MAGAThread XV: Because Another

[Seangoli]

IIRC the bulk of it is meant to be coming out of the defence budget or something. Pretty sure he can't do that without approval of the reduction to mandatory spending.

The DOD budget isn’t mandatory spending though it’s discretionary spending

Actually, the DoD has funds specifically apportioned for it for thenfirst time in a Decade.

Most of the funding apportioned to the DoD is equally locked in for various projects and tasks. That said, they do have a small amount of funds that are unapportioned and as of current unnaccounted for that the President is raiding. Typically these funds are meant for unexpectwd events that come up, unexpected costs arising, etc. that gives the Department (and others) a small slush fund to work with if the need arises rather than go and beg Congress every time they need a small amount of money.

So basically, the President is raiding various departments rainy-day funds. At the start of thebyear, meaning that any issues that arise through the year will have no funding available for them.

I am going to guess he gets little resistance this year, but I doubt various agemcies will be pleased when it happens again next year.

[Seangoli]

But it does beg the question if he can. I’m not sure if this actually holds true.

IIRC the bulk of it is meant to be coming out of the defence budget or something. Pretty sure he can't do that without approval of the reduction to mandatory spending.

He is going for what is essentially the DoD's slush fund. Not to say it is unecessary funds, but moreso that it is a general fund that is designed to give a little leeway to the Department with its finances. Most of the DoDs funding is apportioned, but the specific money is more or less money not specifically apportioned for other purposes.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

This^

It'll probably pass through the courts without a ton of difficulty, but it is terrible precedent.

Has the question of whether or not the branches of government shift their own power around actually been tried before?

Yes, more on that below!

Alas, it doesn't work that way. The President has to power to decide if there is a national emergency. He doesn't recognise it, he makes it legally so. There is no requirement that there actually is a national emergency.

Again you are arguing from a strict “the law means the law” basis instead of the constitution supersedes the law. Which in this case I’m 90% sure the constitution is correct and this law is unconstitutional

I'm not. Constitutional law is also law, and I of course use it when I render an opinion on a specific part of law. But there is nothing in the constitution that says Trump can't do this.

You say no, but over 200 years of practice and case law says yes. I'm going with the latter, tbh.

I also know the constitution. And it’s prety strict on the fact that the branches of government are separate. Therefore this should be ruled unconstitutional as a congressional overreach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._W._Ham ... ted_States

The Supreme Court was pretty clear in the Hampton case. Delegating authority is an implied power of Congress.

[Valrifell]

Ah, the trick is that Congress is only allowed to do that if they provide a clear guideline in how their power is supposed to be used, or I'm misinterpreting what the "intelligible principle" is.

I think there's an argument to be made that the National Emergencies Act doesn't qualify.

[Valrifell]

Also, found that the same case that rendered NIRA unconstitutional also said that Congress isn't permitted to relinquish powers Constitutionally assigned to it.

[Thermodolia]

Ah, the trick is that Congress is only allowed to do that if they provide a clear guideline in how their power is supposed to be used, or I'm misinterpreting what the "intelligible principle" is.

I think there's an argument to be made that the National Emergencies Act doesn't qualify.

Right. Also to me at least it seems that the National Emergencies Act doesn’t delegate power but transfers it.

[Seangoli]

Also, found that the same case that rendered NIRA unconstitutional also said that Congress isn't permitted to relinquish powers Constitutionally assigned to it.

That's legislative powers, not necessarily all powers. There is nothing really in the Constitution that stops them from giving some powers elsewhere to the President. They can't, for instance, give the President the power to unilaterally pass a budget.

[Thermodolia]

Has the question of whether or not the branches of government shift their own power around actually been tried before?

Yes, more on that below!

Again you are arguing from a strict “the law means the law” basis instead of the constitution supersedes the law. Which in this case I’m 90% sure the constitution is correct and this law is unconstitutional

I'm not. Constitutional law is also law, and I of course use it when I render an opinion on a specific part of law. But there is nothing in the constitution that says Trump can't do this.

What is separation of powers clause?

I also know the constitution. And it’s prety strict on the fact that the branches of government are separate. Therefore this should be ruled unconstitutional as a congressional overreach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._W._Ham ... ted_States

The Supreme Court was pretty clear in the Hampton case. Delegating authority is an implied power of Congress.

Delegation of powers is different than transfer of powers. And I’m arguing that the National Emergencies Act transfers powers that are constitutionally only congressional powers.

Plus there’s the A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States case which held that congress can’t delegate it’s legislative powers to the executive. And since the National Emergencies Act states that the president can direct funding to whatever they want it effectively transfers the congressional power of the purse to the executive.

[Valrifell]

Also, found that the same case that rendered NIRA unconstitutional also said that Congress isn't permitted to relinquish powers Constitutionally assigned to it.

That's legislative powers, not necessarily all powers. There is nothing really in the Constitution one way or another dealing with a National Emergency. They can't, for instance, give the President the power to unilaterally pass a budget.

Yeah, but isn't that what Trump's essentially trying to do?

EDIT TO ADD: I know that's not what Trump is doing to the letter of the law, but that's essentially been his goal since the idea floated into his head.

[Thermodolia]

Also, found that the same case that rendered NIRA unconstitutional also said that Congress isn't permitted to relinquish powers Constitutionally assigned to it.

That's legislative powers, not necessarily all powers. There is nothing really in the Constitution that stops them from giving some powers elsewhere to the President. They can't, for instance, give the President the power to unilaterally pass a budget.

Except that’s what Trump is trying to do. Bypass the budget that congress gave him

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yes, more on that below!



I'm not. Constitutional law is also law, and I of course use it when I render an opinion on a specific part of law. But there is nothing in the constitution that says Trump can't do this.

What is separation of powers clause?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._W._Ham ... ted_States

The Supreme Court was pretty clear in the Hampton case. Delegating authority is an implied power of Congress.

Delegation of powers is different than transfer of powers. And I’m arguing that the National Emergencies Act transfers powers that are constitutionally only congressional powers.

Plus there’s the A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States case which held that congress can’t delegate it’s legislative powers to the executive. And since the National Emergencies Act states that the president can direct funding to whatever they want it effectively transfers the congressional power of the purse to the executive.

I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. Delegation is legalese for any transfer of power to another body.

Schechter does not say all delegation is illegal. It just says that the specific case before the Court did not meet the requirements of Hampton. In an emergency situation, the President only has certain emergency powers, all of which are bound to certain criteria. As such, emergency powers fulfil the Hampton criteria.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

This is the most stupid non emergency national emergency ever declared.

Courts, do your thing. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent of "If congress says no I can just declare a national emergency and have the thing I want anyway."

I fear it might be entirely legal. Congress made a stupid law with its National Emergency Act, it's very open to abuse. The checks and balances are placed with Congress, which can end it by majority vote. A few Republicans need to grow a spine first though if that were to happen.

Oh god, that massive waste of money is actuly happing.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I fear it might be entirely legal. Congress made a stupid law with its National Emergency Act, it's very open to abuse. The checks and balances are placed with Congress, which can end it by majority vote. A few Republicans need to grow a spine first though if that were to happen.

Oh god, that massive waste of money is actuly happing.

I’m curious where exactly the money will come from

[Valrifell]

I fear it might be entirely legal. Congress made a stupid law with its National Emergency Act, it's very open to abuse. The checks and balances are placed with Congress, which can end it by majority vote. A few Republicans need to grow a spine first though if that were to happen.

Oh god, that massive waste of money is actuly happing.

There's still the fact it'll be wrapped in legal challenges, likely put on hold for eminent domain cases and the Constitutionality of it all.

I'd genuinely be surprised if they broke ground on the wall while Trump is in office, even in a hypothetical second term. He may secure the funding, but the path is frought with drawn out legal challeneges from every conceivable source, from Democratic state AGs, Nancy Pelosi, and angry Texans.

[Valrifell]

Oh god, that massive waste of money is actuly happing.

I’m curious where exactly the money will come from

The Pentagon or FEMA, most likely.

Either are garbage choices.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I’m curious where exactly the money will come from

The Pentagon or FEMA, most likely.

Either are garbage choices.

So we’re either compromising our national security or our disaster relief
Nice

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The Pentagon or FEMA, most likely.

Either are garbage choices.

So we’re either compromising our national security or our disaster relief
Nice

"BuT HeR E-mAiLs"

[Valrifell]

So we’re either compromising our national security or our disaster relief
Nice

"BuT HeR E-mAiLs"

We all know that a (Mrs.) Clinton administration would be as much a shitshow.

Though mostly because Reps would've had 58 impeachment hearings by now and the Trump News Network would probably exist.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

"BuT HeR E-mAiLs"

We all know that a (Mrs.) Clinton administration would be as much a shitshow.

Though mostly because Reps would've had 58 impeachment hearings by now and the Trump News Network would probably exist.

Also right-wing militias.

[Seangoli]

That's legislative powers, not necessarily all powers. There is nothing really in the Constitution that stops them from giving some powers elsewhere to the President. They can't, for instance, give the President the power to unilaterally pass a budget.

Except that’s what Trump is trying to do. Bypass the budget that congress gave him

Not really. The funds that he is pulling from are more or less discretionary by nature and apportioned to specific tasks or actions. They are essentially General funds designed to be used for most any operations.


He couldn't, for instance, pull funds set aside specifically for military R&D for Wall construction, but he can pull funds from the general Military Construction fund as those funds are not specifically apportioned for a given project.

So, he can't rewrite where funding goes or how funding is obtained, but he has a very narrow level of leeway with how very specific funds can be used from certain departments under the Executive branch. All of the funds he is chasing are pretty much unapportioned discretionary funds, which are free game as they technically aren't being spent elsewhere.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

"BuT HeR E-mAiLs"

We all know that a (Mrs.) Clinton administration would be as much a shitshow.

Though mostly because Reps would've had 58 impeachment hearings by now and the Trump News Network would probably exist.

Eh, good point.

[Seangoli]

The Pentagon or FEMA, most likely.

Either are garbage choices.

So we’re either compromising our national security or our disaster relief
Nice

Its is coming from the DoD military construction budget, the military drug interdiction budget (Fights the drug war and importation, basically), and with funds siezed during drug raids and arrests.

The first two are general budgets without approprjations and can be spent as seen fit, and the last is basically "free" money.

[Maineiacs]

So, does everything discussed in the last several pages of this thread mean that Trump has won this once and for all, and there's nothing to be done?

[Valrifell]

8)

Oh god, that massive waste of money is actuly happing.

There's still the fact it'll be wrapped in legal challenges, likely put on hold for eminent domain cases and the Constitutionality of it all.

I'd genuinely be surprised if they broke ground on the wall while Trump is in office, even in a hypothetical second term. He may secure the funding, but the path is frought with drawn out legal challeneges from every conceivable source, from Democratic state AGs, Nancy Pelosi, and angry Texans.

So, does everything discussed in the last several pages of this thread mean that Trump has won this once and for all, and there's nothing to be done?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So, does everything discussed in the last several pages of this thread mean that Trump has won this once and for all, and there's nothing to be done?

Well, not really. It is just legal, but that's just because the law is bad. And this is a power grab that must frighten even the most ardent Republicans. So politically, there is still a lot to discus, and there are still a lot of legal bars to what he can do. But legally, he is allowed to create a national emergency. Now, the question is if that will give him enough power to build a wall.


EDIT: This might be frightening, but there is no single statute that delineates the exact emergency powers a President has. It's a confusing mess of different laws and statutes, so right now, the exact power of the president is literally unknown to anyone but the most ardent constitutional law professors.