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

[Cellblock2429]

Trump the reckless, irresponsible tinpot dictator.

/——/ If Trump was a dictator the likes of you would have been rounded up a dealt with by now

 

[ThisIsMe]

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?

Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?

Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

lol There is no precedent being set. A national emergency is anything the President says it is. The question is, do the powers allowed to him under the National Emergencies Act allow him to do what he wants to do? On the question of building a border fence, the answer is, yes, but on the question of amending the 2nd amendment, the answer is, no. That's why Obama didn't declare a national emergency to impose restrictions on gun ownership. That's also why Nancy is full of shit and making a fool out of you.

Declaring a national emergency doesn't amend any law. It just ignores them.

Imposing legislation that runs counter to the Constitution is not one of the powers the National Emergencies Act allows to the President.

I'm sure that argument will be used in opposition to Trump's latest childish action.

I doubt the Democratic leadership would be stupid enough to try to use that.

 

[Sactowndog]

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!

You can't declare a national emergency to violate the Constitution, you fucking moron.

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

Fuck her and you. Let her try. Firearms are a constitutionally-protected right. Walls are not. Nancy would risk civil war over not stopping illegal immigration, the first, highest responsibility of the federal government, to DEFEND OUR BORDERS?

Apparently you have never actually read the constitution or you would know that Article 1 expressly gives the power of the purse to Congress.

Two the number of arrests at the border are at a generational low which was a process started under Obama.

Third I would hope you morons do take up guns because the US Military has been perfecting asymetric warfare since 2001 with Drones and Long range sniper rifles which can kill from over 2 miles away. Our second amendment protections while important are an illusion against modern firepower.

 

[Sactowndog]

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?

Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?

Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?

Yes because at some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play.

Most rational educated people agree the borders should be made more secure. Those same people recognize 14th century technology (a wall) is unlikely to be successful in the 21st century. But even with improved technology some inventive and determined people will still get through.

Guess what those people are the kind of people who built this country. The American Spirit lives most strongly in them. It’s the American ethos (or used to be) to say F the government I’m doing what’s ethically needed. Even if I break laws. It’s why the second amendment exists. If they make it through and manage to avoid detection for 10 years, make them citizens. They have earned it in the true American sense.

 

[BULLDOG]

Pipe Dream. Something happens when a Judge becomes a Supreme Court Justice. They change. Even Kavanah is showing change. Presidents all wish that they could control the Supreme Court but none have ever been able to do so no matter what party affiliation appoints them. Supreme Court Justices seem to strip themselves of any party affiliation. So go ahead and dream on. It's never happened before.

It's happened several times.

Court orders Chicago to pay NRA’s legal fees

Perhaps Trump's choices will turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. Wouldn't be the first American institution he tried to bastardize for his own personal gain.

Oh, you mean like Ears did with the IRS and FBI?

Right wing rhetoric and fact aren't the same thing.

All sides do not care anymore about other areas for safety. You are going to deserve to have to defend yourself for survival one day. And by your own selfishness.

You've been watching too many Mad Max movies.

 

[Staidhup]

Someone should inform Pelosi what a national emergency is and at the same time explain how the constitution works. Sorry bitch one can not declare a national emergency and suspend or take away a constitutional right, speach, guns,...etc.., however, the president can suspend certain rights by declaring Martial Law, which in this case is what she is threatening by her statement.
A threat to National Security qualifies as a national emergency.

 

[BULLDOG]

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

'the right to keep and bear arms". Doesnt say anything about this applying only to muskets.

Doesn't say anything about automatic weapons or nuclear weapons either. You think those should be allowed?

And there it is. Like i said previously, the left always takes the arguments to the extreme. "Well, we should be able to own nukes and shoulder fires rockets.."

Honestly, there is no way to know what the founders would have thought about these types of weapons, as they could have never foresaw nuclear weapons. What they could see is hand held firearms. When they wrote the 2A, they said "arms". They could have said specifically "muskets", but it is possible they were forward looking enough to realize that guns would evolve over time.

So now you want to limit our constitution to your ability to read the founding father's minds? Do you use a crystal ball for that? I prefer to just go by what is written, because I don't have your amazing ability to read the minds of a bunch of dead guys.

We don't have to try and read their minds, they wrote their thoughts down for us to see what they were thinking at the time

The words written in the constitution are what we have to go by. If they wanted to be more specific, they should have put it there. That other stuff is not law.

 

[Clementine]

 

[BULLDOG]

Doesn't say anything about automatic weapons or nuclear weapons either. You think those should be allowed?

And there it is. Like i said previously, the left always takes the arguments to the extreme. "Well, we should be able to own nukes and shoulder fires rockets.."

Honestly, there is no way to know what the founders would have thought about these types of weapons, as they could have never foresaw nuclear weapons. What they could see is hand held firearms. When they wrote the 2A, they said "arms". They could have said specifically "muskets", but it is possible they were forward looking enough to realize that guns would evolve over time.

So now you want to limit our constitution to your ability to read the founding father's minds? Do you use a crystal ball for that? I prefer to just go by what is written, because I don't have your amazing ability to read the minds of a bunch of dead guys.

That's what we have a United States Supreme Court for.

I agree. Any writings, other than the constitution, are immaterial.

Then the gun debate is unwinnable, because without context, it's just one person's interpretation vs anothers.

That's the Supreme Court's job.

 

[abu afak]

Business, Conservative groups Slam Trump’s national Emergency declaration
BY NIV ELIS - 02/15/19 - TheHill
Business, conservative groups slam Trump’s national emergency declaration

Business and conservative groups typically aligned with the GOP came out strongly against President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency over the border, underscoring opposition to the move from traditional Republican circles.

The opponents included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation, all of which warned that the decision could set a precedent for a liberal president to take actions opposed by businesses and conservatives.

“The declaration of national emergency in this instance will create a dangerous precedent that erodes the very system of government that has served us so well for over 200 years," said Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
[.....]
​

 

[Cellblock2429]

Business, conservative groups slam Trump’s national emergency declaration
BY NIV ELIS - 02/15/19 03:51 PM EST 1

Business and conservative groups typically aligned with the GOP came out strongly against President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency over the border, underscoring opposition to the move from traditional Republican circles.

The opponents included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation, all of which warned that the decision could set a precedent for a liberal president to take actions opposed by businesses and conservatives.

“The declaration of national emergency in this instance will create a dangerous precedent that erodes the very system of government that has served us so well for over 200 years," said Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

/—-/ So?

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?

Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?

Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?

You are so quick to make sweeping statements. You should consider reality instead of just repeating right wing straw man crap.

 

[Rigby5]

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!

You can't declare a national emergency to violate the Constitution, you fucking moron.

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

Fuck her and you. Let her try. Firearms are a constitutionally-protected right. Walls are not. Nancy would risk civil war over not stopping illegal immigration, the first, highest responsibility of the federal government, to DEFEND OUR BORDERS?

Apparently you have never actually read the constitution or you would know that Article 1 expressly gives the power of the purse to Congress.

Two the number of arrests at the border are at a generational low which was a process started under Obama.

Third I would hope you morons do take up guns because the US Military has been perfecting asymetric warfare since 2001 with Drones and Long range sniper rifles which can kill from over 2 miles away. Our second amendment protections while important are an illusion against modern firepower.

I disagree that the US military is even remotely capable of ever successfully dealing with asymmetric warfare.
They have always failed.
All the military does is to use disreputable weapons like armed drones, snipers, or air strikes.
All of which not only fail to hit the intended target, but infuriate thousands of others take up arms against the evil US military who use these dishonorable weapons.
There is not a single person who uses armed drones, snipers, or air strikes who does not deserve to be killed or incarcerated.
These weapons are illegal because there is no way when they are used, to verify that the target is valid.
So they illegally kill enemy and innocent civilian alike.
Anyone who would use them is a criminal and in violation of international laws.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

lol There is no precedent being set. A national emergency is anything the President says it is. The question is, do the powers allowed to him under the National Emergencies Act allow him to do what he wants to do? On the question of building a border fence, the answer is, yes, but on the question of amending the 2nd amendment, the answer is, no. That's why Obama didn't declare a national emergency to impose restrictions on gun ownership. That's also why Nancy is full of shit and making a fool out of you.

Declaring a national emergency doesn't amend any law. It just ignores them.

Imposing legislation that runs counter to the Constitution is not one of the powers the National Emergencies Act allows to the President.

I'm sure that argument will be used in opposition to Trump's latest childish action.

I doubt the Democratic leadership would be stupid enough to try to use that.

I'm not sure how the Democratic leadership could afford to not use something like that if republicans are using it. Nuclear weapons are stupid too, but if some foreign attacker send some our way, we would have no choice but to return the same. Same principle.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Business, Conservative groups Slam Trump’s national Emergency declaration
BY NIV ELIS - 02/15/19 - TheHill
Business, conservative groups slam Trump’s national emergency declaration

Business and conservative groups typically aligned with the GOP came out strongly against President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency over the border, underscoring opposition to the move from traditional Republican circles.

The opponents included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation, all of which warned that the decision could set a precedent for a liberal president to take actions opposed by businesses and conservatives.

“The declaration of national emergency in this instance will create a dangerous precedent that erodes the very system of government that has served us so well for over 200 years," said Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
[.....]
​

Poll: 3/4 of GOP Back Using Nat'l Emergency to Build the Wall

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?

Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?

Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?

Yes because at some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play.

Most rational educated people agree the borders should be made more secure. Those same people recognize 14th century technology (a wall) is unlikely to be successful in the 21st century. But even with improved technology some inventive and determined people will still get through.

Guess what those people are the kind of people who built this country. The American Spirit lives most strongly in them. It’s the American ethos (or used to be) to say F the government I’m doing what’s ethically needed. Even if I break laws. It’s why the second amendment exists. If they make it through and manage to avoid detection for 10 years, make them citizens. They have earned it in the true American sense.

So that's the message we want to send to the rest of the world, come here, break our laws, and if you get away with it long enough, we'll make you a citizen?

 

[BULLDOG]

3/4 of 1/3 of Voters Back Using Nat'l Emergency to Build the Wall----That's Less Than 1/4 of the country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's happened several times.

Court orders Chicago to pay NRA’s legal fees

Perhaps Trump's choices will turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. Wouldn't be the first American institution he tried to bastardize for his own personal gain.

Oh, you mean like Ears did with the IRS and FBI?

Right wing rhetoric and fact aren't the same thing.

Facts like what, that the FBI didn't tell the court their research was paid for by the DNC and Hillary? The fact that the FBI got a surveillance warrant to spy on a political foe? The fact that Comey told Lynch not to charge Hillary? Is NPR fact enough for you?

IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups

The FBI and IRS aren't the same.

I was providing you with examples of each.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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!

So you think an Executive Action can abrogate a Constitutional Right. Aren't you special