Trump says he will make a ‘major’ announcement on Saturday

[Warlord]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...95559504764930

[enhanced_deficit]

Syria exit or Bolton firing?

Hopefully Couter's prediction about MAGA folding on gov shut over $5B demand won't be realized on Sat.


If it's China or NK related, that would be likely just fluff.

[Zippyjuan]

Going to declare his emergency? We have been under "emergency" a lot under Trump. He had to declare an emergency to enact his tariffs for one. Assuming that Democrats vote to end one, they have the House already and would only need three Republicans in the Senate. Some are concerned about presidents grabbing more powers.

Of course any declaration would be tied up in the courts for a while. OR a majority in Congress (both the House and Senate) can vote to end the emergency. Many Republicans question the need to declare an emergency to fund a border wall.


https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/how...a-border-wall/

How Congress could curb Trump’s abuse of powers if he declares a fake emergency to build a border wall

If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border without congressional authorization, what would happen next?

Would the courts step in? What is Congress’ role?

As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the U.S. Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress.

Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The U.S. Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent.

The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency.

If President Trump does declare an emergency, the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of passive spectator?

Gaining congressional approval

Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorization. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congressfor these actions.

This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labor strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a pre-existing statute on the books weighed against Truman.

When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion in that case has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible.

Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted.

Congress’s role

Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes.

Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law.

The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in U.S. waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute.

Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute.

Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action.

By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That of course would be no easy task in the current Congress.

[enhanced_deficit]

Going to declare his emergency? We have been under "emergency" a lot under Trump. He had to declare an emergency to enact his tariffs for one.

Folding is not an option. But if not emergency, what is alternative to deliver such high profile camapaign promise?


The record government shutdown, if not resolved soon, could be 'fodder for recession': Moody's

• "If this drags on into February, March, then growth rates are going to fall to a place where unemployment will start to rise," warns economist Mark Zandi.
• Zandi argues the economy was looking "wobbly" even before the start of the partial government shutdown, which on Friday entered Day 28.

Matthew J. Belvedere | @matt_Belvedere
Published 7 Hours Ago Updated 3 Hours Ago

[Zippyjuan]

The monies he wants to seize are from disaster relief funds which were earmarked for hurricane victims.

[Swordsmyth]

The monies he wants to seize are from disaster relief funds which were earmarked for hurricane victims.

There are lots of other funds that he can use.

[Stratovarious]

Going to declare his emergency? We have been under "emergency" a lot under Trump. He had to declare an emergency to enact his tariffs for one. Assuming that Democrats vote to end one, they have the House already and would only need three Republicans in the Senate. Some are concerned about presidents grabbing more powers.

Of course any declaration would be tied up in the courts for a while. OR a majority in Congress (both the House and Senate) can vote to end the emergency. Many Republicans question the need to declare an emergency to fund a border wall.


https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/how...a-border-wall/

Do you have a link to your claim the Trump declared a National Emergency in order to
enact tariffs'?

[Zippyjuan]

Do you have a link to your claim the Trump declared a National Emergency in order to
enact tariffs'?

He said they were a matter of "national security"- otherwise the power to raise tariffs would have been up to Congress, not the President. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbri.../#4b08af94706c

[Swordsmyth]

He said they were a matter of "national security"- otherwise the power to raise tariffs would have been up to Congress, not the President. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbri.../#4b08af94706c

That's not the same thing.

[Zippyjuan]

[nikcers]

So this is what its like to have a president that cares about this country.

[Swordsmyth]

They can't do that, Trump can only do it because there is already a law authorizing the construction of the fence and defending against an invasion is a Constitutional mandate.

National emergencies aren't some new precedent, past administrations have declared many of them and some of them are still active.

Stop insulting our intelligence.

[Zippyjuan]

So this is what its like to have a president that cares about this country.

We need more dictators who can do what they want and ignore the people and Congress. Imagine if Clinton had those powers the things she could do!

[Stratovarious]

He said they were a matter of "national security"- otherwise the power to raise tariffs would have been up to Congress, not the President. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbri.../#4b08af94706c

''he said'' equates to legally declaring a 'National Emergency' ?

[Swordsmyth]

We need more dictators who can do what they want and ignore the people and Congress. Imagine if Clinton had those powers the things she could do!

That is not what is going on here.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

We need more dictators who can do what they want and ignore the people and Congress.

Says the big government progressive rah-rahing for his blue team.

[TER]

I count a lot of paid shills on this thread.

DC must be in a panic.

More popcorn will be needed.

Incidentally, tomorrow is National Popcorn Day.


I love this POTUS!

[TheCount]

Oh boy!

[Jamesiv1]

It's going to be a fantastic, luxurious announcement.

[timosman]

So this is what its like to have a president that cares about this country.

Getting $#@! done is not that hard. Any of the previous slackers-in-chief could have done it if their main objective wasn't to pretend they are not unqualified for the position they were in.

[Pauls' Revere]

shut more of the government down! please! do it! $#@! it! until we learn we can live our lives much better and freer without so much of it.

[Pauls' Revere]

@realDonaldTrump Prez, push agenda that FREE MARKET BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES can fill void left by Gov shutdown. FREE MARKET WORKS, push agenda that we can do this! AMERICA FIRST!

[devil21]

They can't do that, Trump can only do it because there is already a law authorizing the construction of the fence and defending against an invasion is a Constitutional mandate.

National emergencies aren't some new precedent, past administrations have declared many of them and some of them are still active.

Stop insulting our intelligence.

All Presidents declare a national emergency of some sort every 3-6 months. The country has been under a constant state of emergency since at least 1933. It's how it has remained under military rule (fringed flag) the entire time.

[RonZeplin]

Trump Backs 'Path To Citizenship' For H-1B Recipients: 'Rest Assured That Changes Are Soon Coming'

President Trump did a complete 180 on the "America First" visa policies he ran on by announcing Friday that H-1B holders "can rest assured that changes are soon coming" which will give them a "path to citizenship."

"H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship," Trump tweeted. "We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S."

"Mr. President, what about American tech workers who are being displaced by H-1B guest workers and recent college grads who can't find jobs in STEM fields? American workers are truly the best and brightest. You pledged to put American workers first. This isn't it," NumbersUSA responded.

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59663

[Swordsmyth]

That's a nice edited quote you have in your signature, why didn't you include a link so people can read the whole thing?

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

I vehemently oppose illegal immigration and abortion no matter who is involved, my record on both is clear.
I also manage to praise good actions on either no matter who is involved.

You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong, you never attack anyone else in politics about either one and you never argue with the posters here who defend either one.

Prove me wrong, show just one post where you admit one good thing Trump has done about either or one post in the last year where you attacked anyone else or opposed anyone on this forum.

[devil21]

That's a nice edited quote you have in your signature, why didn't you include a link so people can read the whole thing?

Don't be mad at RonZeplin. He took the red pill.

Speaking of sigs, your "those who fail to learn from the past" quote is so uber ironic that I just can't....

[Swordsmyth]

Don't be mad at RonZeplin. He took the red pill.

That explains why he has to post a deceptively edited quote in his signature?
That explains why he ignores everything good Trump does about his two favorite subjects?
That explains why he never attacks anyone but Trump?
That explains why he never argues with pro-abortion or open borders posters?

He took some kind of pill but it wasn't red.

[Cap]

[TheTexan]

So exciting! The suspense is killing me.

[TheTexan]

I hope it's a new war