February 15, 2019

Subtitle of the Day.

Why Trump’s Going to Win on the National Emergency

There’s one arena where the president always succeeds: getting the Republican Party to abandon its principles.

At Politico.

75 comments:

gahrie said...: Well at least the Republicans have some....; 2/15/19, 1:53 PM
MayBee said...: Hahahahhahahahaha!; 2/15/19, 2:00 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: On what principle are the Democrats opposing a border barrier in this situation?

Is the principle that a border barrier is immoral?

I don't get that principle.; 2/15/19, 2:05 PM
rhhardin said...: It's ridiculous to defend first principles. That's what makes them first.; 2/15/19, 2:05 PM
rcocean said...: How sad. The Republicans are such hypocrites - say the Liberals and the Democrats. Always trying to get the R's to live up to their rules. While the D's and Left have no rules. Althouse needs to create a "principles bullshit" tag.; 2/15/19, 2:05 PM
Limited blogger said...: Trump didn't 'Win'. Winning connotes there was competition.; 2/15/19, 2:10 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: I think that normally a President should not declare a national emergency in order to spend money that Congress has not approved in a recently approved, current budget.

The reason why I will go along with President Trump in this particular situation is that I think our country is being invaded.

This really is a national emergency.

Part of the situation is that the Democrats are allowing this invasion for partisan reasons.

* Democrats want to prevent any Trump action that they can prevent.

* Democrats view invading immigrants as future Democrat voters.

Without comity, civility, courtesy and compromise, our Democracy is disintegrating.

So be it.

We are being invaded, and so the President must do what he can to build a border barrier.; 2/15/19, 2:13 PM
AlbertAnonymous said...: Greenfield is a hack. So the Republicans have principles on Immigration and they're letting Trump run all over them rather than stand firm? Really? What principles are those? Protecting the border? Stopping illegal immigration?

No, instead Greenfield claims the Republicans are letting the executive branch run roughshod over the legislative branch. WTF? They cant stop him except maybe by suit AFTER he moves forward.

And when did the Dems ever stop Obama running off half cocked with his pen and his phone?; 2/15/19, 2:17 PM
Chuck said...: Wow, thank you for posting that, Althouse. I might have missed it had you not linked it. It is so sadly true. Depressingly articulate. Subtitle of the day indeed.; 2/15/19, 2:18 PM
Nonapod said...: This Jeff Greenfield guy is an idiot. The Republican Party has nothing to do with "winning" the National Emergency. This is a lawfare thing that will be resolved in the Supreme Court. The Dems will bring the lawsuits.; 2/15/19, 2:23 PM
Wince said...: What's he talking about?

Trump is acting pursuant to the statutory authority granted him by previous congresses and administrations.

by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to support the Federal Government’s response to the emergency at the southern border, I hereby declare that this emergency requires use of the Armed Forces and, in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments.; 2/15/19, 2:24 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Jeff Greenfield really loves principled Republicans when they lose honorably (McCain, Romney).; 2/15/19, 2:27 PM
JohnAnnArbor said...: * eyeroll *; 2/15/19, 2:28 PM
WintersTale said...: * Republicans view invading immigrants as future Democrat voters.

That's the emergency.
If Trump's "national emergency" ("I didn't have to do this") goes through there will be a very different set of national emergencies after when the Dems take the executive office.; 2/15/19, 2:29 PM
Wince said...: Meanwhile, Trump has appointed a Supreme Court justice who's taken a stand in support of those actual principles.

Gorsuch is right about Chevron deference

The Volokh Conspiracy Analysis
By Ilya Somin, March 25, 2017

Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s jurisprudence is his opposition to “Chevron deference”: the doctrine (first imposed by a 1984 Supreme Court decision) that requires judges to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of federal law in most cases where the law may be “ambiguous” and the agency’s position seems “reasonable.” In what is probably his best-known opinion, Judge Gorsuch denounced Chevron deference as “a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.” He’s absolutely right about that.

How Chevron Deference Violates the Text of the Constitution.

Article III of the Constitution gives the judiciary the power to decide “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.” Nowhere does the Constitution indicate that federal judges are allowed to delegate that power to the president or to the bureaucrats that work for him in the executive branch. Indeed, a major part of the purpose of separation of powers is to ensure that the branch that enforces the law is separate from the one that has the final say over its interpretation. That is what enables the judiciary to serve as an effective check on the power of the other branches of government...

If You Fear Trump, You Should Fear Chevron too.

If you believe – as I do – that Trump is a dangerous menace to liberal values, then you have an additional reason to want judges who won’t defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of the law. Under Trump, those agencies will mostly be headed by people who support his agenda. You have even more reason to reject Chevron if you think the problem is not limited to Trump, and that the GOP as a whole is untrustworthy. In a two party system like ours, both major parties will hold the White House some large fraction of the time. Even if Trump flames out, Republicans will be in power again soon enough.

Similar considerations apply if you – like many Republicans – fear and distrust the modern Democratic Party and believe its bureaucrats will bend the law to their own nefarious ends if given a chance. Eliminating Chevron can help constrain such abuses. Like constitutional federalism, judicial control over legal interpretation is a form of insurance that protects us against the dangers that arise when our partisan enemies are in power.; 2/15/19, 2:34 PM
Drago said...: Greenfield and LLR Chuck do not like it when republicans fight back.

LLR Chuck will never forgive Trump fighting back against Chuck's beloved CNN/MSNBC/etc.

Chuck's proudest moment as a republican was when Mitt surrendered to obama and Candy Crowley on live TV.; 2/15/19, 2:34 PM
Gk1 said...: This will ultimately help the working poor and those that have to compete with cheap, exploitable labor. Huzzah Mr.President, full speed ahead!; 2/15/19, 2:35 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: WintersTale at 2:29 PM
If Trump's "national emergency" ("I didn't have to do this") goes through there will be a very different set of national emergencies after when the Dems take the executive office.

That is correct. We are in a vicious cycle.

Our Democracy is disintegrating. The center will not hold.

We are seeing how the population feels compelled to follow an authoritarian President.

This is not how our political system should operate, but it is how our political situation is operating.; 2/15/19, 2:37 PM
WintersTale said...: Agreed @Mike Sylwester.; 2/15/19, 2:40 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: The electorate's recourse it to re-elect President Trump or to vote him out of office in 2020.

* To re-elect him is to defend our country against an invasion.

* To vote him out of office is to reject an authoritarian President.

That should not be our choice, but it apparently will be our choice.; 2/15/19, 2:40 PM
Hari said...: Greenfield doesn't seem to be suggesting that Trump's actions are unconstitutional or that they will be overturned by the courts. The Congressional Republicans are simply doing what the Congressional Democrats do: Trying to have it both ways by kicking the final decision to another branch.; 2/15/19, 2:41 PM
WintersTale said...: The question is ... why is this a "national emergency"?

Opioid crisis, maybe. People shooting up schools, concerts and malls with AR15s, maybe.

This is a pretend emergency so Trump can keep his campaign promise after losing his battle with congress.; 2/15/19, 2:42 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: WintersTale at 2:42 PM
This is a pretend emergency so Trump can keep his campaign promise after losing his battle with congress.

I understand that reasoning and normally would agree with it.

However, I sincerely believe that our country is being invaded. The invasion will grow and grow. We must act now.

With that belief, I go along with President Trump in this situation. Unfortunately, he is compelled to act in an authoritarian manner. I don't like that, but that is our situation.

I believe that this really is a national emergency.; 2/15/19, 2:48 PM
Hari said...: Winters Tale,

There are currently 31 national emergencies in effect. Would you classify any of these 31 as also being "pretend" emergencies?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693; 2/15/19, 2:50 PM
BJM said...: The Dems may think they've weakened Trump's 2020 re-election by defeating his promise to build the wall. We'll see.; 2/15/19, 2:51 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/15/19, 2:51 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: A future Democrat President might declare a national emergency to deal with climate change.

That situation will be similar.

Our country -- especially our Congress -- is in a political deadlock.

The leaders of Congress need to act like statesmen. They need to restore comity, courtesy and compromise in Congress. They need to conduct themselves in the nation's common interest.

If they fail to do so, the vicious cycle will gain even more momentum, and our Democracy will continue to disintegrate.; 2/15/19, 2:53 PM
n.n said...: We can safely assume that GREENFIELD is unfamiliar with our Constitution.

That said, stand for civil rights. Stand for human rights. Establish a quarantine at the border, emigration reform to reduce collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout, and tear down the walls surrounding and affording privacy to the abortion chambers.; 2/15/19, 2:54 PM
Richard said...: When it comes to principles, the Republican Party follows the the teachings of Marx; 2/15/19, 2:55 PM
Gk1 said...: Mike, yes I thought about that last week how the whole system is breaking down but it was inevitable. The powers that be want cheap labor at the expense of the legal citizens in this country. The uniparty could not have been any clearer about their aim. Its a binary situation that has been clarified by a black swan presidency.; 2/15/19, 2:55 PM
Fen said...: "This is a pretend emergency"

Tell that to the families of those raped and murdered by criminals who shouldn't have even been in this country.; 2/15/19, 2:56 PM
n.n said...: raped and murdered by criminals who shouldn't have even been in this country

Rape-raped, aborted, and at least one prepubescent feminine female impregnated with a fetus. Also, immigration reform in lieu of emigration reform, and a trail of tears in progress.; 2/15/19, 2:59 PM
JAORE said...: "A future Democrat President might declare a national emergency to deal with climate change."

Suppose Trump came out tomorrow and said, "Upon reflection, I have decided the emergency declaration is not appropriate". Does ANYONE believe a future Democrat president would take the emergency declaration potential off the table?

Puh-leeze.; 2/15/19, 3:01 PM
Nonapod said...: A future Democrat President might declare a national emergency to deal with climate change.

This certainly is possible and is concerning.

Unfortunately, they probably won't ever feel the need to since the Uniparty House and Senate will probably give them whatever they want anyway. The future can seem pretty bleak assuming we keep going down the path towards progressive/socialist nirvana we've been going down.; 2/15/19, 3:03 PM
Jim at said...: These so-called principles were nowhere to be found when it came to funding border protection when they held majorities in both chambers.; 2/15/19, 3:05 PM
WintersTale said...: "The powers that be want cheap labor at the expense of the legal citizens in this country."

Unemployment is at its lowest point in something like 50 years. Illegal immigration is not a national crisis.; 2/15/19, 3:08 PM
Sam L. said...: Why I don't believe Politico....; 2/15/19, 3:16 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: There are an estimated 11 million to 30 million people here illegally.

Said another way that means between 1 out of every 30 or 1 out of 10 people does not belong in this country.

That is a national crisis we have ignored for too long IMO.; 2/15/19, 3:23 PM
n.n said...: This isn't just about employment, or even rape-rape, and abortion. It's also about overcrowded classrooms. Rationed social services. Unaffordable, unavailable medical care. High property taxes. And violation of Americans' civil rights. At the other end of the bridge, it is about the privacy afforded to the collateral damage from immigration reform.; 2/15/19, 3:25 PM
n.n said...: The prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has a few followers. Probably more than a few who are looking for a little redistributive change. It may be PC.; 2/15/19, 3:37 PM
rcocean said...: Screeching about an authoritarian President is silly.

Congress can stop anything the President does. Sometimes it only takes simply majorities. Congress is the check on any abuse of power.

The real problem is there's NO check on the Judiciary. In theory, yes. In practice, no.; 2/15/19, 3:40 PM
JohnAnnArbor said...: Said another way that means between 1 out of every 30 or 1 out of 10 people does not belong in this country.

Your numbers need work.

It's still a too-high number.; 2/15/19, 3:41 PM
rcocean said...: Notice there is ZERO support for a wall, border security, or even enforcing the immigration laws among Democrats and liberal Independents.

They just don't care. They don't even consider themselves Americans. They're all hyphenated-Americans who just live here.; 2/15/19, 3:43 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: John:

If there are 11 million that is 3.3% or so which is 1 out of 30.

If there are 30 million, that is almost 10% which is 1 out of 10.; 2/15/19, 3:51 PM
Tommy Duncan said...: Blogger Mike Sylwester said...

"To vote him out of office is to reject an authoritarian President."

Lighten up Francis.

If Trump were authoritarian the southern border would have the US Army standing guard armed with M16's, machine guns and A10 air support and orders to shoot illegals. Comey would be in solitary and Hillary would be stamping license plates.

Trump's trying to do the right thing by bringing order, process and law back to our immigration situation. He's fighting both Republicans and Democrats who benefit from looking the other way as many millions of illegals pour over our porous southern border. Included with those immigrants seeking jobs are criminals, gang members, terrorists and aspiring welfare recipients. Congress won't help Trump do the right thing, so he's doing what he can within the system.; 2/15/19, 4:17 PM
Mark said...: If there are 11 million that is 3.3% or so which is 1 out of 30.
If there are 30 million, that is almost 10% which is 1 out of 10.

If there are one million foreign nationals who have breached a nation's sovereign borders and are remaining on that nation's sovereign territory outside of the law, such that there is widespread lawlessness and state of anarchy, that would constitute a de facto national emergency.; 2/15/19, 4:19 PM
Gk1 said...: What I'm waiting for now as the dust clears is all of the goodies they seeded this piece of shit legislation with that do nothing for border security other than feather bedding democratic interest groups. And the toothless cucks in the republican party are 100% complicit with it too. Christ, imagine how much Trump could have gotten done if he had the republican party in the fight?; 2/15/19, 4:32 PM
narciso said...: that was a scorching hot take with maple syrup,; 2/15/19, 4:34 PM
Robert Cook said...: "If there are one million foreign nationals who have breached a nation's sovereign borders and are remaining on that nation's sovereign territory outside of the law, such that there is widespread lawlessness and state of anarchy, that would constitute a de facto national emergency."

Well,but...there is no state of anarchy and widespread lawlessness.; 2/15/19, 5:02 PM
jeremyabrams said...: The national emergency law seems to have made the executive into a one-person legislature, subject only to a veto override by both houses of Congress. I see nothing wrong with Trump using this authority, and he's not exactly enabling the democrats to respond in kind. They don't need any enabling.

Obviously, Congress should repeal this law, and after the wall is built, Trump should sign the repeal. But put that repeal together with the S. Ct. likely getting rid of Chevron, which lets administrative agencies essentially write laws, and Congress will find itself once again having to legislate.; 2/15/19, 5:04 PM
rcocean said...: Yeah, this will set a bad precedent.

Unlike the other 36 or 56 presidential emergencies.

National review cucks are "very concerned". As so are Rubio and Collins. Were they concerned about building a wall or securing the border or all the "poison pills" in the incredibly stupid/awful 1000 page reconciliation? Not so much.; 2/15/19, 5:18 PM
rcocean said...: The Democrats along with Mitch McConnell and his gang have been bought off by cheap[ labor Billionaires. They don't give a shit about American workers.

They Refuse to do the will of the American people and enforce the immigration laws. Not much can be done until people wise up - which will be never.; 2/15/19, 5:21 PM
rcocean said...: Never trumpers have been bought off. How else to explain their lies and absurd pretzel logic? Now all full of cucky concern over "authoritarianism" whatever the hell that means. I guess it means, "don't do anything to stop illegal immigration".; 2/15/19, 5:23 PM
elkh1 said...: What are Republican principles?
Which principles are abandoned?; 2/15/19, 5:23 PM
Wince said...: A future Democrat President might declare a national emergency to deal with climate change.

One big contrast that I can see: imposition and unpopularity.

Rather than the government completing a building project using the existing budget appropriated by congress, the climate change emergency would likely entail an administration issuing commands and controls over the lives and business of people outside the government without congressional approval.; 2/15/19, 5:29 PM
BJM said...: WintersTale said Illegal immigration is not a national crisis.

I disagree, poverty driven by massive illegal immigration has overwhelmed California's resources and the one party rule that ensued is the direct cause. This miasma of misery will spread until it financially engulfs us.

The last migrant wave of poverty stricken, non-English speaking unskilled labor arrived when the country was expanding industrially, and infrastructure expansion/modernization continued apace...the ladder could be climbed in a generation or two by assimulation.

We are no longer that country, we are consumers, not makers or builders. Also, todays unskilled illegals are encouraged to not assimilate, thus their opportunities will be narrower and will likely remain on the bottom rung longer, requiring a longer period of public funding to transition into significant taxpayers.

At a time when aging Boomers flip from taxpayers to tax eaters, and Millennials/GenZ are still underearning. Where is the money to come from to support this massive immigration transition, our aging and underage population?; 2/15/19, 5:30 PM
Kevin said...: The AP Style Guide tells us anything good for Trump must be bad for the Republican Party.

On the next page it tells us anything bad for Trump is also bad for the Republican Party.; 2/15/19, 5:36 PM
Drago said...: rcocean: "Never trumpers have been bought off. "

The bought off part is for few of the LLR's/NeverTrumpers. Its much more about their basic cowardice and psychological limitations.

What they crave most of all is acceptance by society and the left is dominant culturally. The loss of that acceptance is what they fear tremendously, and to avoid that end they adopt the views, language, tone and narratives of the left.; 2/15/19, 5:37 PM
Kevin said...: Well,but...there is no state of anarchy and widespread lawlessness.

Lawlessness: There is an illegal invasion of 11-30 million people.

Anarchy: Democrats are doing everything possible to keep the police from enforcing the law.; 2/15/19, 5:40 PM
Bill Peschel said...: According to some mentions on instapundit and Twitter, all of our presidents since Clinton have declared national emergencies that are still in effect.

I look forward to the Post and the Times describing them so I can be educated on the context behind this important national issue.*

* But I'm not holding my breath until they do.; 2/15/19, 6:13 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: A-Chooo; 2/15/19, 6:15 PM
rcocean said...: "The bought off part is for few of the LLR's/NeverTrumpers. Its much more about their basic cowardice and psychological limitations."

I agree somewhat. However, national review is accepting $$ from Google and Left-wing billionaires and the Koch Brothers. To me that's bought off. Others like Matt lewis or [insert name] writing left-wing newspapers and magazines have always been #fakecons. Before they could get a "conservative" label by attacking the Democrat President or supporting a War in the Middle east.

Now, they've reveled themselves to be what they truly are: hacks writing what their masters want. Seriously, how could anyone who was truly "Conservative" have supported a 3rd party against Trump? Or claimed that he and Hillary were both bad, and not worth their support. Look at Bill Kristol, he's now cheering for a Democrat Governor who supports infanticide and is sneering at Falwell. How could anyone who was truly conservative behave like that? Bought off or just always a fraud?; 2/15/19, 6:27 PM
rcocean said...: Letting millions of illegals in the country or not enforcing the drug laws? Well, Okey-dokey.

Trump declaring a national emergency? What about the rule of law!; 2/15/19, 6:30 PM
Drago said...: rcocean: "I agree somewhat. However, national review is accepting $$ from Google and Left-wing billionaires and the Koch Brothers. To me that's bought off."

Embrace the idea that they are bought off AND they are filled with cowardice which incapacitates them against the left.

Let's just chalk this up to the lefties covering all their bases in keeping their LLR/NeverTrumpers heeled.; 2/15/19, 6:48 PM
Michael K said...: It just goes back to the uniparty pf Codevilla.

Trump is almost alone. His energy in spite of all amazes me.; 2/15/19, 6:54 PM
madAsHell said...: His energy in spite of all amazes me.

I would have rolled up my sleeves, and started slitting throats months ago, but he keeps showing up, and exposing the buffoons.; 2/15/19, 8:13 PM
Seeing Red said...: Nope no voter fraud to swing elections.

Lalalalacant hear you.; 2/15/19, 8:17 PM
Gospace said...: Perhaps some Democrat/Liberal/Communist here how I have a pen I have a phone Obama's governance was not authoritarian.

While you're at it, explain why Trump cannot cancel previous EOs, even when they are generally recognized as being unconstitutional to begin with. Seems like Trump is far more amendable to the rule of law than his immediate predecessor, deferring to judges overstepping their authority.; 2/15/19, 9:16 PM
MountainMan said...: “A future Democrat President might declare a national emergency to deal with climate change.”

US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;...

I don’t see any obligation defined in the Consitution for the United Statesto save anyone from “climate change”.; 2/15/19, 10:54 PM
Achilles said...: gahrie said...
Well at least the Republicans have some....

Capitol R republicans have no principles.

Except that they hate their voters.; 2/16/19, 12:25 AM
Achilles said...: Mike Sylwester said...

If they fail to do so, the vicious cycle will gain even more momentum, and our Democracy will continue to disintegrate.

We are not a democracy.

We are a representative republic.

The federal government has a short list of enumerated powers and responsibilities.

Protecting out borders is one of them.; 2/16/19, 12:32 AM
John Clifford said...: When you look at the crap sandwich that was passed as a 'compromise,' you recognize that Trump is right and a state of emergency exists. The bill includes funding for border walls for Ukraine, Jordan, and Israel, to the tune of over $50B... but Trump has to build a 'pedestrian' barrier only, no wall, for our southern border?

The Democrats were proud that Obama had a phone and a pen, and was going to use them. Are they surprised to learn that Trump has a phone and a pen, too? And a set of brass ones?; 2/16/19, 2:49 AM
TRISTRAM said...: #ThemToo; 2/16/19, 6:59 AM
TRISTRAM said...: Oh, and
#BlackFaceToo; 2/16/19, 6:59 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Tommy Duncan,

"If Trump were authoritarian... Comey would be in solitary and Hillary would be stamping license plates."

In this hypothetical, surely Authoritarian Trump™ would have helicopters at his disposal.

rcocean,

You talkin' 'bout federal drug law? The almost-entirely-unconstitutional body of drug law? I am not at all in favor of consuming even marijuana, but I'm even more opposed to Congress exceeding the authority it's been granted.; 2/16/19, 8:32 AM