Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Happy President’s Day. Hamilton wrote in Federalist #70:
Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.
There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.
Of course, Rome eventually fell. It goes without saying there is an intended balance here, and there are those who insist President Trump is throwing it out of whack with this “Emergency Declaration” business to set aside funds for the construction of his big, beautiful wall.
Well, about that.
The WH did not make one executive action today. In reality they made three, only one of which involved an emergency declaration.
First the WH announced they would be funding $601 million in wall construction from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, relying on 31 U.S.C. § 9705. This does not require an emergency declaration.
Second, the WH announced they would be funding $2.5 billion in wall construction under 10 U.S.C. § 284 (this is MilCon $ for combating drug trafficking). This does not require an emergency declaration.
Finally, the WH announced they would be funding $3.6 billion under 10 U.S.C. § 2808. This money does require an emergency declaration.
According to the WH this money will be spent sequentially so the § 9705 money will be spent first then the § 284 money then the § 2808 money.
So depending on how fast they can begin construction, they will have to spend over $5 billion (including the $1.3 billion in fencing appropriations) before any of the emergency money is ever tapped…
But, isn’t this whole thing rather phony? If it’s an emergency, why declare it and then go golfing? Seems like a good question, at first, but then you go to inspect it…to do that, you have to construct a coherent narrative in which there’s something wrong with Trump making a move after Congress told him no. According to this narrative, Congress must have acted in good faith, not attempting in any way to usurp the control of the cockpit, determining which way the ship is going to go; but simply reporting to the Captain of the vessel, as the responsible stewards of the fuel supply, that there’s no more fuel.
The Captain has the sole responsibility to steer the vessel clear of any dangers. The guardians of the resources say the resources are not available to do this.
Looks like an emergency to me. What else to call it?
But many have lined up to point out the dangers of precedent. If Trump does this, so goes the litany, a future democrat President can declare a national emergency that…I eat meat. Or that I own guns. A constitutional crisis will follow, and supposedly we’ll have Trump to thank for it.
I find this unconvincing. It pretends we have yet to head into the cul de sac, when in fact we’ve been in it for quite some time, and in fact have converted it into a busy thoroughfare. Seems such a long-winded way to say “We should never elect democrats President again”; or, “I don’t know very much about these national emergencies.”
Good constitutional arguments can be made for and against President Trump’s evocation of emergency powers to address the crisis at our southern border. But the notion that such a declaration would encourage a future Democratic president to do something similar borders on the comic. Democrats don’t need encouragement.
Under President Barack Obama, the Constitution was violated more wantonly than a goat at a Taliban bachelor party, and the faithful cheered every violation. In early 2014, New Yorker editor and Obama groupie David Remnick wrote about his experience accompanying Obama on a west-coast fundraising tour.
:
By 2014, Obama had successfully nullified any number of laws with negligible media objection. In February 2011, for instance, Obama and “wing man” Attorney General Eric Holder came willy-nilly to the conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was not “constitutional.” President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 with overwhelming support from Democrats in Congress and nearly unanimous support from Republicans.No matter. Going forward, Obama decided that the Justice Department would no longer enforce DOMA. That simple.
:
On the subject of illegal immigration, Obama did not bother deeming existing laws unconstitutional. He chose not to enforce them because they did not poll well among Hispanic voters. It would get no deeper than that.
Getting back to the presidency itself, there’s an oath you’re supposed to take as you’re inaugurated into that high office. It reads:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Seems to me a more easily defensible idea, that Trump has fulfilled the letter and the spirit of this oath and Obama has failed it, than the other way around.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
People should stop using Rome as an example of failure. It was the most successful empire in history. When Rome itself was sacked in the 5th Century, the Roman state has been in existence for over 1,100 years. The capital of the Roman Empire had been moved to Constantinople, where it continued to govern a slowly diminishing empire for over another 1,000 years. The total span was almost 2,200 years.
America should be so lucky as to follow Rome’s trajectory.
- Bob Sykes | 02/20/2019 @ 06:12But this makes Rome a better-than-adequate example of both success and failure, does it not? There’s little to be gained studying the known detriments against a civilization that was weak.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2019 @ 06:30All good stuff, and of course Pres. Trump is on solid Constitutional grounds to fund/build the wall and Obama violated the law.
But, this presumes that this ALL maters. I mean, can someone tell me how cities/states are able, without any punishment or threat thereof, to declare and impose sanctuary for illegals? Yet, no one, not one state AG nor the U.S. AG has ever done anything about it. Seems like a rather easy case, they’re violating federal law and…crickets?
There are states changing their electoral votes to the national popular vote. I seem to remember something in the constitutional about this, yet…???
Shit, the head of the goddamn FBI spies on a presidential candidate, his replacement tries a coup de ’tat and…silence.
And on and on…and on…
Then, let’s say this goes to the SC, and there sits Justice John Roberts…John Fucking Roberts…dude will just make shit up…
My faith that the law and the constitution actually holds power over whether something will, or will not, happen diminishes every sticking day.
- tim | 02/20/2019 @ 11:07