The problem is not Trump's emergency power its the expansion of executive power

[OSR stands with Israel]

since 2001.


If the President can do the things which were done below, Trump's national emergency is not unconstitutional and is certainly not unprecedented. Its also not worse than any of things done below.

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-unitary-executive-is-the-doctrine-behind-the-bush-presidency-consistent-with-a-democratic-state.html

http://fortune.com/2017/01/18/obama-trump-abuse-executive-powers-presidency/

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-threat-of-bushs-signing-statements/



The solution should be to curb the power of the executive branch back to where it was in 2000.

[Insomnian]

Both Trump's wall order and Obama's DACA order are a magnitude less of an executive abuse than George W. Bush's global network of Josef Fritzl-style torture dungeons.

Watching Bush-era Republicans complain about all but the torture dungeons is laughable.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It would be nice if Trump's approach to governance motivated his opponents to push for a serious reduction in executive power. Instead it seems convenient to regard him as a uniquely bad actor and simply suppose things will be better once he is out of the Oval Office. I can certainly agree that Trump should not be using executive power in this fashion, but the executive should also not have the leeway to act as such to begin with.

[Torrain]

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this argument.

It’s like standing outside a burning house, folding your arms and saying’ “Kids have been playing with matches since the ‘90s, this is just the outcome of that.”
You want to be mad at the kids, while the house burns down.

[Koharu]

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this argument.

It’s like standing outside a burning house, folding your arms and saying’ “Kids have been playing with matches since the ‘90s, this is just the outcome of that.”
You want to be mad at the kids, while the house burns down.

[Inmate Trump]

Just wait until the Republicans nominate and elect Kayne to the White House.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Presidents have been seeking to expand their power since 1789. There's no need to limit the scope to the last 19 years.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this argument.

It’s like standing outside a burning house, folding your arms and saying’ “Kids have been playing with matches since the ‘90s, this is just the outcome of that.”
You want to be mad at the kids, while the house burns down.

It’s called setting a precedent and Bush when it came to executive power set many new ones and Obama really just validated them and in some cases expanded them and Trump is doing the same thing . Remember during the Bush years, the VP believed in a theory called Unitary Executive Authoirty.


I want to ask you how is Trump’s executive action unconstitutional when all those actions listed out in those articles remain constitutional

Presidents have been seeking to expand their power since 1789. There's no need to limit the scope to the last 19 years.

Limiting it back 2000 would be a good start

[pbrower2a]

The Founding Fathers knew the dangers inherent in a despotic Executive. They believed a Republic necessary for stopping the abuses of a King -- but they also feared the practices in an executive. To that end they chose to limit the powers of a President.

The President is not above the law; clauses authorizing impeachment of a wayward President  delimit his powers to exclude dictatorial powers. Criminality is obvious cause for impeachment and removal. We are close to this already, and only the political divide in Congress precludes such. Such is "high crimes" obviously include murder, rape, kidnapping, embezzlement, bribery, misappropriation of funds, and more recently tax evasion, obstruction of justice, money laundering, wire or mail fraud, and war crimes.

(Yes, Dubya and Cheney should have been impeached and removed for war crimes, with America ending up with someone like Richard Lugar or George Voinovich as President. But that is now irrelevant).

The "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause includes the word "misdemeanors". A "high crime" suggests a felony; a misdemeanor implies some lesser misconduct at law. Such misconduct includes the assumption of powers delegated to Congress, the courts, or the States -- or completely denied to the government. Although the deed may not be a statutory offense it entails the blatant misuse or arrogation of power contrary to the Constitution.

This is not for behavior simply disgusting, as with the fornication of Bill Clinton. Congress was right in rejecting impeachment for Bill Clinton on something of little impact upon public life. What President Trump has done is far more damaging because it is not so strictly personal.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this argument.

It’s like standing outside a burning house, folding your arms and saying’ “Kids have been playing with matches since the ‘90s, this is just the outcome of that.”
You want to be mad at the kids, while the house burns down.

     I would say the argument is more that the kids did something wrong by setting fire, but we should look beyond the moment and consider taking their matches away so they don't burn the house down again in the future.

[Xing]

I've really had it up to here with the inconsistency of Republicans, and not just those who support and like Trump. If Obama had done anything like this, would a single conservative be saying "well, you can't really blame him, see, it's an issue of the nature of executive power..." ? Of course not, conservatives would be ripping him to shreds, calling for his impeachment, arrest, and more. For the party that calls (called?) itself the party of accountability, you all don't do a very good job of holding other Republicans accountable. The excuses, deflections, and rationalizing we hear every time Trump does/says something insane has gotten tiresome. If Trump had anything other than an (R) next to his name, many of you would not hesitate to say that he's uniquely unfit to be president, and has no business being anywhere near the White House. But because he's "one of your own," there's always some excuse to justify believing that "the Democrats are way worse" or "the liberals are the actual deranged ones", etc.

I don't disagree that Trump is a symptom of an underlying problem in society. We might disagree about what exactly he is a symptom of, but we can agree that he's not the root of all of our problems. Still though, would a doctor get away with not treating debilitating pain in a patient if the pain were a symptom? Of course not, that would be inexcusable. Yes, the doctor would need to address the underlying condition, but would absolutely need to treat the unbearable pain, even if it were a symptom. And we need to deal with Trump. Our problems won't all be resolved when he's out of office, naturally, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal with him and hold him accountable for his inexcusable actions.

I've stopped asking when conservatives are going to stop making excuses for Trump and hold him accountable, since I've become convinced that the answer is never, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

[Badger]

Most convoluted part of this is failing to point out that the overreaching Constitutional Authority started under w, whom if memory serves was also Republican.

Please stop. This is simply a bad attempt to convolutedly exculpate the Republican party for essentially handing the keys over to someone Drunk on Power.

[gottsu]

The expansion of presidential powers began much earlier, since FDR (or even Wilson). For sure, this is a huge problem now for America, because since Trump's well known latest decision we can all agree that "checks and balances" finally went to have one of its foots in the grave. It was after LBJ decison of Gulf of Tonkin resolution, after Reagan Iran-Contras affair and now the deeds of Bush the Younger (with large accompaniment of Dick Cheney).

American political system must to reform in this or that way, it was serving well in XVIII or XIX century, but not in XX and not in XXI (much more).

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

     It would be nice if Trump's approach to governance motivated his opponents to push for a serious reduction in executive power. Instead it seems convenient to regard him as a uniquely bad actor and simply suppose things will be better once he is out of the Oval Office. I can certainly agree that Trump should not be using executive power in this fashion, but the executive should also not have the leeway to act as such to begin with.

This.

Trump is abusing his office and the law.

And the law in question really needs to be changed.

And those who think only Trump is the problem, or who advocate abusing the same laws later, only for goals they like, are wrong.

But the latter two in no way excuse the first. Declaring a completely fake national emergency in order to steal power from Congress is a constitutional crisis, and is impeachment worthy all on its own.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I've really had it up to here with the inconsistency of Republicans, and not just those who support and like Trump. If Obama had done anything like this, would a single conservative be saying "well, you can't really blame him, see, it's an issue of the nature of executive power..." ? Of course not, conservatives would be ripping him to shreds, calling for his impeachment, arrest, and more. For the party that calls (called?) itself the party of accountability, you all don't do a very good job of holding other Republicans accountable. The excuses, deflections, and rationalizing we hear every time Trump does/says something insane has gotten tiresome. If Trump had anything other than an (R) next to his name, many of you would not hesitate to say that he's uniquely unfit to be president, and has no business being anywhere near the White House. But because he's "one of your own," there's always some excuse to justify believing that "the Democrats are way worse" or "the liberals are the actual deranged ones", etc.

I don't disagree that Trump is a symptom of an underlying problem in society. We might disagree about what exactly he is a symptom of, but we can agree that he's not the root of all of our problems. Still though, would a doctor get away with not treating debilitating pain in a patient if the pain were a symptom? Of course not, that would be inexcusable. Yes, the doctor would need to address the underlying condition, but would absolutely need to treat the unbearable pain, even if it were a symptom. And we need to deal with Trump. Our problems won't all be resolved when he's out of office, naturally, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal with him and hold him accountable for his inexcusable actions.

I've stopped asking when conservatives are going to stop making excuses for Trump and hold him accountable, since I've become convinced that the answer is never, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

I do believe the courts should rule this unconstitutional it’s just that the hysteria over this is laughable knowing that things like signing statements , warantlees wiretapping , using the 2001 War Powers resolution to intervene militarily  anywhere in the Middle East even when the conflict is not at all related to the one set out in the 01 resolution is all cheered on by the media no matter which president it is .


Somehow when even Trump did any of the things above we barely hear anything about it from the media or if we do they are cheered on and  those things are much worse abuses of power .

[Torrain]

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this argument.

It’s like standing outside a burning house, folding your arms and saying’ “Kids have been playing with matches since the ‘90s, this is just the outcome of that.”
You want to be mad at the kids, while the house burns down.

It’s called setting a precedent and Bush when it came to executive power set many new ones and Obama really just validated them and in some cases expanded them and Trump is doing the same thing . Remember during the Bush years, the VP believed in a theory called Unitary Executive Authoirty.


I want to ask you how is Trump’s executive action unconstitutional when all those actions listed out in those articles remain constitutional

Oh I agree that Bush and Obama each set a poor precedent, but I believe that Trump is doing something new that creates an even more dangerous  precendent.

We can scold the other kids, sure, but let’s do it once we’ve put out this current, far larger fire.

If Trump is rebuffed, then that opens the door to a wider conversation about limiting executive power. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this argument.

It’s like standing outside a burning house, folding your arms and saying’ “Kids have been playing with matches since the ‘90s, this is just the outcome of that.”
You want to be mad at the kids, while the house burns down.

It’s called setting a precedent and Bush when it came to executive power set many new ones and Obama really just validated them and in some cases expanded them and Trump is doing the same thing . Remember during the Bush years, the VP believed in a theory called Unitary Executive Authoirty.


I want to ask you how is Trump’s executive action unconstitutional when all those actions listed out in those articles remain constitutional

Oh I agree that Bush and Obama each set a poor precedent, but I believe that Trump is doing something new that creates an even more dangerous  precendent.

We can scold the other kids, sure, but let’s do it once we’ve put out this current, far larger fire.

If Trump is rebuffed, then that opens the door to a wider conversation about limiting executive power. 

How is this fire larger than the signing statements , warantlees wiretapping , using the 2001 War Powers resolution to intervene militarily  anywhere in the Middle East even when the conflict is not at all related to the one set out in the 01 resolution fires

[Torrain]

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this argument.

It’s like standing outside a burning house, folding your arms and saying’ “Kids have been playing with matches since the ‘90s, this is just the outcome of that.”
You want to be mad at the kids, while the house burns down.

It’s called setting a precedent and Bush when it came to executive power set many new ones and Obama really just validated them and in some cases expanded them and Trump is doing the same thing . Remember during the Bush years, the VP believed in a theory called Unitary Executive Authoirty.


I want to ask you how is Trump’s executive action unconstitutional when all those actions listed out in those articles remain constitutional

Oh I agree that Bush and Obama each set a poor precedent, but I believe that Trump is doing something new that creates an even more dangerous  precendent.

We can scold the other kids, sure, but let’s do it once we’ve put out this current, far larger fire.

If Trump is rebuffed, then that opens the door to a wider conversation about limiting executive power. 

How is this fire larger than the signing statements , warantlees wiretapping , using the 2001 War Powers resolution to intervene militarily  anywhere in the Middle East even when the conflict is not at all related to the one set out in the 01 resolution fires

I’m not happy about those other misuses, particularly the warrantless wire-tapping, but I’m concerned that focusing on them right now is tantamount to whataboutism, and ignores the current crisis.

Sorry, my metaphor was not entirely useful. I think those abuses are of similar magnitude, but right now we’re in a moment where we can cleanly rebuke Trump on his abuse of the appropriations process.

There will be other occasions, I’m sure, when we can take the establishment to task over privacy, foreign interference and corruption. I’m just worried that unless the narrative stays focused on Trump’s national emergency, the conversation will drift off course. Just as the WH communication team wants.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this argument.

It’s like standing outside a burning house, folding your arms and saying’ “Kids have been playing with matches since the ‘90s, this is just the outcome of that.”
You want to be mad at the kids, while the house burns down.

It’s called setting a precedent and Bush when it came to executive power set many new ones and Obama really just validated them and in some cases expanded them and Trump is doing the same thing . Remember during the Bush years, the VP believed in a theory called Unitary Executive Authoirty.


I want to ask you how is Trump’s executive action unconstitutional when all those actions listed out in those articles remain constitutional

Oh I agree that Bush and Obama each set a poor precedent, but I believe that Trump is doing something new that creates an even more dangerous  precendent.

We can scold the other kids, sure, but let’s do it once we’ve put out this current, far larger fire.

If Trump is rebuffed, then that opens the door to a wider conversation about limiting executive power. 

How is this fire larger than the signing statements , warantlees wiretapping , using the 2001 War Powers resolution to intervene militarily  anywhere in the Middle East even when the conflict is not at all related to the one set out in the 01 resolution fires

I’m not happy about those other misuses, particularly the warrantless wire-tapping, but I’m concerned that focusing on them right now is tantamount to whataboutism, and ignores the current crisis.

Sorry, my metaphor was not entirely useful. I think those abuses are of similar magnitude, but right now we’re in a moment where we can cleanly rebuke Trump on his abuse of the appropriations process.

There will be other occasions, I’m sure, when we can take the establishment to task over privacy, foreign interference and corruption. I’m just worried that unless the narrative stays focused on Trump’s national emergency, the conversation will drift off course. Just as the WH communication team wants.

The conversation should be part of a bigger conversation about executive power or these types of things will keep happening

[Xing]

I've really had it up to here with the inconsistency of Republicans, and not just those who support and like Trump. If Obama had done anything like this, would a single conservative be saying "well, you can't really blame him, see, it's an issue of the nature of executive power..." ? Of course not, conservatives would be ripping him to shreds, calling for his impeachment, arrest, and more. For the party that calls (called?) itself the party of accountability, you all don't do a very good job of holding other Republicans accountable. The excuses, deflections, and rationalizing we hear every time Trump does/says something insane has gotten tiresome. If Trump had anything other than an (R) next to his name, many of you would not hesitate to say that he's uniquely unfit to be president, and has no business being anywhere near the White House. But because he's "one of your own," there's always some excuse to justify believing that "the Democrats are way worse" or "the liberals are the actual deranged ones", etc.

I don't disagree that Trump is a symptom of an underlying problem in society. We might disagree about what exactly he is a symptom of, but we can agree that he's not the root of all of our problems. Still though, would a doctor get away with not treating debilitating pain in a patient if the pain were a symptom? Of course not, that would be inexcusable. Yes, the doctor would need to address the underlying condition, but would absolutely need to treat the unbearable pain, even if it were a symptom. And we need to deal with Trump. Our problems won't all be resolved when he's out of office, naturally, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal with him and hold him accountable for his inexcusable actions.

I've stopped asking when conservatives are going to stop making excuses for Trump and hold him accountable, since I've become convinced that the answer is never, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

I do believe the courts should rule this unconstitutional it’s just that the hysteria over this is laughable knowing that things like signing statements , warantlees wiretapping , using the 2001 War Powers resolution to intervene militarily  anywhere in the Middle East even when the conflict is not at all related to the one set out in the 01 resolution is all cheered on by the media no matter which president it is .


Somehow when even Trump did any of the things above we barely hear anything about it from the media or if we do they are cheered on and  those things are much worse abuses of power .

Yes, previous presidents (especially Bush) have abused executive power before. I certainly didn't support it when it happened then, either. That said, I don't think this is an apples to apples comparison, since in this case, Trump is manufacturing an issue that doesn't even exist to begin with.

[Torrain]

The conversation should be part of a bigger conversation about executive power or these types of things will keep happening

Yeah, I want to have that conversation, I’m just worried about how the information is delivered. I think we’ve got overlapping opinions here, I’m just being overly cynical about the discourse getting drowned in the newscycle by the next scandal, unless it’s addressed with laser precision. Even then I’m worried it’ll get drowned out by the next Northam-esque story.

 

[Dillon]

Almost every republican I know (and I know mostly republicans) is almost certain a "far left" democrat will win in 2020. They should be horrified of the precedent this will set for the next administration. I don't want to hear any lip from them when a president sanders declares a national emergency to implement a green new deal.

[Beet]

Almost every republican I know (and I know mostly republicans) is almost certain a "far left" democrat will win in 2020. They should be horrified of the precedent this will set for the next administration. I don't want to hear any lip from them when a president sanders declares a national emergency to implement a green new deal.

You'll hear plenty of "lip." And they'll be right. Presidential power needs to be reigned in.

[Dillon]

Almost every republican I know (and I know mostly republicans) is almost certain a "far left" democrat will win in 2020. They should be horrified of the precedent this will set for the next administration. I don't want to hear any lip from them when a president sanders declares a national emergency to implement a green new deal.

You'll hear plenty of "lip." And they'll be right. Presidential power needs to be reigned in.

I am in agreement. Which is why the party of so-called small government needs to hold the presidents feet to the fire.