Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

[Cecilie1200]

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

Actually that's not true. Assets have been siezed from lots of companies using the National Emergency provision. Blocking property is seizing it. That's like almost half of the national emergencies.

Do you just say things and make them up as you go and hope they are true?

Example?

Sure... I mean besides the current one which requires Eminent Domain to be used to build the wall where Trump has said he want's it built?

Lets see.


Clintons' "Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers." is still on the books. Which allows the FBI and DEA to take personal property from drug traffickers and is used all the time in the USA.

And the transcript of the senate report on that emergency powers law they wrote: It is literally the FIRST THING they make clear the President has the power to do.

Senate Report 93-549: War and Emergency Power Statutes

"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:
seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

I've got to ask since you'd think these are pretty commonplace knowledge in the USA? Are you foreign born and just new to the US, or actually ignorant of what goes on here?

First of all, use of eminent domain in building a border wall has nothing to do with any declared national emergency. That's actually just a regular power of government. So there's no "besides" about it.

Second of all, drug traffickers are not law-abiding citizens. They're criminals, and taking the ill-gotten profits from crime away from criminals is actually pretty standard practice in law enforcement. If you rob a bank and they catch you, they're not likely to let you keep the cash, are they?

Third, you disingenuous litle twerp, your quote from Senate Report 93-549 does NOT refer to what the emergency powers of the President are NOW. They're a description of what they were THEN. And the report was listing them because they were aiming to LIMIT those powers, as in fact they did in the National Emergency Act of 1976. You frigging newbie moron.

I've got to ask, since you're not the first self-aggrandizing douche weasel to come through here, cutting-and-pasting a half-assed Google search and trying to pretend it's his own knowledge: do you really think you can fool anyone into thinking you're not the dumbest puppy in the pound for longer than 5 seconds?

 

[Cecilie1200]

How are any related to taking without just compensation?

You are asking how that Congressional law which congress said gives the President the power to "seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities...."

gives the president power to sieze property or commodities?

Like is english not a language you understand?

That wasn't a law you quoted, shitforbrains. It was a Senate Report ABOUT laws, prepared as evidence for passing a new law, which became the National Emergency Act of 1976.

Like, is English not a language you understand?

 

[bendog]

She’s setting the table and stage for the coming “retribution “ of Democrat Draconian laws and totalitarianism rule when the next Dem gets elected Pres again and again has the cover of a ‘D’ Congress to support their destruction of the American Constitution and the Constitutional “State’s Rights” rule of law ... but it will all be for our own good and the “benefit” of all of course.

Annnd she is also idiot enough to think that current law abiding Trump-supporting gun owners would pale and demand he STOP ... before they lose their guns (and their bibles too) by Democrat Party retributional fiat.

But, all that should tell any freedom loving person is - Never vote for a Democrat for President again! Now, I possibly may not vote for the Republican candidate... but Never for the Democrat one!

Pay back is the one immutable law of nature in DC and perhaps all politics. I realize McConnell is going along to avoid being primaried, but he's also the one who noted that the only was to really reform healthcare markets is to do it with both parties supporting the bill, because it will be unpopular.

With immigration reform we simply have not been able to get consensus on what to do with those who are here illegally, and have been for a "long time" (however that's defined)

 

[jc456]

Pelosi gives voters heads up your guns could be in Jeopardy if the next president is a Democrat

Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

When is enough going to be enough all they do is fight amongst the parties and never get nothing accomplished that needs to be done nothing that they're hired to do they do nothing but bicker bicker bicker with each other

2nd amendment stands in her stupid way.

 

[jc456]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

nope

 

[SandSquid]

How are any related to taking without just compensation?

You are asking how that Congressional law which congress said gives the President the power to "seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities...."

gives the president power to sieze property or commodities?

Like is english not a language you understand?

That wasn't a law you quoted, shitforbrains. It was a Senate Report ABOUT laws, prepared as evidence for passing a new law, which became the National Emergency Act of 1976.

Like, is English not a language you understand?

So no, you didn't understand the report. Got it. Next time I'll translate it into russian for you hahahahahahah!

 

[jc456]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

1. Prove that any gun type or magazine causes deaths. That's obviated by the gang violence deaths and other gun related deaths. In England murders by knife happen more than guns, you going to outlaw knives? Your 2200% is bullshit when you factor in the illicit drugs coming in thru the southern border, see graph below. A true national emergency.

2. Just because 90% of the drugs SEIZED are at the POEs doesn't mean that's where the drugs enter the US. My brother was on the southern border in the AF and they tracked the cartel drug planes coming into the US but were not allowed to work with the DEA or law enforcement. The Border Patrol knows where they need more wall, and Trump will get it for them, in spite of the traitorous democrats.

correct, no gun is evil.

 

[Erinwltr]

A presidential claim of national emergency can bypass all of that.

A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

Actually that's not true. Assets have been siezed from lots of companies using the National Emergency provision. Blocking property is seizing it. That's like almost half of the national emergencies.

Do you just say things and make them up as you go and hope they are true?

He does that all the time. Just makes shit up.

 

[bendog]

A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

Actually that's not true. Assets have been siezed from lots of companies using the National Emergency provision. Blocking property is seizing it. That's like almost half of the national emergencies.

Do you just say things and make them up as you go and hope they are true?

He does that all the time. Just makes shit up.

Example? Specifically.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Her latest declaration proves Pelosi is bat guano crazy. Building the border wall isn't unconstitutional. Declaring a national emergency against guns is unconstitutional. I'd ask if liberals ever stop to think before they open their stupid mouths but the thinking part makes it an oxymoron.

Oh, declaring a national emergency and taking funds to set up universal background checks wouldn't be unconstitutional. And arguably making illegal magazines with a certain capacity would not be unconstitutional.

Yes it would, as any restrictions on a person to be free in the country as long as they dont break the law, is unconstitutional. So lets say Blinkie Pelosi enacts a law that all 30 round magazines are now illegal, does that mean that all 200 million gun owners are now breaking the law? Do you think the democrats have the balls to try to enforce the law and bring all 200 million US citizens to justice, while they cant even bring an illegal border crosser to jail?

You were asking a theoretical but now try to change the goal posts.

Of course the gummit has the power to declare it illegal to own something that once was legal to own .... gold bullion. But the gummit has to pay for the gold bullion.

So if the 200 million people do not sell their 30 round magazines, would the Dimwitocraps have the balls to go up against all that firepower?

 

[candycorn]

Our political leaders have reduced themselves to using playground antics.

Trump is the one who is driving this particular tactic. If he can get away with it, why shouldn't anyone else?

You can’t expect better from the blob, you can and should from a Liberal

So far, no liberal has tried to use that tactic. It's only been pointed out that if Trump is allowed to open that door, it will be open for others to use. If others using his same method scares them that much, they should consider not opening that door. I don't think Pelosi wants anyone to be able to claim a national emergency to bypass congress, but if it is allowed, it will be allowed for both sides.

Promising “tit for tat” makes one look small. And shallow.

It's not tit for tat because right now, Pelosi isn't trying to use that tactic to bypass congress. Trump is. Instead of tit for tat, it's more like "If you change the rules, they will be changed for both sides" ------- "consider that before you allow him to change the rules"

Again, PROMISING “tit for tat” makes you look small and shallow.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Her latest declaration proves Pelosi is bat guano crazy. Building the border wall isn't unconstitutional. Declaring a national emergency against guns is unconstitutional. I'd ask if liberals ever stop to think before they open their stupid mouths but the thinking part makes it an oxymoron.

Oh, declaring a national emergency and taking funds to set up universal background checks wouldn't be unconstitutional. And arguably making illegal magazines with a certain capacity would not be unconstitutional.

Yes it would, as any restrictions on a person to be free in the country as long as they dont break the law, is unconstitutional. So lets say Blinkie Pelosi enacts a law that all 30 round magazines are now illegal, does that mean that all 200 million gun owners are now breaking the law? Do you think the democrats have the balls to try to enforce the law and bring all 200 million US citizens to justice, while they cant even bring an illegal border crosser to jail?

You were asking a theoretical but now try to change the goal posts.

Of course the gummit has the power to declare it illegal to own something that once was legal to own .... gold bullion. But the gummit has to pay for the gold bullion.

Of course with what FDR did was totally unconstitutional, and should of been sued for the Equal Protections Clause because the handicap mother fucker allowed coin collectors to keep their gold, while demanding the rest of US to turn in their gold. Just like today, a gay marriage cert has to be honored in all 50 states, so a conceal carry permit has to be honored in all 50 states, that is the law yet liberals only follow their own laws, not the US laws. It will kick them in their asses, one of these days...

 

[bendog]

Her latest declaration proves Pelosi is bat guano crazy. Building the border wall isn't unconstitutional. Declaring a national emergency against guns is unconstitutional. I'd ask if liberals ever stop to think before they open their stupid mouths but the thinking part makes it an oxymoron.

Oh, declaring a national emergency and taking funds to set up universal background checks wouldn't be unconstitutional. And arguably making illegal magazines with a certain capacity would not be unconstitutional.

Yes it would, as any restrictions on a person to be free in the country as long as they dont break the law, is unconstitutional. So lets say Blinkie Pelosi enacts a law that all 30 round magazines are now illegal, does that mean that all 200 million gun owners are now breaking the law? Do you think the democrats have the balls to try to enforce the law and bring all 200 million US citizens to justice, while they cant even bring an illegal border crosser to jail?

You were asking a theoretical but now try to change the goal posts.

Of course the gummit has the power to declare it illegal to own something that once was legal to own .... gold bullion. But the gummit has to pay for the gold bullion.

So if the 200 million people do not sell their 30 round magazines, would the Dimwitocraps have the balls to go up against all that firepower?

You are now asking what is likely rather than what is legally possible.

Obama might well have done what we did with the "assault weapons ban" and made it illegal to sell new magazines of a certain capacity. But that is really irrelevant to the. Again having lost the argument, you attempt to move the goal posts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pelosi gives voters heads up your guns could be in Jeopardy if the next president is a Democrat

Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

When is enough going to be enough all they do is fight amongst the parties and never get nothing accomplished that needs to be done nothing that they're hired to do they do nothing but bicker bicker bicker with each other

Pelosi is full of shit.

A President can NOT declare a 'National Emergency' to violate the Constitution / infringe on American's Constitutional Rights.

That is what she is talking about - that is not what Trump is doing!

Well, I am glad to see that you have let FDR off the hook about those Japanese-American internment camps.....

Since the law on emergency powers has been changed a few times since FDR, bringing him up is not germane to the situation today.

 

[bendog]

Trump is the one who is driving this particular tactic. If he can get away with it, why shouldn't anyone else?

You can’t expect better from the blob, you can and should from a Liberal

So far, no liberal has tried to use that tactic. It's only been pointed out that if Trump is allowed to open that door, it will be open for others to use. If others using his same method scares them that much, they should consider not opening that door. I don't think Pelosi wants anyone to be able to claim a national emergency to bypass congress, but if it is allowed, it will be allowed for both sides.

Promising “tit for tat” makes one look small. And shallow.

It's not tit for tat because right now, Pelosi isn't trying to use that tactic to bypass congress. Trump is. Instead of tit for tat, it's more like "If you change the rules, they will be changed for both sides" ------- "consider that before you allow him to change the rules"

Again, PROMISING “tit for tat” makes you look small and shallow.

but it is how gummit typically works.

 

[candycorn]

You can’t expect better from the blob, you can and should from a Liberal

So far, no liberal has tried to use that tactic. It's only been pointed out that if Trump is allowed to open that door, it will be open for others to use. If others using his same method scares them that much, they should consider not opening that door. I don't think Pelosi wants anyone to be able to claim a national emergency to bypass congress, but if it is allowed, it will be allowed for both sides.

Promising “tit for tat” makes one look small. And shallow.

It's not tit for tat because right now, Pelosi isn't trying to use that tactic to bypass congress. Trump is. Instead of tit for tat, it's more like "If you change the rules, they will be changed for both sides" ------- "consider that before you allow him to change the rules"

Again, PROMISING “tit for tat” makes you look small and shallow.

but it is how gummit typically works.

That’s correct. When they get around to deciding if the White House budget includes heating oil and post-it notes….perhaps the House can eliminate those things from the budget to and show how much more adult they are than the blob.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, I am glad to see that you have let FDR off the hook about those Japanese-American internment camps.....

Never said I did, snowflake. Being a Native American and understanding things like injustices being perpetrated against people, I understand them and do not justify them. What FDR did and what Trump is doing are not even the same thing.

The authority to declare NEs was begun under Carter, not FDR. 'Nice' try.

Actually, that is incorrect. The President had the power to declare national emergencies before Carter, and FDR's internment of Japanese citizens actually was the result of such a declaration.

What happened under Carter was that the National Emergency Act of 1976 was passed to try to limit those powers and prevent abuses like FDR's, among others.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Her latest declaration proves Pelosi is bat guano crazy. Building the border wall isn't unconstitutional. Declaring a national emergency against guns is unconstitutional. I'd ask if liberals ever stop to think before they open their stupid mouths but the thinking part makes it an oxymoron.

Oh, declaring a national emergency and taking funds to set up universal background checks wouldn't be unconstitutional. And arguably making illegal magazines with a certain capacity would not be unconstitutional.

Yes it would, as any restrictions on a person to be free in the country as long as they dont break the law, is unconstitutional. So lets say Blinkie Pelosi enacts a law that all 30 round magazines are now illegal, does that mean that all 200 million gun owners are now breaking the law? Do you think the democrats have the balls to try to enforce the law and bring all 200 million US citizens to justice, while they cant even bring an illegal border crosser to jail?

You were asking a theoretical but now try to change the goal posts.

Of course the gummit has the power to declare it illegal to own something that once was legal to own .... gold bullion. But the gummit has to pay for the gold bullion.

So if the 200 million people do not sell their 30 round magazines, would the Dimwitocraps have the balls to go up against all that firepower?

You are now asking what is likely rather than what is legally possible.

Obama might well have done what we did with the "assault weapons ban" and made it illegal to sell new magazines of a certain capacity. But that is really irrelevant to the. Again having lost the argument, you attempt to move the goal posts.

Sorry dumbfuck, you libs always claim victory even when you lose, that is sociopathic of you.
In New Jersey right now there are millions of people who are now criminals because of the new law there.

New Jersey Declares War On Its Residents: Plans Door-To-Door Gun Confiscation Campaign

This wildly unconstitutional law instantly criminalizes hundreds of thousands of New Jersey citizens who legally acquired normal capacity firearms magazines - which include 17-round pistol magazines and 30-round rifle magazines - as tools of self-defense against the very same violent criminals that are protected by the Democrats who passed the gun magazine ban.

Now for my apology..

I am truly sorry that God didnt give you enough brain matter to compete against me. Next time will only try to use 1/8 of my brain to converse with you, just to make it fair..



Man walks into a brain surgeons office. He notices two jars, each with a human brain in it. The first brain looks old and has many wrinkles in it. The other brain looks like it si brand new. He asks the doctor how he came upon such a new brain. The doctor replied, it isnt really new, came out of a 75 year old liberal, it just never has been used..

 

[Cecilie1200]

How are any related to taking without just compensation?

You are asking how that Congressional law which congress said gives the President the power to "seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities...."

gives the president power to sieze property or commodities?

Like is english not a language you understand?

That wasn't a law you quoted, shitforbrains. It was a Senate Report ABOUT laws, prepared as evidence for passing a new law, which became the National Emergency Act of 1976.

Like, is English not a language you understand?

So no, you didn't understand the report. Got it. Next time I'll translate it into russian for you hahahahahahah!

I just heard, "I didn't know that, but I'm not man enough to admit it."

Back to the farm league for you, rookie. I'll let you know when you earn the right to try to talk to me again. Maybe.

FLUSH!

 

[xyz]

The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.

“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”

Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”

Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.

“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!

Could, but it's not a good idea and could be contested.

They should do it on a real emergency, like Russian influence in politics, a couple billion to investigate.