Congress already did it. It would seem that it would be unconstitutional for one branch of government to cede its constitutional powers to another branch not constitutionally authorized to take them over. "Balance of power" has been turned into a cabal. Someone comes along who doesn't go along with what was anticipated and they don't like the consequences of their own actions. But for them to understand that would require thinking principles they don't have.

True, that's what I've been saying.

And we shouldn't give them such a handle.

No one is advocating stoicism. Savagery does not accomplish anything civilized.

They are not good abstract thinkers.

Future presidents will change what he does just as he changed some of what his predecessors did. He is not changing the course of the nation, which depends on ideas broadly accepted and which he does not understand.

Demographics would play a big part in who would "need to be murdered". I shudder to think who the demographic decider would be.

Why should I?

There comes a time when stoic idealism will not protect us (America) from the savages.

The governor of Louisiana tried to seize all privately owned guns in New Orleans after Katrina. She tried to avoid any hometown reaction by issuing the orders only to National Guard troops from out of state. After one guardsman sent a video of such seizures, and it went viral, the Guard refused to follow the order. Many military are NRA members, so I doubt any such order would succeed, at least for the foreseeable future.

Maybe, but his stated goal is to make a real and lasting difference. Once the corrupt criminal elements in the government are removed. We have a much better chance for that to happen.

He's doing what he thinks is right for the country, but has little understanding in principle, and is not properly conveying it, often contradicting himself. Most of the country doesn't understand that either. Whatever he manages to accomplish for the good is very temporary

Yup.

"Venezuela for all". Have you seen the reports on the state of hospitals there?

Yes, but not the word "abstract'.

The statists are taking an incremental approach because they know those numbers and what would happen with an outright seizure -- for this generation.

"Ends justifies the means" is not a valid principle. Doing what you think is right under the law is. A moral person who understands what he is doing and why has a moral right to use a law in ways in which the immoral do not. Remember Ayn Rand's "A Question of Scholarships", and apply that principle more broadly..

We have long left the state of a country in which the fundamental principle of government for protection of the rights of the individual is widely accepted, with political policy and elections debated only as the best way to implement that. Our basic rights were not supposed to be on the ballot, let alone every ballot.

Almost every major controversy is now over individualism versus a drive for collectivism that was never supposed to be open for consideration in politics, and with both political sides progressively representing more of a collectivist, statist false alternative. It's becoming increasingly nasty and harder to pick who to ally with for a moral purpose even on specific issues, let alone elections.

With more statism on the ballot in every election, with neither candidate representing a proper alternative, all elections are morally dubious. Yet if we were to write them off wholesale in terms of "ends don't justify the means" as an out of context frozen abstraction, we would have to concede every election in advance.

Think contextually when applying principles, remembering that morality deals only with choices available in reality, and that there are political battles that must be fought for our own survival. Remember the role of morality in "causality versus duty".

Elsewhere on this page https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Congress does not by itself represent the "will of the people". All three branches represent the people in different ways, including election of a president. There is a balance of power for funding.

The Constitution gave the power of initiating spending bills to the House, with Senate approval required and all of it subject to presidential veto. That is what he did with the shutdown. Congress has also allowed some shifting of funds under the law, retaining the power to override it, also subject to veto.

Those processes should not be equated with an acquiescence to the notion of a standard that our current Congress represents the good and no one should use the law to oppose what it does. The entire process is used by both sides in a fight.

I did put the word “think” in quotes.

What emergency do you think he's stopping? Something broader than the illegal immigration?

That escalating 'emergency' power is built into law passed by Congress long ago and used many times by previous presidents. The statists are already using it; they put it into law.

But it isn't, as a matter of law, open-ended. It doesn't legally allow violating the Constitution. They increasingly do that politically, in accordance with ideas popularly accepted, not because of the emergency act, which is only one tool and rationalization along the way.

All of Trump's maneuvers, whether or not the goals are justified, are done without regard to proper principles or public appeals to proper principles of the rights of the individual. That is a big problem with his tenure as president, not the emergency declaration in particular. He's not setting a precedent so much as continuing the already established precedents. His sanctioning and promoting them is a false alternative to the left, serving to brand anyone radically opposed to the left as part of the same false premises. That is the precedent he's furthering.

The left is no example of abstract thinking. It is, however, savagely conniving in its amoral ends justifies the means power seeking.

Behaving like a savage will not protect your life from statism.

You hope. Don't count on it.