Jump to content
Airbrush

The Border Wall or Fence

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Congress and the presideency are co-equal branches of government. If either branch fails to pass appropriations, the government shuts down. You can't automatically place the blame on the president, just because they have veto power. You could just as easily place the blame on congress if they did not pass a reasonable bill, or if they did not have enough support to override a veto. 

Of course right now we have (and have had) leaders in congress who won't even bring proposals up for a vote (with indications that they would pass), so we don't even get to the stage of veto, and possible veto override. So you could assign blame if a branch of government is not fulfilling its constitutional duty. Or, say, if one of the parties declares that they will take the responsibility for the shutdown.

5

seems like a recipe for marmite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Congress and the presidency are co-equal branches of government. If either branch fails to pass appropriations, the government shuts down. You can't automatically place the blame on the president, just because they have veto power. You could just as easily place the blame on congress if they did not pass a reasonable bill, or if they did not have enough support to override a veto. 

Of course right now we have (and have had) leaders in congress who won't even bring proposals up for a vote (with indications that they would pass), so we don't even get to the stage of veto, and possible veto override.

I did not mean to blame Presidents. Rather I was pointing out that Congress has always been able to pass a vote. Shutdowns occur when the President flashes their veto power. Sometimes it is for good reason and other times for bad reasons. In context to the post I was responding to I wasn't commenting of who is to blame for shutdowns rather i meant to describe the components needed for a shutdown. If the Presidential veto didn't exist the USA wouldn't have shutdowns. That isn't meant as a judgement on whether the presidential veto should exist. 

We have a 2 Party system. One party or the other is always in the Majority. Even when the Senate is split 50/50 the VP can break a tie. So getting an up or down vote is nearly always possible for the majority. So the way the Australian system holds Parliament accountable wouldn't work the same way here in the U.S.. Merely passing a vote is just a part of what it takes to keep the lights on or for a bill to become a law. Sometimes in the House and or Senate the majority party passes things they know will never go anywhere just to antagonize the President. For example Republicans voted to repeal the ACA over 50 times. 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

seems like a recipe for marmite.

In my opinion the easiest way to made shutdown more difficult is to pass a Constitutional Amendment that in lieu of Congress passing and POTUS signing a new year's budget the previous years budget is automatically renewed/continued as is till such time a new budget is passed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In my opinion the easiest way to made shutdown more difficult is to pass a Constitutional Amendment that in lieu of Congress passing and POTUS signing a new year's budget the previous years budget is automatically renewed/continued as is till such time a new budget is passed. 

2

Or just separate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Or just separate them.

Separate what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

We have a 2 Party system... the way the Australian system holds Parliament accountable wouldn't work the same way here in the U.S.

Australia also has a 2 party system. The double dissolution election was called by the governor general. Obviously the US does not have a governor general, but the trigger for a double dissolution election is if a bill passed by the house is rejected twice by the senate - as outlined in the Australian constitution.  A similar amendment could be made in the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Arete said:

Australia also has a 2 party system. The double dissolution election was called by the governor general. Obviously the US does not have a governor general, but the trigger for a double dissolution election is if a bill passed by the house is rejected twice by the senate - as outlined in the Australian constitution.  A similar amendment could be made in the US. 

Here in the U.S. Congress has no influence over who the President is. In a Parliamentary system they do. It is a significant difference. If Congress was able to vote for who the President was Donald Trump never would have become President. If the Majority party in Congress had their preferred President in office there would virtually be no need for a Presidential veto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I did not mean to blame Presidents. Rather I was pointing out that Congress has always been able to pass a vote.

Not this last shutdown. Congress did not pass a vote. It always stalled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not this last shutdown. Congress did not pass a vote. It always stalled.

The Senate passed a unanimous vote voice vote on Dec. 19th.  https://www.c-span.org/video/?456094-1/senate-passes-short-term-spending-bill-house-vote-expected-today

It was Trump indicating that he didn't support it, the Presidential veto threat, which cause McConnell to formally hold up the process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The Senate passed a unanimous vote voice vote on Dec. 19th.  https://www.c-span.org/video/?456094-1/senate-passes-short-term-spending-bill-house-vote-expected-today

It was Trump indicating that he didn't support it, the Presidential veto threat, which cause McConnell to formally hold up the process. 

Ryan was the one who refused to hold a vote in the house in December. McConnell refused a bunch of votes in January. The bills never passed through congress, ergo congress has not always been able to pass a vote. At least 10 examples here of it not happening.

Then there were two votes that failed in the senate. Trump has yet to veto any legislation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ryan was the one who refused to hold a vote in the house in December. McConnell refused a bunch of votes in January. The bills never passed through congress, ergo congress has not always been able to pass a vote. At least 10 examples here of it not happening.

Then there were two votes that failed in the senate. Trump has yet to veto any legislation.

 

 

Correct but it was the veto threat that created all of that. Had Trump signaled he'd accept the bill it would have floated through Congress easily. The inability of Congress to pass and up or down vote on budgets isn't the main ingredient to shutdowns here in the U.S.. What causes shutdowns here in the U.S. is when the President is at odds with what Congress passes or plans to pass. 

In Australia they have a Parliamentary system. Parliament selects the Prime Minister. If a Prime Minister were to buck the majority of Parliament and threat to shut the govt down they'd basically be asking to be replaced. 

My comments are directed towards the differences in the two systems. They are not an analyse of for the lasted shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same is true in Canada.
If the prime Minister/governing party is defeated on a major bill ( like a budget ), that is equivalent to a no-confidence vote, and the governing party can be replaced by an amalgamated government of the 2nd and 3rd parties ( by the GG ).
That is obviously impossible with the American system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything that would prevent a local or state government from building or financing a border barrier?  Obviously within the confines of their state, county etc...

Edited by Nod2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

Is there anything that would prevent a local or state government from building or financing a border barrier?  Obviously within the confines of their state, county etc...

There could be issues with property rights, environmental laws, building regulations, voters, interstate commerce, human rights, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

Is there anything that would prevent a local or state government from building or financing a border barrier?  Obviously within the confines of their state, county etc...

Perhaps the commerce clause of the constitution? The federal government is empowered to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and this might be seen as usurping that power.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguement seems to be a stretch on the commerce clause though unless Arizona tried to fence over a customs border crossing or something.  Still leave a lot of other concerns if they tried building it.  What about financing it for the federal government though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

Arguement seems to be a stretch on the commerce clause though

Would be the difference to put in a fence somewhere and putting one with the purpose of regulating border security, I would guess. Not sure whether it would make a practical differences. 

 

20 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

What about financing it for the federal government though?

Some Republicans (Montana and West Virginia at least) are proposing measures to allocate ~10 millions of state funds to fund the wall. Not sure how likely it will be, but it is clearly mostly a symbolic gesture either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad all the energy going into Border Security currently isn't going into other issues like Healthcare, education, or etc. It is really sad. Illegal immigration is lower than it's been for decades. It has been declining year after year. There is not a crisis and absolutely nothing additional to what we've been doing needs to be done, NOTHING. Meanwhile any number of other critical issues are going ignored or pushed off.

I understand Trump promised his base a wall but he promised them healthcare too. We all remember the GOP voting to repeal the ACA over 50 times. Suddenly that just doesn't matter anymore. What the f*ck is wrong with people in Montana and West VA (non-border states) they rather have there elected Representatives tackle a wall they'll never see and won't be effected by than tackle healthcare. 

Forget shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic this situation is like the Titanic crew seeing the Iceberg and ignoring it in favor of getting the first class passengers their dessert. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Forget shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic this situation is like the Titanic crew seeing the Iceberg and ignoring it in favor of getting the first class passengers their dessert. 

Close.
To be a good analogy, their captain would have needed to deliberately steer at the iceberg and he'd need to know that there was a small balloon ready to lift him clear of the carnage.
Meanwhile, while some of the crew continued to serve desserts, others would start a panic about a non existent fire in the engine rooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Too bad all the energy going into Border Security currently isn't going into other issues like Healthcare, education, or etc. It is really sad. Illegal immigration is lower than it's been for decades. It has been declining year after year. There is not a crisis and absolutely nothing additional to what we've been doing needs to be done, NOTHING. Meanwhile any number of other critical issues are going ignored or pushed off.

I understand Trump promised his base a wall but he promised them healthcare too. We all remember the GOP voting to repeal the ACA over 50 times. Suddenly that just doesn't matter anymore. What the f*ck is wrong with people in Montana and West VA (non-border states) they rather have there elected Representatives tackle a wall they'll never see and won't be effected by than tackle healthcare. 

Forget shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic this situation is like the Titanic crew seeing the Iceberg and ignoring it in favor of getting the first class passengers their dessert. 

Well, the selection of this particular issue (rather than other, indeed pressing matters) clearly shows the xenophobic agenda in the WH and meshes with all the other policies they put in place. It just happens to mesh well with a good proportion of the voter base. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are we taking bets yet, on whether the US Government shuts down again ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MigL said:

So, are we taking bets yet, on whether the US Government shuts down again ?

There’s an agreement and a deal on the table. The question now is whether the POTUS will sign it, or let us lapse again into shutdown. 

$1.375B allocated for 55 miles of new physical barriers, but will not be concrete. 

Legislative text is still pending. These are just outlines in principle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how is this wall/fence/barrier more or less immoral then any other wall/fence/barrier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

So how is this wall/fence/barrier more or less immoral then any other wall/fence/barrier?

A barrier itself is not immoral and it is not what folks claim. The immoral part comes from the fact that POTUS started a campaign  demonizing asylum seekers, lie about immigrant-related crimes and help federal employee's livelihood hostage in order to get a signature project started that does not fulfill a an actual need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nod2003 said:

So how is this wall/fence/barrier more or less immoral then any other wall/fence/barrier?

Yeah pretty much what Charon said plus our funds are finite and Trump's pet project takes away from other worthy pursuits. 

A wall is an inanimate object and as such can be neither moral or immoral. 

OTOH China built one 2000 years ago and they have absolutely no problem with immigrants from Mexico. No, no thats a joke please don't take that seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iNow said:

There’s an agreement and a deal on the table. The question now is whether the POTUS will sign it, or let us lapse again into shutdown. 

$1.375B allocated for 55 miles of new physical barriers, but will not be concrete. 

Legislative text is still pending. These are just outlines in principle. 

I am disappointed Democrats have offered anything. The majority of the nation is opposed to the wall. Politicians should be serving the people and not placating Trump will billion dollar consolation prices. This isn't a 50/50 Partisan issue which demands compromise. The nation is solidly opposed to the wall. 

Quote

 

19 January 2019

A new Pew Research Center survey finds that majority of Americans (58%) continue to oppose substantially expanding the border wall, while 40% favor the proposal. Overall opinion on the wall is little changed from last year,  Link

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.