The brewing fight between the president and Congress will only strengthen the executive office. Even if a toned-down compromise is reached after a Supreme Court review, whatever the president would get out of it would be more power than he had clarified to him without the lawsuit. In the future, if Anti-Trumpists were to riot again as they have elsewhere, Trump may be able to take executive action against the riots—but having cried, “Wolf!” one too many times, the Left might have no powers left to stop him.
Building the national emergency declaration from components used by Obama serves two purposes. Firstly, and more obviously, are the optics. By opposing Trump’s declaration, opponents would be opposing Obama. But, that is mere optics, no matter how much hypocrisy it may demonstrate. Secondly, and far more importantly, court orders that restrict Trump’s declaration would need to tread carefully in dissent because any dissent against Trump could be used as a precedent to reverse or even take settlement-seeking action against Obama’s executive work in the past. Suing Trump for this order could unwittingly become an attack against Obama from his own supporters.
Russianewsgategate is imploding quietly, as was entirely foreseeable—and social media giants along with it. With Google having shown Taiwanese military secrets to the world, heavy regulation could come faster than thought, but that’s where matters in Asia and America meet in these Pacific times.
If the border wall dispute goes to a point of emergency, there would be implications. How deeply the administration and Congress will want to pursue those implications is a question to itself, with a likely answer of, “Not far.” But, the implications will remain.
Declaring a national emergency at the border is basically a declaration of being invaded by a civilian army. Like any army, this army also has a purpose and a moral cause they think to be right and fair. What invading army doesn’t? But, it would be an invading army of some kind or another because that’s what Constitutional powers the president would need to use to declare the emergency: repel against invasion.
The Constitutional language here compels Congress to act. If Trump were to declare an emergency to deal with the border situation—then a Federal judge stopped him—that judge would be just as implicated as Congress.
The implication?—Conspiracy with the enemy.
If an invasion can be stopped, but won’t be stopped by Congress or a judge, then they are conspirators with that invasion. This is because they are Constitutionally required to stop any force from invading, not only a deputized army sanctioned by a recognized state.
Trump might not be able to do much. Presidents can’t impeach anyone and members of Congress don’t answer for anything they do as elected officials to anyone except the electorate. He might be able to fire the Federal judge, but that won’t achieve anything because another treacherous scoundrel is sure to pop up elsewhere.
But, the implication will be there. What to do about it will be left up to the voters.
Apple can crackdown on Google and Facebook, but America can’t crack down on it’s own private property and protection for citizens?
This week, the president’s State of the Union Address will convene on schedule. The guest list is said to be interesting, though at press time, the president had not yet announced his guests. The regular speech is one way of fulfilling a Constitutional requirement that the president:
…shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.
The normal way of fulfilling this Constitutional requirement (the speech) was under threat by the government shutdown. That shutdown ended with a temporary budget, while Congressional Republicans proved that they saw “shutdown” as the strategy, while Congressional Democrats and President Trump—each in their own way—proved the shutdown as an unintended consequence of their “wall” or “anti-wall” strategy. Now, the State of the Union is confirmed on the calendar. The interesting parts won’t be about the wall as much as they will be about China.
China—the one thing that could unite all sides of American debates. Beware the peace of a nation in need of an enemy to unify them, for that peace may be shortlived.
Hot on the Capitol Hill agenda is Obama’s DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). The argument basically goes that young trees can be transplanted, but once they have grown, re-transplanting them again can kill them. Children are innocent and—though beneficiaries of the free economy, free speech, and freedom of America’s wonderful and ought-to-be-sought socioeconomic system—children would not be at-fault for receiving the great benefit of America’s growing greatness. So, why punish the children? That’s the argument in DACA’s defense.
One example that isn’t used enough to defend DACA is the Back-to-Africa movement, of the 1800s, which sought to return Black Americans to Africa. The idea was absurd, demonstrating no knowledge of international life and culture. Though an injustice, forcing a reversal after history has moved on only makes the injustice worse. DACA was such an injustice and the way forward cannot be explained in, shall we say, “black and white”.
From the Conservative perspective, the best solution to DACA claimants (the children in question) is to punish the perpetrators, not the children. In other words, punish the parents. The following course would do just that: Any illegally entered parents must report themselves and prepare for deportation or, with a clean criminal record, be given 30 days to prepare for a speedy and unconditional return to their home country. Then, children wishing to claim DACA status must meet minimum age and circumstantial requirements that prove returning to a life in their family’s country would cause a lower-quality life, such as not knowing the language or already having developed American credentials, must not have citizenship with that nation, and be banned from any dual citizenship with that nation for ten years.
This would cut off the parents from their children. If they wanted their children to be American because of America’s greatness, this would give them that at a price worth paying. For anyone who thinks the price is not worth paying, the DACA benefits would not be necessary. Let the people choose themselves and let America be a place of immigrants willing to pay the price of freedom that never comes free.
American deadlock trudges on. Trump promised a wall and he won’t back down. Democrats won’t back down either. Both show solidarity with their respective platforms. The only group that seems to favor backing down is Congressional Republicans, who want Trump to get this over with any way possible. For the compromising Republicans on Capitol Hill, Trump’s refusal to sign a “wallless budget” isn’t a “wall” strategy as much as it is a “shut down” strategy. Trump and Congressional Democrats see it differently.
Keep watch; it just might be Jared Kushner who saves the day.
The term “free speech” has taken a new meaning. While speech has kept less and less freedom from the tech bosses, the monetary cost of speaking out has essentially become free. With speech becoming more and more “financially free”, the media industry can’t find a way to stay solvent.
Newspapers and local news broadcasters seek collective ways to work against the tech giants, but they only rearrange their immediate problems with no long-term solutions in sight. The dwindling news industry is attacking “free” platforms of semi-free speech: social media. That’s the clue of where news & information will head in the future.
Trump has transformed America’s view of a “government shutdown” to a point where it could very well become a campaign promise in future elections. Not only did the shutdown become a “non-event”, it’s actually kind of nice to not have government messing with everything. If Congressional Democrats allow the shutdown to please Reagan Republican Americans much longer, political debates may even include strategy for how to keep the government closed for longer amounts of time.
It’s difficult for Americans to sympathize with the purported “horror” of a government shutdown when the lives of hard-working Americans—who work in the private sector—continue their daily lives with little to no interruption. IRS agents being out of work won’t be seen by Americans as a bad thing. If America’s “tax collectors” hoped to get back to work sooner, they probably should have followed Biblical advice—to keep out of trouble by keeping their mouths shut. You’d think “IRS agents not working” should have been kept a State secret.
While those who depend on taxpayer dollars to fund their livelihood will be angry that the milk has run dry, the shutdown won’t come close to affecting enough Americans to make a shutdown less popular in the future. In fact, the shutdown should prove to make America stronger on three levels: as a warning to government employees that the private sector is less likely to be destabilized by politics, that government and socialist -created “jobs” will eventually have the same problems in America as in North Korea, and that Americans will have to learn how to make due when government isn’t operating in its greatest glory.
Look on the bright side. If America knows how to function without as much government, we will all get through tougher times with more colors flying.
Pelosi and Schumer seem to be playing the Washington Generals, acting as if they are sincere, but not putting forward a formidable and convincing effort. Their resistance is a show and, by contrast to Trump, seems pathetic. It perfectly follows the tactic of “appearing to put up a fight”. The most pathetic part is that they are probably sincere.
By standing side-by-side in their televised address, they appear to show unity between them, but the impression is that of weakness: it takes two legislators in order to respond to the president. More importantly, their rhetoric was weak. By mentioning that they would make a statement after his own address, the president positioned himself as the MC who facilitates discussion from all sides. For Democrats, the dual-address to the nation was a botched failure revealing no impression of the playbook sabotage it employed.
Trump is winning the government shutdown for one reason: he set a record. Senator Graham’s desire to temporarily re-open the government was not a cave-in; it was proof of his desire to attempt cooperation of any kind. But, cooperation from Congressional Democrats doesn’t seem likely since they are vacationing in Puerto Rico during the shutdown.
Trump’s efforts to smooth relations with Russia can be interpreted from two perspectives: The first is from the one half of the masses who are suspicious of anyone who creates jobs without government. Those who don’t understand how to create revenue see big and powerful people talking and—for that reason alone—presume themselves to be victims of some malevolent plot that may not even exist. The second perspective from which we may interpret the White House’s policy with Russia is from the standpoint of the approaching conflict with China. The last thing the American people should want is Russia helping China takeover the Western Pacific. Thanks to Trump, that is unlikely. But, it’s difficult to consider the Pacific factor for the narrow-thinking breed of voters whose primary political ambition is to vote themselves money from the Treasury.
