The NEA provides a congressional termination of a president till declaration of emergency. Congress must check and balance or a dictatorship is possible. The USSC has not declared the NEA of 1976 to be unconstitutional. Do you really want to dip that toe in the water? In the end Trump can veto the congressional joint resolution.
presidential
The NEA provides a congressional termination of a president till declaration of emergency. Congress must check and balance or a dictatorship is possible. The USSC has not declared the NEA of 1976 to be unconstitutional. Do you really want to dip that toe in the water? In the end Trump can veto the congressional joint resolution.
If you don’t see the statutory emergency here you are obviously a open borders libertarian. Just come out of the closet and admit it: You are just fine with the border wide open. But you will never admit that because like Rand your real agenda here is to undermine POTUS and his secure border agenda. The last thing you want is a secure border.
Every day more and more people wake up and realize they have been scammed by the open borders lobby for 30 years. No more. Either get on the secure the border Trump train or prepare to be under it. There no longer is a door #3 for the GOP. Sorry.
A more accurate statement would be that the NEA of 1976 has never been challenged in Federal Court. The Youngstown decision, when the Supreme Court struck down23o Truman's emergency action in a Steel Strike during the Korean War happened before the enactment of the NEA.
You lost me a bit there.
The first part talked about the NEA providing a Congressional Termination of a president until a declaration of emergency.
I didn’t follow that train of thought very well.
I do agree that Congress needs to be able to over-ride a presidential E. O., if it’s bad enough.
I do not consider this to be a bad use of power.
Obama used this power 12 times and our team didn’t go postal over it. I do remember some offensive actions on his part that I thought were out of line. He still did it.
I guess my point now is that the Left is already using this for lesser issues. This is a big one, and I think it’s reasoned to use the power given to Trump (presidents) by Congress.
When you talked of “dipping my toe in the water”, I wasn’t exactly sure what issue in particular you were addressing. Is it just the conceptual right vs wrong of Trump declaring a national emergency?
Trump can veto the join resolution. One the other hand, Congress does have the power to over-ride him if his actions are that far out of line.
I don’t really want presidents to have unilateral power, but in instances like this where the nation is being compromised by the border being rushed, I don’t know what else to do if Congress refuses to ‘respect and defend’ the U. S. Constitution.
What they are doing is ignoring Article IV Section Four.
That in effect weakens that directive > IMO. That is unconstitutional > IMO.
If I missed the exact issue you wanted me to address, or would like to ask pointed questions about some point here, fire away.