Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Pinned
    • Discussion
    The War Room III: It's Mueller Time
    • the idea behind it is that you cannot possibly conceive of every single emergency that would come up; placing restrictions renders the act useless, since it's meant to react to spontaneous events that don't have the time to go through congress to be resolved.

      that said, i do think there should be a clause for congress to be able to go behind the president and nullify the declaration if it is deemed necessary. a reverse veto, if you will.
    • goronmario wrote:

      that said, i do think there should be a clause for congress to be able to go behind the president and nullify the declaration if it is deemed necessary. a reverse veto, if you will.
      But then in the event of another Republican congress where they deny climate change, they would nullify the emergency deceleration made by a possible Democratic administration. Thus, you are left with a constant cycle of this.

      Then again, I have no ideas for a solution to improve this act at all. Its sort of like damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation with our current government and certain acts.
      I'm hosting a Mafia game on Zu! It's based on the hit 1992 film, Reservoir Dogs! You should totally sign up and play this totally radtacular game!
      Mafia XX?V?: Reservoir Cats - SIGN UP
    • The congress does indeed have the ability to pass a resolution to over the emergency but it requires 2/3 of both houses (just like a veto).

      While I do understand the need for the president to act promptly in a true emergency perhaps the act can include a time table?

      For example, amend the act to include 3 month time table. That will give Congress enough time to formulate an action.
    • I mean, most real emergencies won't give you three months to respond. Having that time table nullifies the entire purpose of the act: A quick, decisive response that doesn't rely on Congress to debate it for 3 months, if it's even in session.

      A 2/3rds vote seems reasonable, if I'm being completely honest. It's something that is *extremely* feasible in the face of this current national emergency declaration: Republicans have already condemned it, and most of those who have not condemned it have been very skittish to fully back the president.

      A 2/3rds vote means that stupid ass declarations like this that don't have the support of congress get shut down. On the flip side, something like a climate change national emergency, would not be so easily overturned - even with Republican control, 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate are ridiculous majorities and we should be more worried about other things than them overturning a national emergency declaration at that point.
    • I probably didn't explain what I meant to well.

      I shall give a hypothetical example:

      Let's say a rogue president suspects a group of citizens to be working with foreign terrorists. In order to respond quickly to "imminent" danger, the President issues an Emergency Act to freeze assets from these citizens (something similar was done with Bush jr.).

      Months later, the media and congress finds out these citizens are actually innocent and the president was targeting them since they have a strong opposition following on social media.

      If there was a 3 month limit on Emergency Acts, the freezing of assets on these citizens will then expire. However, if Congress did indeed feel the action was warranted then 3 months is enough time to congress to create legislation and pass a bill.

      The reason I like a 3 month expiration date is not only does it give Congress time to act (which is the concern that caused the creation of the Emergency Act right?) but it also prevents the President from transforming into a brutal dictator.

      I know some will argue that the Congress has enough options via passing a resolution or impeachment but the Framers failed to predict how polarized the political parties would become in the 21st century.
    • Here's the issue with your hypothetical, from the beginning you're saying that this is a rogue president who would misuse the Emergencies Act to perform illegal actions. If you repeal (or restrict) the Emergencies Act the rogue president would just find justification for why he has to expand the scope of how he deals with emergencies. That's the issue with arguments that center around not creating a legal precedent for someone like Trump, Trump doesn't care about legal precedent or the law, he'll do what he'll do (the only reason that Trump isn't running completely wild is because the Republicans actually showed a modicum of restraint towards going all in with Trump, not enough for my liking but they didn't hand the guy the keys, they extracted what they wanted, namely tax cuts and now are indifferent because their mission is already complete.) Now that the Democrats have the House, we're out of the danger zone for a dictatorship for now.

      Putting it short and sweet, all restricting the Emergencies Act would do is restrict those people who care about the rules and the law. A dictator doesn't care about your checks and balances.
    • While I understand your concerns, at least in my hypothetical the President can't initiate an emergency that last perpetually. Having a 3 month cap can prevent things from escalating very badly in the US.

      I suppose another thing that bothers me with Trump's Emergency Action is that it can be irreversible. Sure, construction companies can be contracted to bull doze miles of the wall but it's concerning that one person can drastically do something that can take years and years to fix. While this is off topic from my original post but there is a slim chance of the wall getting constructed for a variety of reasons.

      Perhaps, my viewpoint on this issue is skewed since I'm biased towards Trump.
    • I don't think the wall will actually be built but I know for a fact that there is money being used for the wall as opposed to improving border scurity as originally intended. Billions of dollars will be wasted on a project that won't be finished.

      We can collectively agree, logically, that a wall should not be put up however there is money being used, at the current moment, for a wall, slat, barrier, etc. In other words, at least what I'm trying to say, this is a shit show that we are paying for ladies and gentlemen.
      I'm hosting a Mafia game on Zu! It's based on the hit 1992 film, Reservoir Dogs! You should totally sign up and play this totally radtacular game!
      Mafia XX?V?: Reservoir Cats - SIGN UP
    • Topaz Mutiny wrote:

      How the fuck did I miss this I live in this state. I pass by Silver Spring every day I go to work.
      First time I've actually heard officials use the proper term "domestic terrorism" too.
      Just to be fair, in America these people are really common. His "stockpile" of guns is actually not that big and the only thing that really separates him as anything unusual was that he discussed ways on how he planned to kill people.

      I was underwhelmed by the story. I think a lot of people are in denial about the times we live in and how scary all the guns and dangerous ideas that are circulating are. I honestly believe that there are thousands of people like this in America.



      On the other hand

      mail.com/news/politics/9018678…19580-stage-mostviewed1-4

      latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca…phama-20190220-story.html

      It's too hard to stay in the middle anymore, but there really are all of these beautiful ideas coming out from the more progressive end. I don't know how to stop the splitting of America but plain and simply there's the side hellbent for war, global weather change denial, and all of these really troubling beliefs that make you feel unsafe BUT there is also a side of America that recognizes the problems that are facing common people and wants to stop the climate of Salt Lake City, Ut from becoming like the climate of Paradise, Ca by 2080.

      One of the people that was on his hit list is also the guy that saved a woman from a burning building while he was mayor of Newark. While that's really stupid for someone that's not a firefighter, I feel like people put more weight into all of the dangerous people instead of looking at all of these people that are honestly inspiring and actually trying to make things better. He actually put himself into harm's way for some random woman who was part of his constituency, so while Sanders and Harris are my favorites and I feel like Swalwell is the most qualified, Cory Booker is clearly on the opposite side of the ethics spectrum that Trump is.

      The problem of dangerous radicals is worse than I think most people see, but there really are also people out there pushing solutions and standing for the opposite
    • When I first heard of this I was more intrigued than shocked (any acts of domestic terrorism doesn't really surprise me anymore. Chalk it up to my cynicism towards humanity).

      But I find the whole thing to be an oxymoron. You're a lieutenant in the US Coast Guard. I position of power in one of the US Armed Service dedicated to protecting this country and yet you choose to have a mindset that's a direct contradiction to the values of the Service that you swore to uphold when you enlisted.

      Nite and Deigh wrote:

      I was underwhelmed by the story. I think a lot of people are in denial about the times we live in and how scary all the guns and dangerous ideas that are circulating are. I honestly believe that there are thousands of people like this in America.
      And the sky is blue and the grass is green.
    • Nite and Deigh wrote:

      I was underwhelmed by the story. I think a lot of people are in denial about the times we live in and how scary all the guns and dangerous ideas that are circulating are. I honestly believe that there are thousands of people like this in America.

      Try tens of thousands at minimum. Despite the proliferation of firearms, actual firearm ownership in America is limited to a minority; only one third of the population owns guns. So, say, if we have an average of eight firearms privately owned per citizen, that means every firearm owner has an average of 24 guns.

      But, that's not what you should be scared of. America, in general, is far higher than the norm in violence in every category. Some of our current problems, like certain anti-American sentiments and school violence, have existed since before the nation was founded; the first recorded school massacre in America that I could find was in 1764.

      These are not dark times. These are times when people are beginning to shine the light on the darkness that has always been there. Seeing, fully, what the hidden costs of our civilization have been. Which is the first step towards stopping them.

      Assuming, of course, you remember humans are, by nature, dominating territorial pack predators. Trying to design solutions that didn't take that into account has always worked very badly at best (see: communism).

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kerest ().

    • Kerest wrote:


      Assuming, of course, you remember humans are, by nature, dominating territorial pack predators. Trying to design solutions that didn't take that into account has always worked very badly at best (see: communism).
      Oh dear.

      Okay; "dominating territorial pack predators"

      What do you mean by dominating?
      Territorial? I mean if a tribe or culture doesn't protect it's resources then other tribes can come and take them. I suppose that can be seen as territorial but you make sound like humans are tigers or something. It's just the smart thing for you to do.

      I mean, you could say that our ancestors are pack hunters. But the vast majority of people get their food from a local market. I don't recall ever hunting with my tribe, largely because I've never hunted, and because the closest thing to a tribe that I have is my family.

      Secondly the argument that communism cannot work because it's human nature doesn't even leave the starting line. This is for multiple reasons. First people who make this argument never provide evidence as to what human "nature" is, nor do they have supporting evidence for their arguments.

      There has never been a true Communist society. And before you cite say the Soviet Union, by very nature a true Communist as described by Marx, not Lenin, not Stalin, not Mao, not anyone but Marx, is stateless.

      Can that work? I dunno. It's never been attempted.