Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:53 pm
https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-am ... story.html

26 killed in drug gun fight about a 200 miles south of the border?

"The only national emergency is that our President is an idiot," she said.

gbasden wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:37 pm Shit. I actually agree with Ann Coulter about something.

"The only national emergency is that our President is an idiot," she said.

gbasden wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:37 pm Shit. I actually agree with Ann Coulter about something.

"The only national emergency is that our President is an idiot," she said.

Donald Trump was, by all indications, set to announce a national emergency on Friday morning in an effort to circumvent Congress and secure funding for his long-promised border wall. After the announcement, he's planning to head to his Florida compound Mar-a-Lago.

emocratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced on Friday that she and her colleague, Texas Representative Joaquin Castro, intended to fight President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration with legislation.

"If President Trump declares a national emergency to fund his border wall, I’m prepared to introduce a resolution to terminate the President’s emergency declaration under 50 U.S.C. 1622. (National Emergencies Act).

Defiant wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:43 pm

Sepiche wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:26 pm Good lawsplainer on why Drumpf's emergency declaration, as drafted, is likely to fail miserably in court.

Grifman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:46 pm The real problem is with the law. It is far too vague and concedes far to much to the executive function. I know that they were concerned with a true emergency situation but the current law gives the president too much power that can be used and has been used far too often.

President Trump on Tuesday cast the states that are suing to block his declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border as being “led mostly by Open Border Democrats and the Radical Left,” as he made his first public comments on Monday’s action.

In morning tweets, Trump incorrectly said that the lawsuit, which seeks to prevent him from funding border barriers without congressional consent, was brought by cities, rather than states. He corrected the error about an hour later.

Trump also noted that he had predicted during an event in the Rose Garden last week that an action would be brought in the federal judiciary’s 9th Circuit, where courts have often ruled against the administration.
...
It was brought by 16 states, all of which have Democratic governors, except for Maryland. Under Maryland law, the state’s attorney general can take legal actions without the blessing of the governor. Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh, whose name is in the complaint, is a Democrat who has sued the Trump administration over other policy issues.

The House on Tuesday passed a resolution to overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border, as majority Democrats painted an apocalyptic portrait of a lawless chief executive out to gut the Constitution.

The 245-182 tally was mostly along party lines, with 13 Republicans defecting to side with Democrats on a vote that effectively became a test of GOP loyalty to Trump. Despite their frequent complaints of executive overreach during the Obama administration, most Republicans fell in line with Trump’s decision to try to circumvent Congress to get billions of dollars for his border wall. As a result the vote fell well short of the two-thirds majority that would be required to overcome Trump’s threatened veto.

Democrats argued that Trump’s claim of a crisis at the border was baseless, and that he was embarking on the road to dictatorship by unilaterally declaring an emergency to try to get money from U.S. taxpayers to fulfill an unpopular campaign promise.
...
Now that the House has passed the disapproval resolution, the Senate will have approximately 18 days to take it up, a timeline set by the National Emergencies Act. The law also specifies that Senate passage takes only a simple majority, not the 60-vote super-majority often required in the Senate.

That means only four Republican votes would ensure passage of the disapproval resolution — presuming Democrats stick together as expected. GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Thom Tillis (N.C.) have already announced plans to vote for the disapproval resolution, and other Republicans have been voicing concerns, including inside a closed-door lunch Tuesday with Vice President Pence where about a half-dozen senators spoke up with reservations, according to one person in attendance.

One of those senators was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who questioned a Justice Department attorney present about how a future Democratic president might be able to use similar emergency powers, according to an official briefed on the meeting who requested anonymity to describe it.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Saturday that he will vote to block President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the southern border—potentially providing the tipping-point vote that would allow Congress to block Trump's attempt to use the declaration to obtain funding for a border wall.

Senate Republicans are in talks with the White House about a deal to amend the National Emergencies Act — a move that could lead GOP lawmakers to avoid a fight with President Trump over his emergency declaration to build a wall on the Mexican border.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said GOP senators are discussing reining in a president’s ability to introduce future emergency declarations, an idea that has gained growing interest within the caucus in the wake of Trump’s declaration of an emergency to build a wall.

If senators are able to get a deal this week on amending the National Emergencies Act, GOP leadership is hoping it could impact how some senators vote on the resolution of disapproval blocking Trump’s emergency declaration and potentially even resulting in it falling short of passing the Senate.
...
One proposal, spearheaded by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and discussed by Republicans, would require Congress to vote to continue a future emergency declaration after 30 days.

Republicans have been hunting for an exit strategy from the showdown with Trump.

The Senate is expected to vote this week on a resolution of disapproval blocking Trump’s emergency declaration. The measure is unanimously backed by the Senate Democratic Conference and four Republican senators have voiced support, giving it a majority.
...
Asked by The Hill on Tuesday about amending the National Emergencies Act, Tillis said getting a deal would change how he votes on the resolution of disapproval.

If Tillis changes his vote and Republicans don't have any other defections, that would lead to a 50-50 tie and allow Vice President Pence to cast a vote that prevents it from passing the Senate.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:13 pm So, the GOP senators don't really care about stopping Trump's emergency declaration, they just want to find a way to prevent future (Democrat) presidents from declaring their own pet-issue emergencies?

Max Peck wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:13 pm So, the GOP senators don't really care about stopping Trump's emergency declaration, they just want to find a way to prevent future (Democrat) presidents from declaring their own pet-issue emergencies?

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:29 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:13 pm So, the GOP senators don't really care about stopping Trump's emergency declaration, they just want to find a way to prevent future (Democrat) presidents from declaring their own pet-issue emergencies?

That's how I read it.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:20 am

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:29 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:13 pm So, the GOP senators don't really care about stopping Trump's emergency declaration, they just want to find a way to prevent future (Democrat) presidents from declaring their own pet-issue emergencies?

That's how I read it.

Yup.

That said, I would be pretty happy if that's the deal that emerges. First, even if the resolution passes the Senate, Trump's going to veto, and there's very little chance of that veto being overridden. Second, current emergency powers laws are legitimately troubling, and *should* be fixed to require (at a minimum) affirmative congressional authorization. So, the deal would basically be a trade where we get much better (and democratically safer) emergency powers laws, and in exchange just give up a temporary embarrassment for Trump. As much as I love embarrassments for Trump, that seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the House would not take up proposed Senate legislation to rein in national emergency powers, a bill put forward as part of an effort to give Republicans cover to side with President Trump on the border wall.

GOP senators are in talks with the White House about changing the National Emergencies Act, the 1976 law that Trump invoked to declare his national emergency to direct extra funding to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. That would give Senate Republicans uncomfortable with the national emergency room to avoid defying Trump.

"Republican Senators are proposing new legislation to allow the President to violate the Constitution just this once in order to give themselves cover," Pelosi said in a statement. "The House will not take up this legislation to give President Trump a pass."

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:33 pm Pelosi: "How about no? Does no work for you?"

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the House would not take up proposed Senate legislation to rein in national emergency powers, a bill put forward as part of an effort to give Republicans cover to side with President Trump on the border wall.

GOP senators are in talks with the White House about changing the National Emergencies Act, the 1976 law that Trump invoked to declare his national emergency to direct extra funding to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. That would give Senate Republicans uncomfortable with the national emergency room to avoid defying Trump.

While I do agree that what the President can and cannot declare as a "national emergency" needs a significant overhaul, Pelosi does have a damn good point here:

"Republican Senators are proposing new legislation to allow the President to violate the Constitution just this once in order to give themselves cover," Pelosi said in a statement. "The House will not take up this legislation to give President Trump a pass."

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:44 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:33 pm Pelosi: "How about no? Does no work for you?"

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the House would not take up proposed Senate legislation to rein in national emergency powers, a bill put forward as part of an effort to give Republicans cover to side with President Trump on the border wall.

GOP senators are in talks with the White House about changing the National Emergencies Act, the 1976 law that Trump invoked to declare his national emergency to direct extra funding to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. That would give Senate Republicans uncomfortable with the national emergency room to avoid defying Trump.

While I do agree that what the President can and cannot declare as a "national emergency" needs a significant overhaul, Pelosi does have a damn good point here:

"Republican Senators are proposing new legislation to allow the President to violate the Constitution just this once in order to give themselves cover," Pelosi said in a statement. "The House will not take up this legislation to give President Trump a pass."

Damn good point, especially given lawsuits incoming.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:15 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:44 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:33 pm Pelosi: "How about no? Does no work for you?"

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the House would not take up proposed Senate legislation to rein in national emergency powers, a bill put forward as part of an effort to give Republicans cover to side with President Trump on the border wall.

GOP senators are in talks with the White House about changing the National Emergencies Act, the 1976 law that Trump invoked to declare his national emergency to direct extra funding to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. That would give Senate Republicans uncomfortable with the national emergency room to avoid defying Trump.

While I do agree that what the President can and cannot declare as a "national emergency" needs a significant overhaul, Pelosi does have a damn good point here:

"Republican Senators are proposing new legislation to allow the President to violate the Constitution just this once in order to give themselves cover," Pelosi said in a statement. "The House will not take up this legislation to give President Trump a pass."

Damn good point, especially given lawsuits incoming.

It is, and I don't disagree exactly, but - what are the odds that the GOP agrees to revise the emergency powers law *after* this debacle is over? I don't love the "just this once" part, but seems plausible that this might be the one chance to fix it before Trump (or a successor) goes nuts with emergency powers actions.

Biyobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:40 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:15 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:44 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:33 pm Pelosi: "How about no? Does no work for you?"

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the House would not take up proposed Senate legislation to rein in national emergency powers, a bill put forward as part of an effort to give Republicans cover to side with President Trump on the border wall.

GOP senators are in talks with the White House about changing the National Emergencies Act, the 1976 law that Trump invoked to declare his national emergency to direct extra funding to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. That would give Senate Republicans uncomfortable with the national emergency room to avoid defying Trump.

While I do agree that what the President can and cannot declare as a "national emergency" needs a significant overhaul, Pelosi does have a damn good point here:

"Republican Senators are proposing new legislation to allow the President to violate the Constitution just this once in order to give themselves cover," Pelosi said in a statement. "The House will not take up this legislation to give President Trump a pass."

Damn good point, especially given lawsuits incoming.

It is, and I don't disagree exactly, but - what are the odds that the GOP agrees to revise the emergency powers law *after* this debacle is over? I don't love the "just this once" part, but seems plausible that this might be the one chance to fix it before Trump (or a successor) goes nuts with emergency powers actions.

If a Democrat wins the White House then the GOP will be first in line to revise the emergency powers.