Worth reading:
"6 Compelling Reasons Climate Change Might Be A National Emergency," Marshall Shepard, Forbes.com 2/15/19.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/02/15/6-compelling-reasons-climate-change-might-be-a-national-emergency/
16 comments:
I'd heard you folks had declared a national emergency yesterday. I hope that you and your family are safe. Our thoughts and prayers are with you in this dark hour.
We're huddled here in the dark and cold, eating beef jerky with our guns drawn. Remember us.
Layzej - "National Emergencies" are pretty common in the US under today's law. Clinton declared 17 national emergencies, Bush, 13, and Obama, 12. However, using this designation to build a wall is an unusual application of the law.
Cheers
Climate change should be an equally unusual application. I expect that climate change has contributed and will contribute to emergencies, and I expect climate change will become ever more costly, but it's hard to see how it could be considered an emergency one day when it was not considered an emergency the previous day.
Layzej - your comment makes sense, but as I understand it, the law gives the President sole jurisdiction to decide what constitutes a "National Emergency". Wikipedia says, "The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress." Looking forward, I would not be surprised if the Courts narrowed the President's power when they review Trump's invocation of National Emergency for a border fence. I find it a bit frightening that a President can legally assume any kind of dictatorial powers by simply asserting that he is dealing with a "National Emergency."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act
Cheers
"National Emergencies" are pretty common in the US under today's law.
But literally none of them (until now) were about circumventing Congress's refusal to spend money on one of the President's wishes.
You should read the list of previous declarations. They're absolutely nothing like this one. I'm not sure whether you didn't know that and were just repeating something you'd heard elsewhere, or you did know it but decided to pretend otherwise.
Ned, please re-read my comment. I said, "However, using this designation to build a wall is an unusual application of the law." I think we agree on this point.
Trump's use of this power is different from Obama's in another way. Most of President Obama's designated National Emergencies were for the benefit of other countries, including Burundi, Yemen, Venezuela, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Ukraine, Libya, and Somalia. Trump is using his Emergency power to benefit the United States.
Cheers
Hi DiC,
Do you really believe that when the U.S. imposes sanctions on foreign nationals it is done primarily for the benefit of other countries?
Ned, please re-read my comment. I said, "However, using this designation to build a wall is an unusual application of the law." I think we agree on this point.
It's not "build a wall" that's unprecedented. No other president has used a national emergency declaration as a pretext to negate Congress's role in allocating spending.
Trump is using his Emergency power to benefit the United States.
No he's not. Building the wall doesn't benefit the United States; it's a waste of resources (money, personnel, the use of eminent domain, etc.) for no good purpose.
Trump's party, the GOP, understands this; that's why they never bothered to allocate money for a wall during the two years that they controlled Congress.
It's also why they have refused to engage in any serious bargaining over funding for the wall. If they really believed that it was of great benefit to the United States, they would be willing to offer something of value to Democrats in exchange for the wall. For example:
* Citizenship for DACA/Dreamers
* Carbon tax and dividend
* Resignation of Gorsuch from the USSC and replacement by Merrick Garland
* Statehood for Washington DC and/or Puerto Rico
* or whatever.
But despite the fact that Trump claims to be a master dealmaker, the Republicans won't actually offer anything of value as part of a deal for the wall ... because they don't want to give something for nothing and the wall is *nothing* to them.
So the wall per se is worthless and thus expending resources on it would weaken not strengthen the USA.
And declaring a fake "national emergency" to build the wall does irreparable damage to the Constitutional order under which our government operates.
Are you really OK with that?
Ned, supporters of the wall have a bunch of arguments for their POV: effectiveness of Israel's wall, the historic effectiveness of defensive walls, the many countries now constructing border walls, past votes for a US/Mexico wall by Senators Clinton, Obama, and Schumer. What is your evidence that a wall is worthless?
Cheers
Layzej - Many of these individual sanctions are for the benefit of some foreign country with bad rulers. Your word "really" seems to imply that I previously denied this fact, but I never did so.
cheers
The 'really' was meant to imply disbelief that anyone could reasonably hold the opinion.
DiC wrote:
"What is your evidence that a wall is worthless?"
Mexico won't pay for it.
PS: David, thanks for your thoughts and skepticism. I really mean that. I hope you don't feel we're picking on you.
What is your evidence that a wall is worthless?
Who gets to decide what is best for America? I thought it should be Americans.
Layzej -- if your point is the President alone shouldn't make the decision, but that it should go through Congress, then I think you have a good point.
cheers
Post a Comment