"For the Public's Interest"

[Zhong Lu + 845]

But it's the law until the courts rule on the matter. And if the executive branch delays the courts with motions for 4 years, that means no more fracking for 4 years.  If Sanders wins reelection, that means no fracking (or no oil exploration) for 4 MORE years.  Am I wrong? 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Good. So you're saying Bernie Sanders, if he becomes president CAN unilaterally declare an end to fracking using his executive powers, and if Congress is split, it becomes the law.  Am I right? 

Nope.  The Executive Order would stand.  Nothing becomes law without Congress passing a Bill and the President signing it.  Although Congress can overrule a president's veto by majority vote.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

But it's the law until the courts rule on the matter. And if the executive branch delays the courts with motions for 4 years, that means no more fracking for 4 years.  If Sanders wins reelection, that means no fracking (or no oil exploration) for 4 MORE years.  Am I wrong? 

It is certainly within the realm of possibility.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Ah, but there's  precedent for Sander's action.  Despite Congress saying explicitly in a budget that Trump cannot use money for the border wall, Trump went ahead and did it because "national emergency."  

What if Sanders did the same thing with fracking and oil exploration? 

EDIT: Thank you. Just saw your reply.  BTW, don't you think we're giving executive branch a little  too  much power? 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Ah, but there's  precedent for Sander's action.  Despite Congress saying explicitly in a budget that Trump cannot use money for the border wall, Trump went ahead and did it because "national emergency."  

What if Sanders did the same thing with fracking? 

EDIT: Thank you.  BTW, don't you think we're giving executive branch a little  too  much power? 

Man, you are really becoming tiresome with this.  Read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/trump-border-wall-emergency-funds.html

Elections balance the powers of the Executive Branch and Congress.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

No, elections really don't balance the power of the Executive Branch and Congress. On this point  you're just wrong.  The facts do NOT support your claim.  With each new administration, the power of the Executive is getting stronger and stronger at the expense of Congress, regardless whether it's Dem or Repub in the Executive branch.  

What elections do is to balance the power between the parties.  But it does nothing to balance the powers between the branches.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Just now, Zhong Lu said:

No, elections really don't balance the power of the Executive Branch and Congress. With each new administration, the power of the Executive is getting stronger and stronger.  

That is an opinion.  Class over for the day.  I'm done.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

"Can't argue on the facts so I'm running away." Ok.  I understand.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

"Can't argue on the facts so I'm running away." Ok.  I understand.  

You have shown no facts and you choose not to accept what I have written or referenced.  What would you have me do?   Stay and hold your hand until you run out of wind?

That's enough.  Fair enough for you?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

The fact is this: with each new administration, the executive branch is expanding its power through declarations of Executive Order and National Emergencies.  This is obvious to anyone paying attention to American politics.  Republicans complained about it when Obama was in power, then Dems complained about it with Trump in power.  In each iteration, the president is abrogating more and more powers at the expense of Congress.  

This is a fact. Note the accelerated rate of the use of Executive Orders and National Emergencies over the last three-four administrations.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 minute ago, Zhong Lu said:

The fact is this: with each new administration, the executive branch is expanding its power through declarations of Executive Order and National Emergencies.  This is obvious to anyone paying attention to American politics.  Republicans complained about it when Obama was in power, then Dems complained about it with Trump in power.  In each iteration, the president is abrogating more and more powers at the expense of Congress.  

That's an opinion.  Now, I really have to go.  Mom's calling me to go upstairs for breakfast.  Sorry.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Cya.  

[BLA + 1,666]

On 2/12/2020 at 8:51 PM, Zhong Lu said:

Interesting question: let's say a Dem wins the presidency and starts firing Republicans because they oppose his agenda.  His rationale? "Because it's in the public's interests. After all, the Republican is working against my agenda, which means he's working against the nation's interests, and so I have justification to fire him."  Is this legal or illegal? 

When Obama entered offoce One of the first moves was fire EVERY U.S. AMBASADOR .  

Just before Obama left office he put partisan appointees in important positions that Trump could not fire,  in the Justice Department and State Department. 

With all the damaging leaks coming out of Trump's National Security Council from day 1 why did it take him over three years to clean it up.  Poor manager. 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Kinda like what Trump is doing.  "Putting partisans in position," etc. etc.  

I.e. expansion of presidential power.  You've pretty much admitted what I've been claiming.  The problem with you ideological people is that in every debate you think you're arguing with a Democrat.  The same can be said of ideological Democrats- every time I argue with them they think I'm a Republican.  LOL.

Here's something to consider: If Bernie Sanders won the election and started declaring national emergencies to override Congress, he'd have the precedent to do so from the current president.  One guy in this thread basically just said "anything the president does is legal, as long as it's not overrided by Congress or the courts." If we go by that logic what that  means is that if Sanders becomes president and starts declaring national emergencies for his pet peeves willy nilly, and Congress is divided, then all of his national emergency declarations are legal and fine.

I guess if Sanders bans guns and outlaws oil exploration I reckon you'll just have to live with it. The law is the law, and what the president says is indeed the law, as long as it's not overridden by Congress or the Courts.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/15/2020 at 5:02 PM, Dan Warnick said:

If the courts and Congress test the law and find that the President is within his powers, that is correct.

The Supreme Court may well be called upon to decide any legal disputes also. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/15/2020 at 8:31 PM, Zhong Lu said:

Kinda like what Trump is doing.  "Putting partisans in position," etc. etc.  

I.e. expansion of presidential power.  You've pretty much admitted what I've been claiming.  The problem with you ideological people is that in every debate you think you're arguing with a Democrat.  The same can be said of ideological Democrats- every time I argue with them they think I'm a Republican.  LOL.

Here's something to consider: If Bernie Sanders won the election and started declaring national emergencies to override Congress, he'd have the precedent to do so from the current president.  One guy in this thread basically just said "anything the president does is legal, as long as it's not overrided by Congress or the courts." If we go by that logic what that  means is that if Sanders becomes president and starts declaring national emergencies for his pet peeves willy nilly, and Congress is divided, then all of his national emergency declarations are legal and fine.

I guess if Sanders bans guns and outlaws oil exploration I reckon you'll just have to live with it. The law is the law, and what the president says is indeed the law, as long as it's not overridden by Congress or the Courts.  

Banning guns would be totally unconstitutional and it would not get past the House, Senate, or the Supreme Court. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/15/2020 at 5:16 PM, Zhong Lu said:

No, elections really don't balance the power of the Executive Branch and Congress. On this point  you're just wrong.  The facts do NOT support your claim.  With each new administration, the power of the Executive is getting stronger and stronger at the expense of Congress, regardless whether it's Dem or Repub in the Executive branch.  

What elections do is to balance the power between the parties.  But it does nothing to balance the powers between the branches.  

I would say that presidential power increased over Obama's eight years because of bureaucratic state compliance and agreement with him whereas it has decreased under Trump's presidency due to bureaucratic state opposition, lack of compliance, attempted subversion of the President by Obama appointees and the mainstream press.