https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...guns%3famp
Pelosi warns that a Dem President could declare a National Emergency because of gun violence. In my opinion, this is an apples and oranges comparison to the current situation. Even so, what action is she proposing take place if a National Emergency were declared for such a reason? That has the potential to be one of the largest misteps in history if I’m being honest. Say you?
I agree that a Dem president could try and do the same thing, but I don't think it would hold up in court with the second amendment. Protecting the borders is actually in the presidents job description. Trying to disarm the populace is actually actively against the constitution.
I do expect Trump to be put in a holding pattern by the 9th circuit in no time if he tries using national emergency for this tho.
Good thing our founding fathers prepared for insane loons like Pelosi.
Doesn't 25 million a mile sound expensive for a barrier? Trump will get that price down substantially.
(02-14-2019, 09:01 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Good thing our founding fathers prepared for insane loons like Pelosi Trump.
FTFY
This was the most obvious candidate for a FTFY in message board history.
(02-14-2019, 09:16 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 09:01 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Good thing our founding fathers prepared for insane loons like Pelosi Trump.
FTFY
This was the most obvious candidate for a FTFY in message board history.
I wasn't aware Trump loathed the constitution.
(02-14-2019, 08:50 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that a Dem president could try and do the same thing, but I don't think it would hold up in court with the second amendment. Protecting the borders is actually in the presidents job description. Trying to disarm the populace is actually actively against the constitution.
I do expect Trump to be put in a holding pattern by the 9th circuit in no time if he tries using national emergency for this tho.
It's just a stunt in preparation for 2020.
"I tried to save our country from illegal immigrants, but the Democrats want you to be raped and murdered!"
(02-14-2019, 09:18 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 09:16 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]FTFY
This was the most obvious candidate for a FTFY in message board history.
I wasn't aware Trump loathed the constitution.
He has never read the Constitution.
There is no emergency.
This is officially known as The Donald Trump I Have To Safe Face Emergency Declaration.
For the Left it's a win-win. If the courts approve this as an emergency there will be no problem in getting the courts to approve climate change as an emergency. That will be much more wide ranging than a mere gun violence emergency.
Watch out what you wish for.
Democrats warning Republicans that two can play at that game.
I haven't seen that tactic used since Lindsey Graham told off Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearings last November.
Terrible move by Trump. I was hoping he'd avoid this. Hopefully the SC strikes this down.
(02-14-2019, 10:32 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]Terrible move by Trump. I was hoping he'd avoid this. Hopefully the SC strikes this down.
Hopefully it doesn't get that far.
(02-14-2019, 09:18 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 09:16 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]FTFY
This was the most obvious candidate for a FTFY in message board history.
I wasn't aware Trump loathed the constitution.
He just ignores it, whenever he feels it's inconvenient.
(02-14-2019, 08:47 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...guns%3famp
Pelosi warns that a Dem President could declare a National Emergency because of gun violence. In my opinion, this is an apples and oranges comparison to the current situation. Even so, what action is she proposing take place if a National Emergency were declared for such a reason? That has the potential to be one of the largest misteps in history if I’m being honest. Say you?
It looks like Trump will just use money that Congress intended for one thing to build a wall instead.
A future Democratic party president could do something similar, like refuse to buy as many fighter jets and use that money for something else that he or she cared about.
But how much money? And how different would the two things be? There is no logical stopping point once the box is opened.
Taking people's guns away, or stopping sale of guns, that doesn't sound similar or likely to me, simply because that is a lot more than just moving money around.
But at a more basic level, Pelosi's message is that Republicans should be very scared of the consequences of Trump doing this. And I think she's right about that, at least.
(02-14-2019, 08:47 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...guns%3famp
Pelosi warns that a Dem President could declare a National Emergency because of gun violence. In my opinion, this is an apples and oranges comparison to the current situation. Even so, what action is she proposing take place if a National Emergency were declared for such a reason? That has the potential to be one of the largest misteps in history if I’m being honest. Say you?
This is why I hate both political parties. Trump is abusing his power by declaring a national emergency where there isn't one, so Pelosi threatens to do something equally as stupid, if a Democratic president gets in. Both sides are acting like spoiled children.
(02-14-2019, 10:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 08:47 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...guns%3famp
Pelosi warns that a Dem President could declare a National Emergency because of gun violence. In my opinion, this is an apples and oranges comparison to the current situation. Even so, what action is she proposing take place if a National Emergency were declared for such a reason? That has the potential to be one of the largest misteps in history if I’m being honest. Say you?
It looks like Trump will just use money that Congress intended for one thing to build a wall instead.
A future Democratic party president could do something similar, like refuse to buy as many fighter jets and use that money for something else that he or she cared about.
But how much money? And how different would the two things be? There is no logical stopping point once the box is opened.
Taking people's guns away, or stopping sale of guns, that doesn't sound similar or likely to me, simply because that is a lot more than just moving money around.
But at a more basic level, Pelosi's message is that Republicans should be very scared of the consequences of Trump doing this. And I think she's right about that, at least.
The pots of money to be used are essentially overflows from four specific accounts totaling about $9B. It would not intefere with normal appropriations. As far as box being open, there are currently 31 active National Emergencies that reach back as far as the 1970’s. The precedence has already been set. Whether I agree or not with what Trump wants to do, it’s legal and constitutional. The Pelosi bit is just idiocy and would be an unconstitutional powder keg.
After reading the text of this new bill, barriers aren’t going to matter. Amnesty has been provided. Anyone can just declare at the port of entry. If not, they’ll be bused to nearest one. It really is quite ridiculous and the dollar figure to encourage, support and sustain the flow is scary. There is no way I’d sign this bill!
(02-14-2019, 11:00 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 08:47 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...guns%3famp
Pelosi warns that a Dem President could declare a National Emergency because of gun violence. In my opinion, this is an apples and oranges comparison to the current situation. Even so, what action is she proposing take place if a National Emergency were declared for such a reason? That has the potential to be one of the largest misteps in history if I’m being honest. Say you?
This is why I hate both political parties. Trump is abusing his power by declaring a national emergency where there isn't one, so Pelosi threatens to do something equally as stupid, if a Democratic president gets in. Both sides are acting like spoiled children.
It is beyond stupid. Unfortunately, with each attempt at a funding bill it has become more idiotic. This new one makes California legislation look grand! Trump has the right to secure the border threw a National Emergency whether that is the best method or not but if this bill gets signed it won’t matter. They’ve traded one issue for a bigger one.
Quid pro quo? Obama gave 150 billion to a state sponsor of terror and enacted daca essentially by executive fiat. Moving money around to build a wall isn't even a proportional response to his overreach.
As for precedent, this happens all the time. There are tons of pots of money with vague appropriations that het pushed and massaged.
Ms. Pelosi:
Say when.
Sincerely,
America
(02-15-2019, 03:50 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Quid pro quo? Obama gave 150 billion to a state sponsor of terror and enacted daca essentially by executive fiat. Moving money around to build a wall isn't even a proportional response to his overreach.
As for precedent, this happens all the time. There are tons of pots of money with vague appropriations that het pushed and massaged.
The money that went to Iran was never in the US Treasury. It was an bank account owned by Iran's previous government that a past US President impounded. The idea was always to give the money to Iran's new government after their behavior improved.
I think Pelosi is making a valid point. If you think the President has the right to do this, then the next President can do the same thing. Take money that congress has appropriated for one thing, and spend it on something else entirely.
It's a major erosion of the constitutional separation of powers, and makes the President more like a king. "Just appropriate the money, and I'll decide how to spend it."
So President Elizabeth Warren takes money from the Pentagon budget and spends it on housing for the homeless.
I think it's time for the spineless Republicans in congress to take a hard look at themselves and decide if they want to give the Presidency this kind of power.