In Canada, the Emergencies Act needed to also be passed by the Senate to officially come into effect. Actions taken were as if it was in effect, pending passage.
However, Canada's Senate did NOT pass the Act. Rather than have the Act defeated by the Senate, Trudeau withdrew it before the Senate vote.
I know this because at the time I wrote an individual email to each Senator asking that they vote against the act, largely using the arguments made by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, while reminding each Senator of their Constitutional role.
My assumption at the time was that the Senate quietly informed the Prime Minister that withdrawing the Act was the best option as otherwise the Senate would defeat it later that day.
At that point, Trudeau had used the emergency powers long enough for his purposes and chose to withdraw the Act as the most face saving option.
In that sense, Canada's Emergency legislation is better written than in the US. Very quickly, any declared Emergency needs to be voted on by the House of Commons and the Senate, which is a constraint on the Prime Minister.
"Despite what you may read, Trump’s actions are not examples of fascism, but neither are they unquestionably justifiable given the situation on the ground. I think he’s on solid ground when it comes to protecting federal buildings and escorting ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement activities. Beyond that I don’t know, but I am inclined to believe he’s overreached. I thought Trudeau’s actions during the Trucker protests were dangerously authoritarian and I think Trump’s actions “rhyme” with Trudeau’s."
If your standard is "only 100% support for Trump is sufficient" then I'm going to have to disappoint you. I call them as I see them and I think Trump overreacted. Possibly intentionally.
I agree with you here: "I think he’s on solid ground when it comes to protecting federal buildings and escorting ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement activities."
Then the courts will back him and this will all blow over. Right?
I think we can both agree that legality plays a role in this situation but it's not the entire story. This is a political battle which is bigger than just what is going on in California. Optics matter as well.
I wasn't writing a "news from the front" article, but trying to interpret how I understand events and pointing out the alarming trend on both sides to hold their own side to a different standard than the other. This applies to Newsom as well as Trump.
I attempted to be evenhanded in my analysis. If anything, I'm harder on Trudeau than I am on Trump. Reread my conclusion.
All good points, and I agree you were appropriately tougher on Trudeau than Trump. I also agree that numerous double standards are prevalent when it comes to holding one's side accountable versus the "other side," which is a significant concern of mine as well. My only point was that I've seen no evidence that Trump has exceeded his own expressed mandate, despite propaganda to the contrary.
Hard to say. Short of being on the ground there we have to parse what we read in the press to try to get to the truth. I'm sure there are exaggerations on both sides.
How many buildings needed to be defended against how many rioters? Could the raids have been postponed or attention shifted elsewhere until the protestors got bored?
I think there were better approaches to the problem but I can't be certain. That's why I said "Beyond that I don’t know, but I am inclined to believe he’s overreached."
I'm not comparing the protestors' actions, I'm comparing the governments' responses.
The law applies even to people we don't like.
I said this when Trudeau used the EA and I'll say it now; be careful what you allow your side to do because the other side will get to do the same thing when it's in power.
Which is why I wrote "I think he’s on solid ground when it comes to protecting federal buildings and escorting ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement activities."
I always do my own thinking based on the actual facts, the Constitution and applicable Federal law. I never lean on the media or polls. I happen to agree with your assessment that Trump has probably gone too far but that conclusion puts him in good company: Examples include Andrew Jackson's handling of Native American removal, Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, and Richard Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal. More recent presidents, like George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have also faced criticism for their interpretations and uses of executive power (as has Trump).
Thomas Jefferson had no Constitutional authority to buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon.
Likewise, Washington and his Congress has no authority under the Constitution to start the First Bank of the United States (Madison who opposed Hamilton’s position in favor of a national bank argued against the bank but later changed his position because he needed it during the aftermath of the War of 1812).
Presidential overreach unfortunately is to be expected. There will be no more presidents like Calvin Coolidge.
Finally, FDR’s New Deal was initially struck down by the Supreme Court until he threatened to pack the court.
Daniel - we've had sufficient exchanges on this platform for me to confidently agree that you do your own thinking. Even when we don't agree.
I've thought of Trump as a modern day Jackson for some time now. Sometimes I agree with what he's doing (or at least the goals) and sometimes I don't. The fact that other president have "pushed the boundaries" doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned when we see it today. Intentions matter, but so do processes.
I agree that Trump has gone too far and that processes matter.
Sadly, “good” intentions (so-called) should not matter but have become the story of the U.S. presidency. Wrong actions (that violate individual liberty and the Constitution) can never become lawful because we value the objectives—the First National Bank/the Louisiana Purchase/Civil War/the Reconstruction Amendments/the New Deal/the Draft/the Civil Rights Act of 1964/the Great Society/Obama Care/and many of Trump’s Executive Orders. I would also add that several Constitutional Amendments arguably violate individual rights: the Taking Clause/Prohibition/Income Tax/the Federal Reserve.
The worse offenders have not been presidents but judges and justices. As I have already commented on some of the worst court decisions I will conclude with a quote from Abraham Lincoln (a president who both demonstrated the best and worst behavior):
"Important principles may, and must, be inflexible."
The goal of the Trudeau government was to escalate the protesters into violence.
Which is exactly what those opposed to Trump's actions are saying.
It's almost as if government abuse of power is bad regardless of which side of the political divide the government happens to be on.
First the rioters in LA became violent, then the troops were called in. The Truckers were never violent.
Yes, they are both awful. Thanks for the breakdown.
In Canada, the Emergencies Act needed to also be passed by the Senate to officially come into effect. Actions taken were as if it was in effect, pending passage.
However, Canada's Senate did NOT pass the Act. Rather than have the Act defeated by the Senate, Trudeau withdrew it before the Senate vote.
I know this because at the time I wrote an individual email to each Senator asking that they vote against the act, largely using the arguments made by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, while reminding each Senator of their Constitutional role.
My assumption at the time was that the Senate quietly informed the Prime Minister that withdrawing the Act was the best option as otherwise the Senate would defeat it later that day.
At that point, Trudeau had used the emergency powers long enough for his purposes and chose to withdraw the Act as the most face saving option.
In that sense, Canada's Emergency legislation is better written than in the US. Very quickly, any declared Emergency needs to be voted on by the House of Commons and the Senate, which is a constraint on the Prime Minister.
This just makes what happened worse.
It's not a constraint of the PM if he can use it before it can be voted on and then "change his mind."
Take the name Trump out and look at the situation. Consider that it has been done before such as the Central High Crises in 1957.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/september-25/central-high-school-integrated#:~:text=Under%20escort%20from%20the%20U.S.,which%20desegregation%20should%20be%20implemented.
Consider doing nothing such as Trump did in “ the summer of love” in 2020 after the George Floyd incident.
From my conclusion:
"Despite what you may read, Trump’s actions are not examples of fascism, but neither are they unquestionably justifiable given the situation on the ground. I think he’s on solid ground when it comes to protecting federal buildings and escorting ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement activities. Beyond that I don’t know, but I am inclined to believe he’s overreached. I thought Trudeau’s actions during the Trucker protests were dangerously authoritarian and I think Trump’s actions “rhyme” with Trudeau’s."
If your standard is "only 100% support for Trump is sufficient" then I'm going to have to disappoint you. I call them as I see them and I think Trump overreacted. Possibly intentionally.
… and the electorate 2.0
This is Trump 2.0
I agree with you here: "I think he’s on solid ground when it comes to protecting federal buildings and escorting ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement activities."
Umm, that's exactly what the Trump Executive Order prescribed. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/department-of-defense-security-for-the-protection-of-department-of-homeland-security-functions/
Then the courts will back him and this will all blow over. Right?
I think we can both agree that legality plays a role in this situation but it's not the entire story. This is a political battle which is bigger than just what is going on in California. Optics matter as well.
I wasn't writing a "news from the front" article, but trying to interpret how I understand events and pointing out the alarming trend on both sides to hold their own side to a different standard than the other. This applies to Newsom as well as Trump.
I attempted to be evenhanded in my analysis. If anything, I'm harder on Trudeau than I am on Trump. Reread my conclusion.
All good points, and I agree you were appropriately tougher on Trudeau than Trump. I also agree that numerous double standards are prevalent when it comes to holding one's side accountable versus the "other side," which is a significant concern of mine as well. My only point was that I've seen no evidence that Trump has exceeded his own expressed mandate, despite propaganda to the contrary.
Hard to say. Short of being on the ground there we have to parse what we read in the press to try to get to the truth. I'm sure there are exaggerations on both sides.
How many buildings needed to be defended against how many rioters? Could the raids have been postponed or attention shifted elsewhere until the protestors got bored?
I think there were better approaches to the problem but I can't be certain. That's why I said "Beyond that I don’t know, but I am inclined to believe he’s overreached."
Comparing Antifa to the Truckers Convoy is like comparing Apples to Oranges… or maybe to a Fish and a Bicycle
I'm not comparing the protestors' actions, I'm comparing the governments' responses.
The law applies even to people we don't like.
I said this when Trudeau used the EA and I'll say it now; be careful what you allow your side to do because the other side will get to do the same thing when it's in power.
The LAPD couldn’t/wouldn’t protect federal employees, buildings, and vehicles.
Which is why I wrote "I think he’s on solid ground when it comes to protecting federal buildings and escorting ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement activities."
I am comparing the peaceful protesters to rioters. That is the difference
There is no indication that the LAPD couldn't handle the protesters without federal involvement.
You're justifying the government breaking the law because you agree with them.
That is the difference.
Phil,
I always do my own thinking based on the actual facts, the Constitution and applicable Federal law. I never lean on the media or polls. I happen to agree with your assessment that Trump has probably gone too far but that conclusion puts him in good company: Examples include Andrew Jackson's handling of Native American removal, Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, and Richard Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal. More recent presidents, like George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have also faced criticism for their interpretations and uses of executive power (as has Trump).
Thomas Jefferson had no Constitutional authority to buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon.
Likewise, Washington and his Congress has no authority under the Constitution to start the First Bank of the United States (Madison who opposed Hamilton’s position in favor of a national bank argued against the bank but later changed his position because he needed it during the aftermath of the War of 1812).
Presidential overreach unfortunately is to be expected. There will be no more presidents like Calvin Coolidge.
Finally, FDR’s New Deal was initially struck down by the Supreme Court until he threatened to pack the court.
Daniel - we've had sufficient exchanges on this platform for me to confidently agree that you do your own thinking. Even when we don't agree.
I've thought of Trump as a modern day Jackson for some time now. Sometimes I agree with what he's doing (or at least the goals) and sometimes I don't. The fact that other president have "pushed the boundaries" doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned when we see it today. Intentions matter, but so do processes.
In this case, I think he's gone too far.
I agree that Trump has gone too far and that processes matter.
Sadly, “good” intentions (so-called) should not matter but have become the story of the U.S. presidency. Wrong actions (that violate individual liberty and the Constitution) can never become lawful because we value the objectives—the First National Bank/the Louisiana Purchase/Civil War/the Reconstruction Amendments/the New Deal/the Draft/the Civil Rights Act of 1964/the Great Society/Obama Care/and many of Trump’s Executive Orders. I would also add that several Constitutional Amendments arguably violate individual rights: the Taking Clause/Prohibition/Income Tax/the Federal Reserve.
The worse offenders have not been presidents but judges and justices. As I have already commented on some of the worst court decisions I will conclude with a quote from Abraham Lincoln (a president who both demonstrated the best and worst behavior):
"Important principles may, and must, be inflexible."