General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsthese 2 fuckers need to be clapped in irons for sedition
make extreme examples of them or more and more will follow as surely as night follows dayBusyBeingBest
(8,052 posts)I don't think it's going to go the way they want it to.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)do it too.
Celerity
(43,070 posts)everything and will create an intense fog of war chaos at a multiplicity of levels. And to use it, all it takes is a the stroke of his sharpie.
The Alarming Scope of the President's Emergency Powers
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/
snip
But will they? Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a national emergencya decision that is entirely within his discretionmore than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.
This edifice of extraordinary powers has historically rested on the assumption that the president will act in the countrys best interest when using them. With a handful of noteworthy exceptions, this assumption has held up. But what if a president, backed into a corner and facing electoral defeat or impeachment, were to declare an emergency for the sake of holding on to power? In that scenario, our laws and institutions might not save us from a presidential power grab. They might be what takes us down.
1. A LOADED WEAPON
The premise underlying emergency powers is simple: The governments ordinary powers might be insufficient in a crisis, and amending the law to provide greater ones might be too slow and cumbersome. Emergency powers are meant to give the government a temporary boost until the emergency passes or there is time to change the law through normal legislative processes. Unlike the modern constitutions of many other countries, which specify when and how a state of emergency may be declared and which rights may be suspended, the U.S. Constitution itself includes no comprehensive separate regime for emergencies. Those few powers it does contain for dealing with certain urgent threats, it assigns to Congress, not the president. For instance, it lets Congress suspend the writ of habeas corpusthat is, allow government officials to imprison people without judicial reviewwhen in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it and provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Nonetheless, some legal scholars believe that the Constitution gives the president inherent emergency powers by making him commander in chief of the armed forces, or by vesting in him a broad, undefined executive Power. At key points in American history, presidents have cited inherent constitutional powers when taking drastic actions that were not authorizedor, in some cases, were explicitly prohibitedby Congress. Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelts internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bushs programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union.
The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Trumans bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception. And while those exceptions have outlined important limiting principles, the outer boundary of the presidents constitutional authority during emergencies remains poorly defined.
snip
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)It will be an act of war against the USA by an enemy, and we will have to deal with that accordingly.
Celerity
(43,070 posts)the powers he receives after invoking a national state of emergency are extraordinary, almost dictatorial. All these defence/surveillance/security state firings he has been doing have my spidey sense on hyper mode. It is like he is clearing the decks before he goes NatStatEm, and who the fuck knows what happenings after that. We are already in uncharted waters even now.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)I fully expect him to do what you are suggesting. He will use Iran as the excuse.
cilla4progress
(24,714 posts)on?
triron
(21,984 posts)hadEnuf
(2,172 posts)which is a document that he and his supporters care nothing about.
Thekaspervote
(32,691 posts)Link to tweet
?s=21
Celerity
(43,070 posts)the fruited plain to act in a similar fashion. Anything to create FUD, to muddy the waters, to toss as many spanners into the works as possible.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)crickets
(25,951 posts)Wayne County Canvassers reverse course, just voted to certify results
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214572629
Blue Owl
(50,238 posts)Make an example of these meddling fucksticks.