I am providing a worst case scenario that specifically relates to the theme of this forum. No I don't think that thing is very likely however the point is that once we open we allow this type of thing to happen we can't stop others from using it in ways we don't like. Presidents would be able to get money for anything they want by simply declaring it an emergency. This is not how the constitution was made to work, this isn't limited restrained government. I don't see how this is clearly constitutional, at best he is playing in a gray area.

Changemyoil,
My above statement I think answers much of your point as well. I am not actually worried we would lose gun rights in one fell swoop through this process but there are many conservative stances which we could lose on as a country if a president is able to bypass congress in this way. What else might get funded by democrats in the future by simply declaring everything they really want an emergency?

I am not easily offended. We obviously disagree about Trump's 4D chess/long term game plan but in my opinion you do not usually debate in a spiteful way.

First, that's a generic description. Previously, you used a specific example (gun rights). So are you changing your hypothetical to "something besides taking gun rights" now?

Secondly, there's nothing set in stone that defines potential national emergencies. It's up to the President. People don't have to agree. It's under his authority -- his and his alone.  Did you know ... President Clinton declared a national and international emergency "Prohibiting the Importation of Rough Diamonds From Sierra Leone" EO#13194?  Explain how something like that is a national emergency, but you believe Trump's use of the same power to secure our southern border is over-reach.

That's just one example of how almost all presidents have taken advantage of that power. Another: Carter used it to freeze Iran's assets (supposedly the money Obama returned).

These precedents existed decades before Trump took office, but somehow you think his use of it is "not how the constitution was made to work."

 

It's way way way way way early, but...

Even After Sanders, Harris, and Others Enter Race, Bookies Have Donald Trump as Massive 2020 Favorite

https://www.mediaite.com/entertainment/even-after-sanders-harris-and-others-enter-race-bookies-have-donald-trump-as-massive-2020-favorite/

Although there are now twelve (twelve!) already-declared candidates opposing Donald Trump in 2020, the nation’s gambling gurus are still heavily favoring him for the win in the next election. In fact, as the Washington Examiner reported Wednesday, the entry of Bernie Sanders as #12 in the race didn’t even budge the numbers.

In the latest batch of odds, released just after Bernie’s announcement, Trump is the overwhelming 3-2 favorite for reelection, writes the Examiner’s Washington Secrets columnist Paul Bedard, who spoke with the sportsbook manager at BetOnline.ag, Dave Mason.

1 thing that has bothered me is 5G (tinfoil).  EU has banned it in many countries because they noticed animals dying in the area near the towers.

So Trump tweeted his support for 5G and he wants our companies to step it up and do it.  So either:

1) He knows its safe now
2) Paid by big pharma (phone companies not rich enough to pay like how big pharma can)

But to be fair many EU nations also ban artificial coloring (blue 40, yellow 5 etc...)

First, that's a generic description. Previously, you used a specific example (gun Did you know ... President Clinton declared a national and international emergency "Prohibiting the Importation of Rough Diamonds From Sierra Leone" EO#13194?

Hypocrisy is ingrained in the DNA of statist-leftists.

Hypocrisy is ingrained in the DNA of statist-leftists.

I'm waiting for the "That was before my time" excuse.

Facts don't matter if you were too young to know about them at the time, no matter how real and objectively provable they are.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/21/696537248/alabama-woman-joined-isis-cant-come-back-trump-says


Glad we have an admin who has the balls to say no dice.

So her 1st ISIS husband was killed
same with her 2nd and 3rd.  Now IDK if 2 & 3 were forced, but she sure as hell left on her own free will for husband 1.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/21/696537248/alabama-woman-joined-isis-cant-come-back-trump-says


Glad we have an admin who has the balls to say no dice.

So her 1st ISIS husband was killed
same with her 2nd and 3rd.  Now IDK if 2 & 3 were forced, but she sure as hell left on her own free will for husband 1.

Like my mama always said, "Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it."   

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/21/696537248/alabama-woman-joined-isis-cant-come-back-trump-says


Glad we have an admin who has the balls to say no dice.

So her 1st ISIS husband was killed
same with her 2nd and 3rd.  Now IDK if 2 & 3 were forced, but she sure as hell left on her own free will for husband 1.

According to the State Dept, she was never a US citizen. The passport was issued in error and has been revoked. She was born in the US, but her father was a Yemeni diplomat. The 14th Amendment requires the parents must be within the jurisdiction of the US to claim birthright citizenship. Diplomats are immune to US laws. Hence, not a citizen.

The lawyers are arguing the father was no longer a diplomat in Oct 1994, and she was born in Sept 1994. I think if he entered the US on a diplomatic visa, he's still a diplomat for jurisdiction purposes. I guarantee if he was arrested in Oct 1994, he'd have hidden behind diplomatic immunity.

So, as far as the US is concerned, she's a citizen of Yemen.

According to the State Dept, she was never a US citizen. The passport was issued in error and has been revoked. She was born in the US, but her father was a Yemeni diplomat. The 14th Amendment requires the parents must be within the jurisdiction of the US to claim birthright citizenship. Diplomats are immune to US laws. Hence, not a citizen.

The lawyers are arguing the father was no longer a diplomat in Oct 1994, and she was born in Sept 1994. I think if he entered the US on a diplomatic visa, he's still a diplomat for jurisdiction purposes. I guarantee if he was arrested in Oct 1994, he'd have hidden behind diplomatic immunity.

So, as far as the US is concerned, she's a citizen of Yemen.

Or DACA?  Boom mic drop.

Or DACA?  Boom mic drop.

She's not illegally in the US now.

DACA is not applicable.

First, that's a generic description. Previously, you used a specific example (gun rights). So are you changing your hypothetical to "something besides taking gun rights" now?

I am giving you multiple possible examples from specific to broad. How about a few more right in the middle. Even if you don't think my example was probable, surely it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with a few of your own.

What if Democrats want a universal basic income and declare an emergency to get the funding? Same with nationalized health care, etc.

Secondly, there's nothing set in stone that defines potential national emergencies. It's up to the President. People don't have to agree. It's under his authority -- his and his alone.  Did you know ... President Clinton declared a national and international emergency "Prohibiting the Importation of Rough Diamonds From Sierra Leone" EO#13194?  Explain how something like that is a national emergency, but you believe Trump's use of the same power to secure our southern border is over-reach.
That's just one example of how almost all presidents have taken advantage of that power. Another: Carter used it to freeze Iran's assets (supposedly the money Obama returned).

These precedents existed decades before Trump took office, but somehow you think his use of it is "not how the constitution was made to work."

I admit, Trump might manage to get a win on this one at the supreme court, it is just a large enough gray area that he might be able to do it legally but my argument is not that it won't pass the SCOTUS.

My argument is that it is not a good idea. Presidents before him have pushed the limit and Trump wants to push it some more, but this is kind of like Pandora's box. The more we allow them to push the limit now the more they will in the future until a national emergency ends up resembling nothing remotely emergency related. I don't think that is something that a true conservative should be comfortable with regardless who the president is.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/21/696537248/alabama-woman-joined-isis-cant-come-back-trump-says


Glad we have an admin who has the balls to say no dice.

So her 1st ISIS husband was killed
same with her 2nd and 3rd.  Now IDK if 2 & 3 were forced, but she sure as hell left on her own free will for husband 1.

This one will be interesting to watch. I think if courts rule her passport was valid and that she is a US citizen then we would have to take her back, though she is going to be sitting in prison for some time if she does make it back.

I heard an interview on the radio about this one. It explained that she never got to choose her husbands but upon her arrival she was locked up and forced to marry someone. Not sure if she knew that was going to be involved or not.

Cohen's testimony today is laughable.  He looks like he knows he might commit suicide in the next 21 days.

The question is what events are the DNC and fake news trying to distract the public from with this publicity stunt.

Cohen's testimony today is laughable.  He looks like he knows he might commit suicide in the next 21 days.

The question is what events are the DNC and fake news trying to distract the public from with this publicity stunt.

Cohen said today Trump never instructed him to lie.

He also said he has no information about Russian collusion.

He admitted John Lewis and Adam Schiff spoke to him (cached him) prior to this hearing, and Lanny Davis, the Clintons' long time friend and lawyer, is representing him pro bono.


No collusion, no obstruction.  Total waste of tax-payer resources.

Even if Cohen had the "bombshell" the Dems pretend exists, Cohen secretly recorded his clients in spite of professional ethics, and he is a convicted felon who already lied to Congress under oath.

He has a slight credibility problem.

Cohen said today Trump never instructed him to lie.

He also said he has no information about Russian collusion.

He admitted John Lewis and Adam Schiff spoke to him (cached him) prior to this hearing, and Lanny Davis, the Clintons' long time friend and lawyer, is representing him pro bono.


No collusion, no obstruction.  Total waste of tax-payer resources.

Even if Cohen had the "bombshell" the Dems pretend exists, Cohen secretly recorded his clients in spite of professional ethics, and he is a convicted felon who already lied to Congress under oath.

He has a slight credibility problem.

Don't forget the 500 times Trump told him to threaten people.  Threaten as in with lawsuits.  His high school/college classmates who wanted to say something.  I guess lawyers threaten all the time then, if litigation counts. 

Don't forget the 500 times Trump told him to threaten people.  Threaten as in with lawsuits.  His high school/college classmates who wanted to say something.  I guess lawyers threaten all the time then, if litigation counts.

All lawyers threaten legal action. It's how they get their way without having to follow through in most instances.

I know a lawyer that wears a T-shirt that says, "I SUE PEOPLE FOR FUN".

 

Cohen's testimony today is laughable. 

I don't know, he had some moments where he was pretty clearly grandstanding however there were certain parts of his testimony that gave him credibility. The fact that he denied certain stories/allegations about Trump gave him some credibility. If he was truly trying to ruin Trump he could have said the pee tape was real, and confirmed all the other rumors. His grandstanding was annoying and didn't feel genuine but I found him to have come off as credible overall.

Now the fact he has been convicted of perjury any testimony he gives anytime soon is going to be highly suspect and difficult to use in any possible criminal case that could be brought. However he did apparently have documents to support a number of his claims so there could be a few admissible "bombshells" criminal or civil charges are ever levied.

I don't know, he had some moments where he was pretty clearly grandstanding however there were certain parts of his testimony that gave him credibility. The fact that he denied certain stories/allegations about Trump gave him some credibility. If he was truly trying to ruin Trump he could have said the pee tape was real, and confirmed all the other rumors. His grandstanding was annoying and didn't feel genuine but I found him to have come off as credible overall.

Now the fact he has been convicted of perjury any testimony he gives anytime soon is going to be highly suspect and difficult to use in any possible criminal case that could be brought. However he did apparently have documents to support a number of his claims so there could be a few admissible "bombshells" criminal or civil charges are ever levied.

He didn't write the statement that he gave, but I'm sure he added his 2 cents in.  That part about denying certain stories was inputted just to fool the public and give him some credibility.  Which it seems like it worked.  We need to think deeper at the facts to see if he is credible or not.  Here is why I won't believe anything he says now:

1) Lied under oath previously
2) Disbarred attorney
3) Felon
4) His attorney is a long time Clinton friend/attorney
5) Spoke to DNC members prior to hearing
6) If he did have any important intel, he must have already given it to Mueller, or he would have another perjury charge
7) Most of what he said is un-provable (Trump is a racist, Trump is conning the US, etc...)
Going to jail and struct a plea deal
9) Prior to getting in trouble, worked for Trump for 10+ years.  If he was such a criminal/racist/homophobe, why didn't he cut him off after the 1st year or less
10) Has "evidence" (checks) for payments.  If Trump was paying for something illegal, then he would pay cash and not a check (Enter Jussie Smolette).  Why didn't he call the police at that time?  It's common for rich people to pay their attorneys retainers so that they can handle what ever comes their way.  Rich/powerful people get lawsuits all the time and don't have the time to deal with it.  So they give their attorney payments and say you handle what ever comes my way within X amount of dollars.  BTW Stormi lost her case against Trump and now owes him money.  Art of the Deal.

So 1 of the above alone doesn't give much to someones credibility, but when you add them all together, you have to question it.  Same thing went with Christine Ford and her accusations against Kav.  Oh BTW, where is she now?  How come she's not pursuing anything?  Where did her $1,000,000 GoFundMe go to?

He didn't write the statement that he gave, but I'm sure he added his 2 cents in.  That part about denying certain stories was inputted just to fool the public and give him some credibility.  Which it seems like it worked.  We need to think deeper at the facts to see if he is credible or not.  Here is why I won't believe anything he says now:

1) Lied under oath previously
2) Disbarred attorney
3) Felon
4) His attorney is a long time Clinton friend/attorney
5) Spoke to DNC members prior to hearing
6) If he did have any important intel, he must have already given it to Mueller, or he would have another perjury charge
7) Most of what he said is un-provable (Trump is a racist, Trump is conning the US, etc...)
Going to jail and struct a plea deal
9) Prior to getting in trouble, worked for Trump for 10+ years.  If he was such a criminal/racist/homophobe, why didn't he cut him off after the 1st year or less
10) Has "evidence" (checks) for payments.  If Trump was paying for something illegal, then he would pay cash and not a check (Enter Jussie Smolette).  Why didn't he call the police at that time?  It's common for rich people to pay their attorneys retainers so that they can handle what ever comes their way.  Rich/powerful people get lawsuits all the time and don't have the time to deal with it.  So they give their attorney payments and say you handle what ever comes my way within X amount of dollars.  BTW Stormi lost her case against Trump and now owes him money.  Art of the Deal.

So 1 of the above alone doesn't give much to someones credibility, but when you add them all together, you have to question it.  Same thing went with Christine Ford and her accusations against Kav.  Oh BTW, where is she now?  How come she's not pursuing anything?  Where did her $1,000,000 GoFundMe go to?

Republican members of the oversight committee referred Cohen to the DOJ for charges he once again lied under oath.

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-28-JDJ-MM-to-Barr-re-Cohen-DOJ-Referral.pdf

In that letter, they outlined several statements of fact Cohen gave under oath that are demonstrably false.

Meeting with Schiff and Lewis prior to his testimony? That sounds like witness tampering, since those members are on the committee. 

Lewis is the committee chairman!!   Cohen testified they talked about topics that would come up in the hearing. 

That would be like the star witness in a murder trial meeting with the prosecutor and judge prior to him testifying so they can go over his testimony.

Hearings are supposed to be so the members of Congress can ask questions of witnesses and learn about the matter at hand from those involved.  They are not so one party can parade a trained parrot in front of the public -- speaking the words the members of that party trained it to repeat.