Obama’s abuses are no justification for Trump’s emergency order.

[transporter]

Presidents and Guardrails: Obama’s abuses are no justification for Trump’s emergency order.
By The Editorial Board

One problem with today’s polarized politics is that both parties don’t mind stretching constitutional limits to achieve their policy goals. Democrats cheered on Barack Obama’s legal abuses on immigration and so much more, and now many Republicans are cheering President Trump’s declaration of a border emergency to build his wall. Constitutional conservatives should be wary of both.

...

Donald Trump, meet Robert Jackson. He’s the Supreme Court Justice whose concurrence in Youngstown v. Sawyer may define the legal fate of Mr. Trump’s declaration. Harry Truman nationalized the steel mills during the Korean War, citing his powers as Commander in Chief. The Court overruled Truman, and as our friends at the New York Sun remind us, Jackson is famous for pointing out that presidential power depends on its relationship to congressional power and intent.

A President’s authority is at its peak when he acts with the support of Congress. It is somewhat weaker if he acts on his own but Congress hasn’t spoken. But a President’s power is “at its lowest ebb,” Jackson wrote, when “the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.”

...

As it happens, Mr. Trump’s history is also blinkered. In February 2018 he was offered a deal that included money for the wall in exchange for legalizing the Dreamers, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. But the President walked away because White House aide Stephen Miller and GOP restrictionists told him he’d be better off making immigration an election issue. Mr. Trump took their advice, and Republicans lost 40 House seats. That wasn’t Paul Ryan’s fault.

Hey spitbubble, the bolded text means there is no crisis, there is no emergency and there really is no debate about it. The President's own actions prove he does not believe this is a crisis or an emergency. Period. End of discussion.

The article ends with this insanely basic comment that all the self proclaimed Patriots and informed voters on this site should really understand...but don't.

But Democratic abuses of power are no excuse for Republicans to do the same. The Framers created constitutional guardrails precisely to protect against the political passions of the moment.

(BTW...for those who are too lazy to read the actual editorial...this is from the WSJ, not WaPo.)

 

[limblips]

Presidents and Guardrails: Obama’s abuses are no justification for Trump’s emergency order.
By The Editorial Board



...



Hey spitbubble, the bolded text means there is no crisis, there is no emergency and there really is no debate about it. The President's own actions prove he does not believe this is a crisis or an emergency. Period. End of discussion.

The article ends with this insanely basic comment that all the self proclaimed Patriots and informed voters on this site should really understand...but don't.



(BTW...for those who are too lazy to read the actual editorial...this is from the WSJ, not WaPo.)

But Democratic abuses of power are no excuse for Republicans to do the same. The Framers created constitutional guardrails precisely to protect against the political passions of the moment.

So you freely admit that obumma did in fact abuse the power of his office! Very good, now we need to start prosecuting.

 

[Hijinx]

The Title of this post " Obama's abuses are no justification for Trumps emergency order" is very telling.

It is an admission that Obama did abuse his authority, something we already knew.
But it insinuates that is the reason for President Trump using his emergency powers. Something not one of us has ever hinted at.

Some may have posted Obama's abuses to show that Obama did indeed use those powers and that the powers existed.
But no one posted that was his reason for using them.

The reason for using these powers is that there is truly an emergency when you have caravans of thousands of people walking, riding, or participating in a mass march to invade our country.
I don't know who these people are but it should be obvious to anyone that there are people in Honduras and Guatemala who are gathering crowds for these caravans for some reason. Is it political? Would the Democrats be behind this for political reasons? After seeing their use of Mueller to help in their coup I wouldn't put anything beyond them. Is it a ruse to hide criminals among these crowds?, is it an attempt to bring in drugs by hiding their mules among the crowd? Whatever the reason, these are not people making a personal decision to seek amnesty by coming to the border alone seeking a better life. They are being gathered by someone with dubious reasons.

It is an attack against our country and our Sovereignty and it should be stopped.
No one should be allowed to enter our country without permission.
We have a right to know who the people who enter are.
Democrats are so hot on background checks
Why are they not asking for background checks on immigrants.

I don't want a criminal walking into a store and buying gun s.
I also don't want criminals walking into our country under the guise of being an immigrant seeking amnesty, or a criminal who has already been deported numerous time walking in with the crowd.

 

[TCROW]

I think many executive actions can be seen as unconstitutional by strict interpretation. The issue comes in when the legislative branch effectively cedes power to the executive office to do things that are unconstitutional. They are made “legal” by We the People in effect.

But is that really legal? Well, some of these laws stand unchallenged after many years so we must assume yes, it is legal.

Although I’ve come to understand through my years that it is very easy to have unconstitutional laws passed, but very expensive to have those laws declared unconstitutional by the Judicial branch.

So you just need someone with deep pockets and cause to pursue something like this.

 

[Monello]

Definiton of...

Recession - When your neighbhor loses their job.

Depression - When you lose your job.

Crisis. The new buzz word. Applied to opiods, guns, illegal immigrants, losing elections(Hillary, Abrams, et al.), climate, tax breaks, wildfires, fossil fuels, prison sentences, race relations and a few other current events. Pretty soon the word will lose it's impact just like calling or labeling something racist has lost it's clout.

Barry abused the crap out of his office and the press played the fiddle. President Trump follows suit. The press and the left lose their minds. My how times have changed. The next 2-6 years will be fascinating to say the least.

Go Redskins!

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

So, what I gather from this piece, is ... that this is a full admission, from the democrat party apparatchik, as well as for Obama's failed and divisive presidency, there were many many instances of their, and his, abuse of office, (power). If this isn't the truest, most accurate and unvarnished definition of hypocrisy, I don't know what else could be. Thank you very much Tranny for finally posting the truth. Even if it was a veiled attempt to smear the Republican party.

 

[Yooper]

Actually, not from the Dems. As Transporter notes, it's an editorial from the WSJ. So no admission (real or imagined) from the Dems/Left, re: Obama's abuses.

I would have rather had the Wall funded/built via Congressional appropriation I don't think this is over and it might be yet.

But the whole affair is really only a pretext for the WSJ to do an editorial and do a bit of Trump shaming by juxtaposing Obama with Trump (implying what Trump is doing is equally as evil as what Obama did). All this does is show the WSJ (with the exception of Kim Strassel) to be increasingly more #NeverTrump.

This cracks me up:

"A President’s authority is at its peak when he acts with the support of Congress. It is somewhat weaker if he acts on his own but Congress hasn’t spoken. But a President’s power is “at its lowest ebb,” Jackson wrote, when 'the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress'.”

Let's watch the WSJ wag its "scolding finger of moral superiority" while at the same time watch the newspaper utterly disregard numerous cases since the Founding where Presidents have done exactly this and were correct to have done so. What a load of sanctimonious BS.

Using a word from someone else from a post yesterday, this is pretty much a nothingburger because I wouldn't have expected anything else from the RINOs or #NeverTrumpers.

If Trump has done anything it's to show us how entrenched DC is in defending its own (rather than the Electorate's) interests. So buckle your seat belts. Things keep up like this and we will be headed to living the life of a Kurt Schlichter novel....

--- End of line (MCP)