Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!



Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups


Texas MoMe 2024: 10/18/2024-10/19/2024 Corsicana,TX
Contact Ben Had for info





















Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel: Letting Smollett Off the Hook Sends a Message That There Is No Accountability in the System; Calls it a "Whitewash;" Says "How Dare He" as Smollett Continues Attacking Police | Main | Politico Has the Absolute Balls To Criticize Trump For Not Doing Enough to "Bring Unity" After the Media Spent Two and Half Years Conducting Putin's Information Op to Divide America to the Brink of Civil War
March 26, 2019

House Override Vote of Trump's Emergency Border Wall Order Fails, 248-181; Wall Construction Will Begin

The Hill:

The chamber voted 248-181 to override the veto, falling short of the roughly 290 votes, or two-thirds majority, needed.

Now, expect a court challenge, but here's the thing: This is a statutory use of the emergency power -- not an assertion of inherent constitutional power, which the courts would be more skeptical about -- but a statutory use of power that Congress delegated to the president.

Further, Congress spelled out the precise method by which such an order could be challenged: by a vote on a resolution of disapproval, which the president could veto (and then a subsequent veto override vote).

This was all specified by Congress. The Rule of Law was followed. To the letter.

This is not a case where the President is usurping Congressional power and the court feels it should step in to safeguard the separation of powers.

This is a case where Congress gave this power to the president, and the president accepted.

For the courts to step in here would not be safeguarding the separation of powers -- it would be violating it. If two coequal branches have worked this out between themselves, what right does a third buttinsky branch have to step in and overrule both of them?

What would the court challenge be predicated upon? That Congress may not delegate so much power to the president?

Maybe, but...

Here's the thing: that argument has been tried before and it has been rejected partly because of mere logistical concerns. Congress has been delegating so much power to the president and to executive branch agencies (all "rules" in laws, the real nitty-gritty of the law, are written by executive branch agencies, for example) that to say that this system is unconstitutional would paralyze the country, as this is the way it's been done for 60 years now.

Does Congress even have the capacity to write the hundreds of thousands of rules that it delegates to executive agencies itself? Can it vote on them? Dare it vote on them?, given that it has preferred to not write unpopular rules but instead empower a non-elected executive agency to do the dirty work for them...?

I'm not saying that Congress should not have retained its power and not have delegated so much of it -- even its primary power, that of lawmaking, giving the all-important power to write "rules" (really, again, the details part of the laws) to executive agencies -- but it did and it's done so for 60 years and now the entire modern system of government is predicated on this, built on this, inextricably tied up in all this.

So what's a court going to do? Decide that the last 60 years of Supreme Court deference to Congress' determination to delegate most of its power to the executive is unconstitutional, because a Ninth Circuit panel doesn't like the outcome in one single case of delegation?

Unlikely.

And if they do do that -- well, that's kind of a conservative victory. Conservatives, or rather constitutionalists, have been arguing against the regime of endless delegation to the executive for 60 years and have gotten nowhere.

If the Supreme Court suddenly wants to destroy this entire system, root and branch, with a single ruling -- well, we lose the wall, but we gain a lot more.


Bonus: Second Headline!

Mike Lee Offers Constructive Criticism for the Green New Deal



Here's the speech. It's only 14 minutes long, and if you go to the settings and increase the playback speed to 1.5 or 2x, you can really get through it quick.

It's worth it.

For a more serious quote, he says, "It's not a serious policy document. Because it's not a policy document at all. The resolution is not an agenda of solutions. It's a token of elite tribal identity, and endorsing it, a public act of piety, for the chic and the woke."

He then shows pictures of babies and urges Americans to have more of them.


digg this
posted by Ace of Spades at 02:44 PM

| Access Comments




Recent Comments
Anna Puma: "Brother-husband Bro-band? ..."

BurtTC: "David Duke and Al Sharpton at one point both suppo ..."

Nevergiveup: "On Fox...A Jewish Girl named Katie is doing Great. ..."

Grammerly: "[i]My brother, my husband, and I are both deeply o ..."

nurse ratched : "Yeet. Yeet. Yet. Yeeto. ..."

Warai-otoko : "Man, their fervor over spackling a lumpy coat of f ..."

The Central Scrutinizer: "*Tries to square circle* *Head explodes like du ..."

Ilhan Omar: "[i] My brother, my husband, and I are both deeply ..."

Divide by Zero [/i]: " [i]My brother, my husband, and I are both deeply ..."

Zombie Breitbart: "Feeling gray, today ..."

BruceWayne: "David Duke and Al Sharpton at one point both suppo ..."

18-1: "[i]David Duke and Al Sharpton at one point both su ..."

Recent Entries
Search


Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64