If A President Trump Can Successfully Claim National Emergency For A Wall

[edward37]

This shutdown is entirely due to the fact that Congress did not pass a federal FY2019 budget last year. Congress didn't do their job last year, and they still are not dong their job. Once the budget has been completed, then Congress needs to discuss immigration in detail. Border security is part of that discussion, as is what to do with illegals already here, and how to fill all the jobs that they now hold. We can't solve a big problem until we have all the necessary facts and different alternative solutions. It's Congress' job to discuss how to solve our problems and then make those solutions happens. Congress stopped doing that a while ago. I hope the new House leadership begins to do this agian.

 

[pismoe]

A National Emergency Declaration Could Give Trump Authoritarian Powers

He, like Purin, could then jail opponents and kill all the journalists that he wants.

Give it up, Jim. He is not going to declare a national emergency to build the Wall. That is hysterical hype from the left wing to keep everyone stirred up. It ain't gonna happen. This upset over something that isn't going to happen is not helping ANYTHING.

Old it wasn't Dems who brought it up ,who threatened it,,,,,,but something has to give before the moron sinks our country

OK. I read the article from today. Sounds like he is certainly using it as a threat. Hopefully not a promise, because it is not a smart move.

If he uses State of Emergency....he will politically be dead....

---------------------------------- Politically DEAD , hows that going to happen eh . If he is successful using 'State of Emergency' he will be a hero JimH .

 

[whitehall]

I wonder if the preemptive bombing of a defenseless country in Europe without consulting with congress gave president Clinton "authoritarian powers"? Building a wall is chump change.

 

[basquebromance]

"Mr. President, the Democrats are not working in good faith with you. Declare emergency, build the wall now." - Lindsey Graham just now

 

[basquebromance]

When LINDSEY GRAHAM is telling you to cross the Rubicon, it's time.

 

[Kilroy2]

When Bush declared war on Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction (of course they didn't)

Sorry, you obviously have been following CNN, George Soros, and The Nation.

Aside from the fact that Sadam Hussein had two years to move WMD's to Syria where we have seen them used, there were WMD's found in Iraq. In addition, we moved over 500 tonnes of yellowcake from Iraq to safe storage in Canada.

Well Iraq probably have biological and chemical weapons as the CIA reported. Still he had no way to deliever it to US soil.
He had no nuclear weapons but the same report said he was trying to get them
Still at that point in time that Bush declared war they did have weapons that could attack US soil. I do not believe he said that he would use them to attack the US in a first strike capacity.

Bush made this an issues that they have nuclear weapons and wanted nuclear weapons for some motive and convienced enought people that the US and their allies had to remove him as he was a threat.

Nuclear weapons in my opinion are weapons of mass destruction.

Stock piles of chemicals they had can only be used in Iraq which did not pose a threat to US soil is not weapons of mass destruction

Still you can make the argument and he certainly did

So with no nuclear weapons and some chemical weapons he played the fear card and pushed the nuclear weapon argument

Did he believe that his dad was mistaken when daddy didn't finish the job and pulled out.

Or did he want to be a war president and get re elected. He wanted to establish an American presence in the Middle east.

Still he created fear and used it to push a war. There was no threat that a few well placed bombs could not have solved.

In all the statements I read from Bush on Iraq, I don't see where Bush singled out Nuclear over WMDs in general. After all, the cease fire agreement involved all WMDs, not just nuclear.

Look at what happened before Bush was even in office.

At the Principals meeting, [National Security Advisor] Sandy Berger asked, "What if we do not hit it and then, after an attack, nerve gas is released in the New York City subway? What will we say then?"

Reno eventually declined to vote, "but the rest recommended unanimously that al-Shifa be destroyed." In August 1998, the United States launched Operation Infinite Reach, a series of cruise missile attacks against the Sudanese facility as well as several al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.

The fact that al-Qaeda was struck was important. Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants were actually the primary targets of Infinite Reach, largely as retaliation for al-Qaeda's involvement in terrorist bombings against U.S. embassies in Africa. But in justifying the operation, Clinton administration officials argued that they were acting against a triple threat, a synergy between Sudan's manufacture of chemical weapons, the Iraqis, and al-Qaeda terrorists.

"We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq," undersecretary of state Thomas Pickering said. "In fact, El Shifa [sic] officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX [nerve gas] program." UN ambassador Bill Richardson told CNN's Wolf Blitzer shortly after the strikes:
​

We were convinced, and had evidence supporting this belief, that Iraq was intending to make working relations with known terrorist groups. If Iraq had created such a connection and passed onto al-Qaeda even the smallest of VX gas, with as large as the terrorist network as al-Qaeda had, they could have lunched a terrifying attack virtually anywhere in the world, whether it was our allies or the US directly.

And the danger of this is simply too great to ignore. After the fall of Iraq, the BBC went to report on areas hit by nerve gas from Saddam's military. They sill found clouds of still lethal nerve gas, with freshly killed rats and other animals caught in the invisible gas. Nerve agents are designed to be heavier than air, and last for ages.

25 years after Saddam fired chemical weapons, the gasses are still killing things in the impact zone.

Can you imagine if a chemical agent had been released into a subway? Mustard gas notoriously doesn't have any immediate effects. An area could be contaminated for hours, possibly even a day, giving people a potentially lethal douse, before the first victims started making their way to hospitals.

The danger was exceptional.

Now the mindless left-wing would claim that there was no working connection with al-Qaeda... and in retrospect, we know this is true. However, that does not change the fact they were pursuing such a connection, and the fact we didn't know how much or little connection there was at the time. The only difference between Clinton and Bush, was that Bush was wise enough to know a few missile strikes would not fix anything.

Oct 2002 Bush said in a speech

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat


Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

But none of that turned out to be correct. Even Bush’s revised claim of “capacity” is a stretch.
granted he did talk about biological and chemical but he also mention nuclear

So in the presidential archieves there is a mention of nuclear weapons as a fear card

Repeat - Now the mindless left-wing would claim that there was no working connection with al-Qaeda... and in retrospect, we know this is true. However, that does not change the fact they were pursuing such a connection, and the fact we didn't know how much or little connection there was at the time. The only difference between Clinton and Bush, was that Bush was wise enough to know a few missile strikes would not fix anything.

Even here you contradict yourself when you say it is true that there was no connection in retrospect

yet in your next sentence you say however this does not change the fact that they were pursuing it

That is an argument that you make when you want to believe something yet you do not have any proof for you believes

but you still believe it

And you want to call leftist mindless Hmmmmm

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

As has been said a hundred times, in it's current state of Commie infiltration, ONLY American Patriots can save to good ole USA.
Problem is, they don't have the stomach for any sacrifice more demanding than lifting a beer.

Trump can't. They'll ALWAYS find a way to snub one person, even if that person is the President. They can simply use our own Constitution against us. Those sneaky, sneaky (but wickedly resourceful) Commies!

 

[Kilroy2]

Well Iraq probably have biological and chemical weapons as the CIA reported. Still he had no way to deliever it to US soil.
He had no nuclear weapons but the same report said he was trying to get them
Still at that point in time that Bush declared war they did have weapons that could attack US soil. I do not believe he said that he would use them to attack the US in a first strike capacity.

Bush made this an issues that they have nuclear weapons and wanted nuclear weapons for some motive and convienced enought people that the US and their allies had to remove him as he was a threat.

Nuclear weapons in my opinion are weapons of mass destruction.

Stock piles of chemicals they had can only be used in Iraq which did not pose a threat to US soil is not weapons of mass destruction

Still you can make the argument and he certainly did

So with no nuclear weapons and some chemical weapons he played the fear card and pushed the nuclear weapon argument

Did he believe that his dad was mistaken when daddy didn't finish the job and pulled out.

Or did he want to be a war president and get re elected. He wanted to establish an American presence in the Middle east.

Still he created fear and used it to push a war. There was no threat that a few well placed bombs could not have solved.

Are you intentionally...making up things about the events leading up to the war in Iraq or are you that misinformed? Really, you must have been either totally disconnected to be that uninformed or you are trying to paint a false picture to please other Progressives.

Which is it and why?

The war in Iraq, sanctioned by both the United Nations and our Congress had nothing to do with whether or not the weapons could be used inside the United States. Where do you get such things?

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat


You state the obvious. There was a coalition led by the US

If the US did not push and promised miltiary support for this action this coalition it never would have happen

bush speech for the war in Iraq is laced with threats that addressed fear

the second line -- Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

quotes from his speech in case those can find the link

holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem.

That is the problem we don't know but when you play the fear card it doesn't matter what you know

I get such thinks directly from the source GB

The differnce is I do have an open mind yet some things are to obvious

 

[deanrd]

So walls don’t work? Hmmm interesting you should tell your local prision to lose the walls no?

Don't be stupid.

It's not the wall the keeps the prisoners in.

It's the armed guards.

Lol really so if they had no walls and just guards no one would escape!!?? Lol what

And if they had walls and no guards, everyone would escape.

Who said no Guards ? ‍‍

Dean. Don't you read posts before you respond?

Someone said: So walls don’t work? Hmmm interesting you should tell your local prision to lose the walls no?

So I said: It's not the wall the keeps the prisoners in. It's the armed guards.

And it's true. Look at it this way:

The border is not a prison.

Armed guards can guard prisoners.

Prisoners can escape a wall.

Even Trump agrees:

 

[deanrd]

There are already hundreds of miles of walls and fence.
And where there aren't walls, there are rivers, desert and mountains.
But what actually works? More border guards, drones, sensors, weapons, armor, training and so on.
Not a wall.

And this is why Democrats and Republicans are at odds.

Republicans think a wall is impossible to get around and Democrats wonder who is so stupid they can't defeat a wall?

For Republicans, a wall is a metaphor. They think their lives will be better with a wall. Something they believe will keep out the world.

Well it won't.

Better they get an education. Education is NOT your enemy.

 

[Jitss617]

Don't be stupid.

It's not the wall the keeps the prisoners in.

It's the armed guards.

Lol really so if they had no walls and just guards no one would escape!!?? Lol what

And if they had walls and no guards, everyone would escape.

Who said no Guards ? ‍‍

Dean. Don't you read posts before you respond?

Someone said: So walls don’t work? Hmmm interesting you should tell your local prision to lose the walls no?

So I said: It's not the wall the keeps the prisoners in. It's the armed guards.

And it's true. Look at it this way:

The border is not a prison.

Armed guards can guard prisoners.

Prisoners can escape a wall.

Even Trump agrees:

So you don’t need walls in prisons? Yes or no

 

[Faun]

Lol really so if they had no walls and just guards no one would escape!!?? Lol what

And if they had walls and no guards, everyone would escape.

Who said no Guards ? ‍‍

Dean. Don't you read posts before you respond?

Someone said: So walls don’t work? Hmmm interesting you should tell your local prision to lose the walls no?

So I said: It's not the wall the keeps the prisoners in. It's the armed guards.

And it's true. Look at it this way:

The border is not a prison.

Armed guards can guard prisoners.

Prisoners can escape a wall.

Even Trump agrees:

So you don’t need walls in prisons? Yes or no

The walls help, but as you've been schooled, it's the armed guards who keep the inmates in the prisons.

 

[Jitss617]

And if they had walls and no guards, everyone would escape.

Who said no Guards ? ‍‍

Dean. Don't you read posts before you respond?

Someone said: So walls don’t work? Hmmm interesting you should tell your local prision to lose the walls no?

So I said: It's not the wall the keeps the prisoners in. It's the armed guards.

And it's true. Look at it this way:

The border is not a prison.

Armed guards can guard prisoners.

Prisoners can escape a wall.

Even Trump agrees:

So you don’t need walls in prisons? Yes or no

The walls help, but as you've been schooled, it's the armed guards who keep the inmates in the prisons.

Really so you don’t need walls? Yes or no lol how about short walls? Or a fence haha

 

[Faun]

Who said no Guards ? ‍‍

Dean. Don't you read posts before you respond?

Someone said: So walls don’t work? Hmmm interesting you should tell your local prision to lose the walls no?

So I said: It's not the wall the keeps the prisoners in. It's the armed guards.

And it's true. Look at it this way:

The border is not a prison.

Armed guards can guard prisoners.

Prisoners can escape a wall.

Even Trump agrees:

So you don’t need walls in prisons? Yes or no

The walls help, but as you've been schooled, it's the armed guards who keep the inmates in the prisons.

Really so you don’t need walls? Yes or no lol how about short walls? Or a fence haha

Dumbass, no one said prison walls aren't useful. You just can't seem to grasp the reality though that it's the armed guards and not the walls which keep inmates in prisons.

 

[Jitss617]

Dean. Don't you read posts before you respond?

Someone said: So walls don’t work? Hmmm interesting you should tell your local prision to lose the walls no?

So I said: It's not the wall the keeps the prisoners in. It's the armed guards.

And it's true. Look at it this way:

The border is not a prison.

Armed guards can guard prisoners.

Prisoners can escape a wall.

Even Trump agrees:

So you don’t need walls in prisons? Yes or no

The walls help, but as you've been schooled, it's the armed guards who keep the inmates in the prisons.

Really so you don’t need walls? Yes or no lol how about short walls? Or a fence haha

Dumbass, no one said prison walls aren't useful. You just can't seem to grasp the reality though that it's the armed guards and not the walls which keep inmates in prisons.

So it’s the Gaurds! Ok good so you don’t need the walls.. that is what you are saying your deep trump derangement syndrome is marking you sound foolish

 

[Lesh]

We have a foreign invasion of our southern border. Haven't you heard about in the news? LOL

No. We don't listen to Fox or Rushbo

 

[Lakhota]

If A President Trump Can Successfully Claim National Emergency For A Wall

Maybe a future president will declare a National Emergency on GUNS. That would make more sense than Trump's vanity wall.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What's to stop a President Elizabeth Warren from claiming a national emergency because too many people are getting ripped off by the banks and use tax payer dollars to recompense the funds lost?

What's to stop a President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from claiming a national emergency because too many Americans are poor and in need of health care so use billions of tax payer dollars to rectify that situation?

Is this the slippery slope Republicans are CURRENTLY clamoring for?

DACA

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We have a foreign invasion of our southern border. Haven't you heard about in the news? LOL

No. We don't listen to Fox or Rushbo

Interesting you so freely admit to being uninformed

 

[Flopper]

If Trump declared a national emergency, two things would have happen
It would almost immediately end the shutdown which would be good for everyone.

The fate of the wall would be left in the
hands of the courts. If the courts ruled for Trump, he would get his wall but a terrible precedent would be set; if congress won't give a president what he wants, the president declares a national emergency and takes it.
However, regardless how the courts rule it would be bad for Trump because moderate republicans would see Trump's action as usurping the power of congress. Not a good position for an unpopular president who will likely be facing impeachment.

Absence of a miracle, Trump will declare a national emergency within a few days. He will have no choice. The pressure to open government is growing by the day and total capitulation to the democrats would be political suicide.