US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

….and suddenly is ordinary people who are either for or against trump are expert on walls and its purpose.

Markus

Hey it's hard not to be at least knowledgeable about such a basic element of our human existence. After all we encounter walls, fences and barriers all throughout our lives from our cribs to the walls of our coffins. As my dad would say "it ain't like it's rocket surgery".

[Buddahaid]

Then why isn't a plan being forwarded for what the wall will be? All I've seen are design prototypes that vary considerably in cost.

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Then why isn't a plan being forwarded for what the wall will be? All I've seen are design prototypes that vary considerably in cost.

Because one side of our government won't even acknowledge that a barrier is moral. Until we settle that basic question they can't get beyond the prototype stage. I'm guessing that several designs will eventually be used varying according to the local terrain.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

It is the lack of rational thought from either party which makes this the political circus it is today.

As someone once said ' votes' are the coin of the realm. The political bigtop is where those precious coins are minted.

You do realize that your post was 6660, right?

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by mapuc

….and suddenly is ordinary people who are either for or against trump are expert on walls and its purpose.

Markus

I'm pretty sure a good many ordinary people are more familiar with building walls or fences than any politician you can name. I personally, with my own hands, put up around 1000 ft of industrial chain link eight feet high with three strands of barbed wire at the top, and I haven't seen anyone tunnel under or climb over since. My forearms hurt for two years afterwards. Some of those post holes were brutal.


If a wall ever goes up it won't be with the help of either side in Congress.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

You do realize that your post was 6660, right?

Did I win?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by em2nought

I'm pretty sure a good many ordinary people are more familiar with building walls or fences than any politician you can name. I personally, with my own hands, put up around 1000 ft of industrial chain link eight feet high with three strands of barbed wire at the top, and I haven't seen anyone tunnel under or climb over since. My forearms hurt for two years afterwards. Some of those post holes were brutal.


If a wall ever goes up it won't be with the help of either side in Congress.

That's right barriers are relatively easy to build. 1000 feet of chain link fence? No problem.



How much did it cost? Who paid for it? What was the projected cost to maintain it? Was it placed on what was once some else's property? If so how did you go about taking that property from them. Why didn't you use ELINT/SURVEILLANCE instead?



The money being demanded today is 5 billion dollars. What exactly are we to get for that? Anyone know?

[August]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The money being demanded today is 5 billion dollars. What exactly are we to get for that? Anyone know?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ed/2388281002/

Homeland Security officials say they have plans to build 215 miles of new and replacement border fence, using the billions of federal dollars at issue in the budget fight that could shut down the government.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Then why isn't a plan being forwarded for what the wall will be? All I've seen are design prototypes that vary considerably in cost.

Perhaps because Trump does not understand the different process involved in building a commercial building and the process of the government building something.

For one, commercial construction does not need to follow the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the processed mandated therein.

In the commercial world once you get the funding and the permits, you can start digging. In the federal world, it is not that easy.

A major construction project like this has to go through a pretty extensive acquisition process of multi level reviews and evaluations before any construction can even be started.

The Defense Acquisition University has some nice datasheets on this process that anyone can download. Be warned, it will make your head hurt!!

Anyone who has worked government procurement can tell you the horror stories about the steps that the regulations require.

Declaring a national emergency streamlines some of the regulatory steps, but not even most of them.

[mapuc]

A clarification is needed.

I didn't mean the way wall is build, hundrede of thousand if not millions of ordinary people know how to do that.

What I meant was that ordinary people suddenly have been expert on this specific wall and its purpose-The reason to why Trump want this wall.

Maybe it will work as Trump have planed, maybe it will be a total failure=billions of dollars down the drain.

Those of my friends who support Trump say the wall will work
And those who don't say things like, it's vast of taxpayers money.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by mapuc

A clarification is needed.

I didn't mean the way wall is build, hundrede of thousand if not millions of ordinary people know how to do that.

What I meant was that ordinary people suddenly have been expert on this specific wall and its purpose-The reason to why Trump want this wall.

Maybe it will work as Trump have planed, maybe it will be a total failure=billions of dollars down the drain.

Those of my friends who support Trump say the wall will work
And those who don't say things like, it's vast of taxpayers money.

Markus

Don't take this wrong Markus, but my friends don't talk about Denmark

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Don't take this wrong Markus, but my friends don't talk about Denmark

My friends fondly mention "certain" places in Denmark occasionally.


We should build our wall on the Mexican side of the border. Much easier to do I'm thinking. Get Mexico on board by giving them all the jobs, or maybe working on the wall as a pathway to US citizenship?


I've never seen democrats more worried about blowing $5.7 billion dollars than they are over this. I think they just threw away much more than that in NYC.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Don't take this wrong Markus, but my friends don't talk about Denmark

But you should. While you are talking all the time, Denmark just does it.
Denmark builds wall.

[mapuc]

Have an another question about the American politics and the elected President.

Today I read in the news that

Republican Senator Lindsey
Graham will initiate an investigation by US senior officials sorts of discussions about toppling President Donald Trump.

US Deputy Secretary of State, Rod Rosenstein, discussed at a 2017 meeting the opportunity to dismiss the president, Donald Trump.

Says the former acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who was present at the meeting.

"The meeting was about Rod Rosenstein discussing how many would support such a proposal," he said.
to CBS program '60 Minutes'

Is this possible ?

Try to remember what Platapus have written about impeachment and other things about Presidency and the Federal law I US.

If I remember correctly the only way to remove Trump from office is through this Impeachment, or he resign himself or he leave earth.
Only after his time as President, Mr. Trump can be accused if he have done something illegal

And then I read this….
Now if The republican do dismiss him, will this mean he have to leave the White house or is he by the election granted this job until the next President take over ?

Markus

[Platapus]

A legitimate question deserves a legitimate answer.

Me being me, this means a long legitimate answer so you might wanna get comfortable.

There is another way to transfer authority from the president to the Vice President. Notice the carefully chosen words I used.

The 25th Amendment of the constitution addresses this.

There are four sections to this amendment. The first two do not pertain to your question.

The third section pertains to the President voluntarily ceding presidential authority to the Vice President. This section also does not pertain to your question.

Then there is the forth section and it is a big one

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.


Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."

That's a whole lotta words. Let me see if I can translate it into human readable terms.


First let's look at the intent of this section. The intend was to formalize a process where presidential authority can be transfered to the Vice President in the situation where the President is unable to fulfill the duties AND is unable to voluntarily transfer presidential power. Voluntary transfer of presidential power is handled in the third section of this amendment.



Why would we need this?


Suppose the President is in a coma or is missing? Under these circumstances there is no way the President can voluntarily transfer presidential power to the Vice President. There needed to be a formal process for handling this situation. Hence the convoluted process described in the forth section of the 25th.



there are, however, four critical elements here.



1. There needs to be a process where presidential authority can be involuntarily transfered from the President to the Vice President.

2. There needs to be safeguards to prevent this from being abused or improperly implemented.

3. The President needs to be able to challenge this involuntary transfer of presidential authority.
4. There needs to be a formal process where this challenge can be overridden.


As you can see, this is a very delicate issue. In the USA we do not depose presidents we don't like, but there needs to be a process where we can, in effect, depose the president.


Mine field over thin ice.


Here is what needs to happen.


1. the Vice President and the "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" have to agree that the President " is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office".


Yikes! what does that mean in English?


The Principal Officers of the Executive Branch are defined under 5 U.S.C. section 101 and consists of the following Secretaries


State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland security. Also included is the Attorney General who serves as an equivalent "Secretary of the Department of Justice. This represents all of the 15 departments of the Executive Branch.



So the Vice President and at least 8 Secretaries have to be in agreement


" is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office".


Here is the Constitutional sticking point and it is an important one. The Amendment states that the the provisions of section 4 of the 25th Amendment can only be implemented in cases where the President is "unable" to discharge the powers.....


This brings up some interesting questions that probably only the Supreme Court of the United States can answer


Does this apply to a situation where the President is unwilling to discharge the powers...? Unable and unwilling are not the same. Just because the President does something we don't like or is dangerous or does not do something we like, despite the danger is not the same as the President being unable.



Who decides what is "unable" and whether the President is truly unable? Initially, it will be the Vice President and at least 8 Secretaries.



OK so the VP and the 8 decide that the presidential power needs to be transfered to the VP. What's next?



2. The VP and at least 8 Secretaries have to send notification to the President pro tempore of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. As soon as this declaration is received, the President immediately loses presidential authority and the Vice President becomes Acting President. The VP does NOT become President.



If the President is unable or unwilling to respond, it is a done deal until President is able or willing to respond.



3. However, if the President disagrees with this declaration, the President sends a challenge to the same two people. The Vice President retains the Presidential authority for a period of 4 days.




Four days??



Let's assume that the VP and at least 8 Secretaries are still concerned. They have four days to transmit back to the same two people a declaration that the President is really really really unable to..... For sure this time... really. During this four day period the VP is still the acting President.



I can imagine there will be some awkwardness between the President and the Vice President.




If congress is not in session, they have 48 hours to get their butts back to DC and get in session!


4. Congress then has 21 days to decide. During this time, the Vice President is the Acting President. Congress decides based on a 2/3rds majority in each house whether the President is or is not unable to perform....


If they do, the President loses presidential authority and that presidential authority is transfered to the Vice President who will then be the Acting Vice President. We would then be in a position of having a President with no presidential authorities.



The chances of section 4 being successfully applied against an uncooperative President is approximately zero.



Proving that someone is unable to discharge the duties... is extremely difficult especially if the someone is there and able to defend themselves.



Remember that the intent of the 25th was to have a process to handle when the President was incapacitated or missing.



It is easier to simply impeach and remove the President than try to remove the President under the 25th amendment.


Impeachment requires simple majority from the House and a 2/3rds of the senators present.



Removal under the 25th requires 2/3rds majority from both the House and the Senate and requires a full Senate vote.



I hope this explains the very complex and complicated issue of the 25th Amendment.



Section 3 (voluntary transfer of presidential authority) has been used a few times. Since the enactment of the 25th Amendment in 1967, we have had only two Acting Presidents.



George H W Bush 13 July 85 1128-1922 yes it gets down to the exact minute


Dick Cheney 29 June 02 0709-0924 and 21 July 07 0709-0921


All three of these instances were because the President was undergoing a medical procedure.

Now if The republican do dismiss him, will this mean he have to leave the White house or is he by the election granted this job until the next President take over ?

The Republicans can't dismiss him nor can the Democrats. Congress has the authority to either remove the president by the impeachment process or they can remove the President's authority and he or she remains in office until the end of the term, but without any presidential authority. If this ever happens, it is expected that the powerless president would resign.

If you have any other questions, please let me know and I will be happy to answer them.