Mark Levin: Justin Amash and Rand Paul wrong on the National Emergency Act

[Warlord]

What do you think? This is a good debate!

[jon4liberty]

I strongly, and I cant put enough emphasis on strongly dislike Mark Levin. He makes the points addressed in other threads.

*Disclaimer- Hate how he bashed Ron, Rand, and Justin over the years

[acptulsa]

I strongly, and I cant put enough emphasis on strongly dislike Mark Levin. He makes the points addressed in other threads.

*Disclaimer- Hate how he bashed Ron, Rand, and Justin over the years

Gee. What's wrong with Vladimir Levin?

I always considered him a comrade.

[PAF]

Justin and Rand have among the highest Constitutional voting records and this NEOCON BOZO SHILL says “we don’t need lessons from Rand Paul or Justin Amash”.

To think that moron still has a following, it’s no wonder why this country is toast.

[PAF]

Oh, and here’s this:

Mark Levin's "liberty" amendments: legalizing tyranny

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/140415


Get that idiot out of my sight.

[jon4liberty]

His stance on Article V is horrific. Tom Woods annihilates him. That doesnt mean he cant be right once in a while

[PAF]

His stance on Article V is horrific. Tom Woods annihilates him. That doesnt mean he cant be right once in a while

I am solidly grounded in principle and can’t be nudged. But his stance on this posolutely absitively reaffirms my position.

Deep state (or not?), best thing to do is avoid that shill at all cost.

[brushfire]

I cant stand that guy.

[Danke]

Has anyone responding to this thread addressed to what he is saying bedside Jon4?

[acptulsa]

Has anyone responding to this thread addressed to what he is saying bedside Jon4?

It takes a certain degree of masochism to click 'play'.

You say you're by his bedside. Sounds like reason enough not to take the risk.

[Superfluous Man]

Has anyone responding to this thread addressed to what he is saying bedside Jon4?

I'm not going to watch the video. And even if I did, Mark Levin wouldn't show up to defend his position once it was pointed out how wrong it was.

If you think there's a good argument that you can defend which he made, perhaps you can present it yourself.

[specsaregood]

Has anyone responding to this thread addressed to what he is saying bedside Jon4?

Yeah, sounds like Levin is saying similar to what I said the other day. Since congress did not earmark the funds, it is up to the executive branch to decide how it is spent. The president is not appropriating any funds.

[Superfluous Man]

Yeah, sounds like Levin is saying similar to what I said the other day. Since congress did not earmark the funds, it is up to the executive branch to decide how it is spent. The president is not appropriating any funds.

Then why did Trump declare a national emergency?

All these years he's been in office he already had plenty of money in the budget that he could have been spending building a wall within the bounds of how it was already appropriated by Congress without even needing to declare a national emergency, and he never realized it? And when he had that long feud with Congress about it, and they refused to fund his wall beyond $1.4 Billion, they never realized that either?

[specsaregood]

Then why did Trump declare a national emergency?

Because it sounds so much more dramatic? I've argued that he did not need to. This has been Ron Paul's argument in favor of earmarks for decades. "Every single penny should be earmarked."

All these years he's been in office he already had plenty of money in the budget that he could have been spending building a wall within the bounds of how it was already appropriated by Congress without even needing to declare a national emergency, and he never realized it? And when he had that long feud with Congress about it, and they refused to fund his wall beyond $1.4 Billion, they never realized that either?

The Media blitz? Or his advisors never told him he could do it without declaring an emergency? I wouldn't put it past the snakes surrounding him to have ulterior motives.

[Superfluous Man]

Because it sounds so much more dramatic? I've argued that he did not need to. This has been Ron Paul's argument in favor of earmarks for decades. "Every single penny should be earmarked."


The Media blitz? Or his advisors never told him he could do it without declaring an emergency? I wouldn't put it past the snakes surrounding him to have ulterior motives.

Earmarks are a way to appropriate money to something very specific, but even without them, the budget still always says in more general terms how every penny is to be spent. The president has freedom within those general bounds, but not freedom to go outside them and spend it however he wants.

If Levin thinks that there was some money appropriated in the budget to be spent on things that included the option of being used for a border wall, did he point to the items in the budget that he thinks that about and show how that's the case? It's not enough just to say that it wasn't earmarked.

[acptulsa]

Then why did Trump declare a national emergency?

Because the wall is just a distraction.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Dr-Strangelove

[Origanalist]

Is that wheezing old zionist still breathing? Dear Lord.

[Warlord]

Is that wheezing old zionist still breathing? Dear Lord.

fraid so. maybe i shouldn't have given him oxygen

[PAF]

fraid so. maybe i shouldn't have given him oxygen

He’s good for lashing out at to give some of the forum members a break lol

[Warlord]

Haha Originalist repped me with the comment 'no more life support', ok that's enough of Mark Levin for me

[Superfluous Man]

I'm not going to watch a video. But I have noticed that on two occasions, when people here tried to say that Congress appropriated funds for Trump's wall in the National Emergency Act passed in 1976, and I asked them to show me the exact words in the US Code, whether from that act or any other, supported their claims, they couldn't come up with anything, but they both cited "legal scholars" as their authority, which turned out to be just Mark Levin.

They didn't seem at all bothered by finding themselves in Mark Levin's camp on a constitutional question opposing Ron and Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Judge Napolitano.

[Superfluous Man]

And then, beyond whatever arguments might be made about there being some money in a part of the military budget that might be appropriated with generic enough language to include the building of a border wall (arguments which, as of yet, I have not seen substantiated), we are still left with a counterargument that I think shuts down that possibility.

This is the argument Napolitano made in an article of his that was posted here recently. He cited the opinion of Justice Jackson in the Supreme Court case, "Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)," where the court stopped President Truman from using a national emergency declaration in a way that was similar to what Trump is trying. I don't cite this argument because I think the Supreme Court's rulings are to be taken as ultimate authorities. But in this case, I can't see how anyone could argue that the president's power to defy Congress in how he spends money goes beyond the bounds Jackson describes here:

1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law.

3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

Into which of these classifications does this executive seizure of the steel industry fit? It is eliminated from the first by admission, for it is conceded that no congressional authorization exists for this seizure. That takes away also the support of the many precedents and declarations which were made in relation, and must be confined, to this category.

Can it then be defended under flexible tests available to the second category? It seems clearly eliminated from that class, because Congress has not left seizure of private property an open field, but has covered it by three statutory policies inconsistent with this seizure. In cases where the purpose is to supply needs of the Government itself, two courses are provided: one, seizure of a plant which fails to comply with obligatory orders placed by the Government; another, condemnation of facilities, including temporary use under the power of eminent domain. The third is applicable where it is the general economy of the country that is to be protected, rather than exclusive governmental interests. None of these were invoked. In choosing a different and inconsistent way of his own, the President cannot claim that it is necessitated or invited by failure of Congress to legislate upon the occasions, grounds and methods for seizure of industrial properties.

This leaves the current seizure to be justified only by the severe tests under the third grouping, where it can be supported only by any remainder of executive power after subtraction of such powers as Congress may have over the subject. In short, we can sustain the President only by holding that seizure of such strike-bound industries is within his domain and beyond control by Congress. Thus, this Court's first review of such seizures occurs under circumstances which leave presidential power most vulnerable to attack and in the least favorable of possible constitutional postures.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...s/343/579/#634

The relevance of that opinion to the Trump national emergency order is obvious, because the situation is the same, in that categories 1 and 2 are ruled out by virtue of the fact that, prior to the national emergency order, not only had Congress previously legislated concerning the use of federal funds for a border wall, but they had even just passed a budget that explicitly included just under $1.4 Billion and no more for a border fence to be built according to strictly limited criteria, and this came about through lengthy negotiation with the President over the precise question of how much of the budget would be appropriated for a border wall. There is simply no possible way to construe Trump's national emergency order as anything but a defiance of Congress's power over the purse.

Jackson's opinion goes on from there with interesting discussion of why Truman's attempt to expand his executive power failed to meet the high standard that would be necessary to be among the powers falling in the third category of presidential powers that are the president's own without the need of Congressional involvement. And some of what he says there is also relevant in showing good arguments for why Trump's national emergency order also wouldn't qualify. But since quoting those paragraphs would make this post too long I'll leave it to readers to click the link and see for themselves if they're inclined.

[juleswin]

What do you think? This is a good debate!

I actually listened to the whole video and I actually think he is right on this. It seems like Trump is not actually appropriating any extra money. He is just utilizing the money set aside for defense to build this wall.

The part when I disagree is when he says that it is only controversial because it is Trump and the wall. i think it is also controversial because the legislative branch has debated this policy and denied Trump's request. So this is him going around congress to do what was already rejected by congress.

What I don't understand is why Rand who has gone with just about every non liberty policy Trump has pushed would want to stand and die on this hill. Its not like anyone really expects him to follow the constitution anyways.

[Superfluous Man]

I actually listened to the whole video and I actually think he is right on this. It seems like Trump is not actually appropriating any extra money. He is just utilizing the money set aside for defense to build this wall.

I don't think the budget has any money in it just set aside for "defense" without any more specificity than that, for the president to decide for himself just what constitutes defense.

[juleswin]

I don't think the budget has any money in it just set aside for "defense" without any more specificity than that, for the president to decide for himself just what constitutes defense.

No money set aside for emergencies?

[PAF]

No money set aside for emergencies?

Still CLAMORING for continuing tax paid incentives, government eminent domain, more government employees, restriction on travel...

but nothing to do with RP and this site's mission.

[juleswin]

Still CLAMORING for continuing tax paid incentives, government eminent domain, more government employees, restriction on travel...

but nothing to do with RP and this site's mission.

I am just asking, I just assumed that they have some money set aside in the defense budget for emergencies. Site's mission statement aside, if this is true then does it mean Rand and Justin Amash are wrong?

[acptulsa]

No money set aside for emergencies?

Of course not. Emergencies are for enlarging the budget when they occur.

Why? Did you assume there was? Do you still think Vladimir Levin is right?

When you assume, it doesn't make an ass of me. How about u?

[PAF]

Of course not. Emergencies are for enlarging the budget when they occur.

Why? Did you assume there was? Do you still think Vladimir Levin is right?

When you assume, it doesn't make an ass of me. How about u?

His avatar and signature oppose each other, but the picture matching his post responses is worth a thousand million words.

[juleswin]

Of course not. Emergencies are for enlarging the budget when they occur.

Why? Did you assume there was? Do you still think Vladimir Levin is right?

When you assume, it doesn't make an ass of me. How about u?

Setting aside money for emergency in a budget is the sensible thing to do. I have money set aside for emergencies in my budget. If there is no money set aside for emergency, just tell me. You don't have to be like angie and immediately think that I make such assumptions because I am a communist.