, only prohibit the particular manner in which the president thought to make use of it - the law would still be on the books

Dude, it's me! If I seem like I don't understand something you're driving at, it's because I'm stupid - not that I'm trying to be deliberately vague so i can duck and weave if the discussion doesn't go the way I like. If you got something to say, have at it.

P.S. Could not congress pass a bill making the president Caesar, and if he signed it into law and absent a challenge with standing accepted by the supreme court, would he not in effect be Caesar

Man, if you're admitting stupidity, I don't stand a chance around here. I thought I showed the section that gave Congress authority to apply laws (almost any laws) they deemed necessary; I thought the words seemed straightforward on their face. But silly me, it was just words. They didn't count.

p.s.: you must spread blah blah blah. Someone hit this guy for me please.

.

 

[Fargo]

Sigh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

Note the dates of the Supreme Court rewriting the doctrine.

 

[Fargo]

Here you go, from before FDR got his picks on the court.

[FONT=&amp] "That congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the constitution"[/FONT][SUP][5][/SUP]

 

[Fargo]

As to those of you on board with Congress creating Cesar.

It is difficult to imagine a principle more essential to democratic government than that upon which the doctrine of unconstitutional delegation is founded: Except in a few areas constitutionally committed to the Executive Branch, the basic policy decisions governing society are to be made by the Legislature. Our Members of Congress could not, even if they wished, vote all power to the President and adjourn sine die.

 

[2A_Tom]

Yeah I want them to give trump total dictatorial powers and make him Emperor for life.

 

[mmpsteve]

Sigh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

Note the dates of the Supreme Court rewriting the doctrine.

j

OK, so I'm going to have to put my thinking cap on ... damn you.

[FONT=&amp]In the [/FONT]Federal Government of the United States[FONT=&amp], the [/FONT]nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)[SUP][1][/SUP] that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[SUP][2][/SUP]

1. So long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch. I submit to you that the Congress has not laid down an intelligible principle to address border security. That's just point one, and I don't have time for point 2 tonight, so will re-address this tomorrow, as time permits.

.

 

[Fargo]

j

OK, so I'm going to have to put my thinking cap on ... damn you.



1. So long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch. I submit to you that the Congress has not laid down an intelligible principle to address border security. That's just point one, and I don't have time for point 2 tonight, so will re-address this tomorrow, as time permits.

.

Whether Congress has laid down and intelligible principal on border control isn’t the legal question. It is whether or not there are sufficient principles in the emergency declaration act that the president is required to follow for it not to be a true grant of legislative authority.

Are there explicit principles and requirements in the emergency declaration act that the president is executing the law, and not making it up?

Things like an enforceable definition of what constitutes an emergency...

All of this ignores that the whole doctrine you are relying on was made up primarily so FDR could be king for a time.

 

[jamil]

Think more GHWB

Oh. So relating to whataboutism? Ddin't see that coming, really.

 

[Ingomike]

As to those of you on board with Congress creating Cesar.

While I agree, this is in dissent.

The majority opinion was:

Justice Blackmun delivered the majority opinion. The Court held that, as society increases in complexity, Congress must delegate authority “under broad general directives." The broad delegation of power to the Commission was undoubtedly "sufficiently specific and detailed to meet constitutional requirements.”