The "national emergency" in the context of Constitutional Governance


#314

It’s not tough at all. Early presidents frequently violated the constitution. Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional and he admitted as much.


#315

There’s another part of this that I’ve been thinking of - I’m almost glad that Trump is doing this is such a blatant and unapologeric way.

The Court has stood aside while the Executive has taken increasing power and authority over the last 40 years, and maybe something this blatantly corrupt and unconstitutional will wake them up and get them to roll some of it back.


#316

My point is this:

When the Founding Fathers themselves acted contrary to your position, it is hard for me to take your words as to what they “intended” seriously.


#318

The intent:

The Convention adopted Madison’s language that “Congress shall have the power to declare war,” language that Madison predicted would “leave to the Executive [ only ] the power to repel sudden attacks.”

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/27/opinion/the-framers-on-war-powers.html


#319

That’s an opinion piece by a New York Times Op-Ed author in 1990. Not “the intent of the Founders”.

He quotes Madison - who, as President, sent the US Navy to Algiers to fight the Second Barbary War without Congress declaring war.


#320

It’s a direct quote of Madison from the constitutional convention. It establishes intent.
I think you just want to argue and are not interested in the facts.
I’ll leave it to you.


#321

Its not a “direct quote”. Its a mangled, out of context quote from a single person (who later acted entirely out of the context you claim as his intent).

This is why intentionalism is a flawed doctrine - the Constitution was not written with a single intent.

As for you flouncing out of the conversation - whatever makes you feel better.


#322

Let me put this to you in a different way:

Do you think James Madison would support the President acting unilaterally to approve and fund a massive and politically-frought construction project that Congress has explicitly not approved of?


#323

And you believe that wasn’t by design? California was one of a handful of states in this lawsuit. Why do you think California was chosen to file the lawsuit?

Trump isn’t changing what the statute directs - whatever that even means. :roll_eyes:

blah; blah; blah.

That isn’t what’s happening here. DEMs are looking for a radical LW district judge to legislate from the bench.

I believe you might be blinded by your hatred of Trump. Seriously


#324

You respond to a cogent argument with “blah blah blah”, and finish up your post with this?

Why should anyone bother engaging with you?


#325

But you aren’t looking at it with impartiality now are you? :wink:


#326

Actually they’re trying to get the judiciary to stop Trump from legislating from the executive.


#327

Jay Jay was simply regurgitating LW talking points in a pathetic attempt to provide me with a civics lesson. I simply responded in kind. I found it hard to keep a straight face while responding to his nonsense.

Anyone who can’t see that this is a politically motivated attempt by the left to undermine Trump………………

Well, I can’t really finish my thought without getting in trouble so I will hold my tongue.


#328

No, he wasnt just reciting talking points. He was discussing the language of the statute - somerhing that you have not done to support your position.

You appear to be defining “talking points” as disagreeing with you.


#329

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. :wink:


#330

If you’re unwilling to take this discussion seriously, why should I take anything you say seriously?

You’re coming from a bad-faith position. I have no interest in that.


#331

Sometimes you just let posters posts stand on their own…


#333

No…


#334

Good post.

He shouldn’t have done it.


#335

$1.3B for the barrier.