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

[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!

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

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

 

[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

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

Nope, sorry. So you don't believe in precedent?
But hey, the Court will decide right? Of course you'll agree with whatever they say....right?

 

[percysunshine]

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!

Pelosi has dementia.

 

[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!

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

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

Nope, sorry. So you don't believe in precedent?
But hey, the Court will decide right? Of course you'll agree with whatever they say....right?

Of course and the previous uses of the executive order was never used to circumvent the power of the purse given to the legislative branch if that is your comment on precedent. And sure if the courts decide the President can over ride the Constitution in this case I will follow it sadly just like I’m sure you will when it’s used to deprive you of constitutional rights.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

Nope, sorry. So you don't believe in precedent?
But hey, the Court will decide right? Of course you'll agree with whatever they say....right?

Of course and the previous uses of the executive order was never used to circumvent the power of the purse given to the legislative branch if that is your comment on precedent. And sure if the courts decide the President can over ride the Constitution in this case I will follow it sadly just like I’m sure you will when it’s used to deprive you of constitutional rights.

No law (or order) can override the supreme law of the land.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

It is not overriding the Constitution. Trump will get that money from a department that's already been funded by the US Congress and passed by the Senate.

 

[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

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

It is not overriding the Constitution. Trump will get that money from a department that's already been funded by the US Congress and passed by the Senate.

This does not fit the partisan's narrative.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.

Her (and the Democrats) interest is making whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. That's their goal. The Democrat party is now the anti-white party, and they make no bones about it.

Paranoid much?

Nope, just a realist. I'm not a puppet like you on the left that believe everything they say.

* Why do they make illegals comfortable in Democrat areas, even to the point of issuing them drivers licenses?
* Why would they want illegals to vote in local elections?
* Why did they stop Kate's Law (a common sense law) that would have imprisoned felons who returned after deportation?
* Why would they fight so hard to keep their Sanctuary cities, and even started Sanctuary states after Trump got elected?
* Why did DumBama sue Arizona for creating their own immigration standards?

One answer for all of those questions. Figure it out.

Dude I’m curious if you’re a cop. From the pic you posted I’m guessing you might be. Read somewhere that white supremacist groups had actively tried to place members in local law enforcement. You appear to be exhibit A that the assertion is true.

Right, because anybody that disagrees with a Commie is a white supremacist.

 

[Sactowndog]

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

Nope, sorry. So you don't believe in precedent?
But hey, the Court will decide right? Of course you'll agree with whatever they say....right?

Of course and the previous uses of the executive order was never used to circumvent the power of the purse given to the legislative branch if that is your comment on precedent. And sure if the courts decide the President can over ride the Constitution in this case I will follow it sadly just like I’m sure you will when it’s used to deprive you of constitutional rights.

No law (or order) can override the supreme law of the land.

Good then Trumps Executive order will be overturned on the grounds he can’t use an EO to end run Article 1 of the Constitution .

 

[Sactowndog]

Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.

Her (and the Democrats) interest is making whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. That's their goal. The Democrat party is now the anti-white party, and they make no bones about it.

Paranoid much?

Nope, just a realist. I'm not a puppet like you on the left that believe everything they say.

* Why do they make illegals comfortable in Democrat areas, even to the point of issuing them drivers licenses?
* Why would they want illegals to vote in local elections?
* Why did they stop Kate's Law (a common sense law) that would have imprisoned felons who returned after deportation?
* Why would they fight so hard to keep their Sanctuary cities, and even started Sanctuary states after Trump got elected?
* Why did DumBama sue Arizona for creating their own immigration standards?

One answer for all of those questions. Figure it out.

Dude I’m curious if you’re a cop. From the pic you posted I’m guessing you might be. Read somewhere that white supremacist groups had actively tried to place members in local law enforcement. You appear to be exhibit A that the assertion is true.

Right, because anybody that disagrees with a Commie is a white supremacist.

Nope just people who make statements like you. I happen to disagree with communists but don’t make the statements you make. I’m not calling your employer, go ahead and own it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

That has pretty much been our mode of operation for the past 200 years.
Boston Tea Party.... breaking laws
Runaway slaves..... breaking laws
Oklahoma Sooners..... breaking laws
Interracial marriage.... breaking laws
Feet Wet..... breaking laws

We have long been the home of people that say F You to the government and brave long odds to make a better life for ourselves.

I see no reason to stop now. That doesn’t mean we make it easy but it also doesn’t mean we spend every nickle to stop the last 10,000.

That is a reasonable and educated response. Sadly reasonable and educated left the Republican Party years ago.

10,000? Let me show you what a reasonable and educated response is:

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

Border apprehensions have been falling for some time.

The Stats on Border Apprehensions - FactCheck.org

And yes we need to do more. What we don’t need to do is spend every last nickle to stop the last 10,000 or so. Diminishing returns is taught in college. An experience far too many Republicans have missed.

Comprehension problems I see. Either that or you didn't read the article.

If you did, you would find out we had nearly a half-million apprehensions at the border last year. So I have no idea where you're getting this 10,000 figure from. And mind you, that's just the ones we caught. I'm sure another 25% or so snuck into the country.

Our annual budget is 4 trillion dollars. Trump was asking for 6 billion. That's hardly spending our last dime. And while that is a lot of money, in comparison, it's pocket change. It's what we spend on food stamps for just one month in this country.

 

[Sactowndog]

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

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

It is not overriding the Constitution. Trump will get that money from a department that's already been funded by the US Congress and passed by the Senate.

This does not fit the partisan's narrative.

Not a Partisan or a Democrat. By the way, neither is Collins, Thillis or Sullivan. Came to this board hoping to find informed and intelligent posters who were equally concerned. But hypocritical party hacks on both sides never fail to disappoint.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Her (and the Democrats) interest is making whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. That's their goal. The Democrat party is now the anti-white party, and they make no bones about it.

Paranoid much?

Nope, just a realist. I'm not a puppet like you on the left that believe everything they say.

* Why do they make illegals comfortable in Democrat areas, even to the point of issuing them drivers licenses?
* Why would they want illegals to vote in local elections?
* Why did they stop Kate's Law (a common sense law) that would have imprisoned felons who returned after deportation?
* Why would they fight so hard to keep their Sanctuary cities, and even started Sanctuary states after Trump got elected?
* Why did DumBama sue Arizona for creating their own immigration standards?

One answer for all of those questions. Figure it out.

Dude I’m curious if you’re a cop. From the pic you posted I’m guessing you might be. Read somewhere that white supremacist groups had actively tried to place members in local law enforcement. You appear to be exhibit A that the assertion is true.

Right, because anybody that disagrees with a Commie is a white supremacist.

Nope just people who make statements like you. I happen to disagree with communists but don’t make the statements you make. I’m not calling your employer, go ahead and own it.

Well if you spend some time here and read my past posts, you'll find I'm far from a police officer. I'm a truck driver and part-time landlord. How are you against Communists when your party stands for just about the same things? Why do you suppose the US Communist party endorsed your last three presidential candidates and strongly supported Bernie Sanders?

 

[Ambivalent1]

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

It is not overriding the Constitution. Trump will get that money from a department that's already been funded by the US Congress and passed by the Senate.

This does not fit the partisan's narrative.

Not a Partisan or a Democrat. By the way, neither is Collins, Thillis or Sullivan. Came to this board hoping to find informed and intelligent posters who were equally concerned. But hypocritical party hacks on both sides never fail to disappoint.

You are exactly what you decry. I am not a Pub, you are a Partisan hack, nothing more. Go back where you came from, you aren't up to enlightened debate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

Nope, sorry. So you don't believe in precedent?
But hey, the Court will decide right? Of course you'll agree with whatever they say....right?

Of course and the previous uses of the executive order was never used to circumvent the power of the purse given to the legislative branch if that is your comment on precedent. And sure if the courts decide the President can over ride the Constitution in this case I will follow it sadly just like I’m sure you will when it’s used to deprive you of constitutional rights.

No law (or order) can override the supreme law of the land.

Good then Trumps Executive order will be overturned on the grounds he can’t use an EO to end run Article 1 of the Constitution .

One more time: he's not overriding anything. He's using money already appropriated by the Congress. A declaration of emergency gives him the legal ability to use money from wherever he desires. Trump is not spending a nickel more than what was appropriated in the last budget.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

It is not overriding the Constitution. Trump will get that money from a department that's already been funded by the US Congress and passed by the Senate.

This does not fit the partisan's narrative.

He likely gets that nonsense from the lying MSM.

 

[Sactowndog]

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?

That has pretty much been our mode of operation for the past 200 years.
Boston Tea Party.... breaking laws
Runaway slaves..... breaking laws
Oklahoma Sooners..... breaking laws
Interracial marriage.... breaking laws
Feet Wet..... breaking laws

We have long been the home of people that say F You to the government and brave long odds to make a better life for ourselves.

I see no reason to stop now. That doesn’t mean we make it easy but it also doesn’t mean we spend every nickle to stop the last 10,000.

That is a reasonable and educated response. Sadly reasonable and educated left the Republican Party years ago.

10,000? Let me show you what a reasonable and educated response is:

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

Border apprehensions have been falling for some time.

The Stats on Border Apprehensions - FactCheck.org

And yes we need to do more. What we don’t need to do is spend every last nickle to stop the last 10,000 or so. Diminishing returns is taught in college. An experience far too many Republicans have missed.

Comprehension problems I see. Either that or you didn't read the article.

If you did, you would find out we had nearly a half-million apprehensions at the border last year. So I have no idea where you're getting this 10,000 figure from. And mind you, that's just the ones we caught. I'm sure another 25% or so snuck into the country.

Our annual budget is 4 trillion dollars. Trump was asking for 6 billion. That's hardly spending our last dime. And while that is a lot of money, in comparison, it's pocket change. It's what we spend on food stamps for just one month in this country.

Your right you do have a reading comprehension problem.

I said border security needed to be improved. 400,000 is too high and most reasonable people agree with that statement. I also said most reasonable people also agree inventive desperate people will still try to find a way to enter the country. At some point you reach a point of diminishing returns which I put at 10,000.

 

[Sactowndog]

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

It is not overriding the Constitution. Trump will get that money from a department that's already been funded by the US Congress and passed by the Senate.

This does not fit the partisan's narrative.

He likely gets that nonsense from the lying MSM.

MSM?

 

[Ambivalent1]

So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?

An Executive Order must be Constitutional....you realize that, right? Can ANYONE issue an Executive Order to confiscate guns?
Yes or no.

Hell Barry had a horrific record in the SC.

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

It is not overriding the Constitution. Trump will get that money from a department that's already been funded by the US Congress and passed by the Senate.

This does not fit the partisan's narrative.

He likely gets that nonsense from the lying MSM.

ALL partisan's do that. A partisan by definition cannot think for himself.

 

[Sactowndog]

Paranoid much?

Nope, just a realist. I'm not a puppet like you on the left that believe everything they say.

* Why do they make illegals comfortable in Democrat areas, even to the point of issuing them drivers licenses?
* Why would they want illegals to vote in local elections?
* Why did they stop Kate's Law (a common sense law) that would have imprisoned felons who returned after deportation?
* Why would they fight so hard to keep their Sanctuary cities, and even started Sanctuary states after Trump got elected?
* Why did DumBama sue Arizona for creating their own immigration standards?

One answer for all of those questions. Figure it out.

Dude I’m curious if you’re a cop. From the pic you posted I’m guessing you might be. Read somewhere that white supremacist groups had actively tried to place members in local law enforcement. You appear to be exhibit A that the assertion is true.

Right, because anybody that disagrees with a Commie is a white supremacist.

Nope just people who make statements like you. I happen to disagree with communists but don’t make the statements you make. I’m not calling your employer, go ahead and own it.

Well if you spend some time here and read my past posts, you'll find I'm far from a police officer. I'm a truck driver and part-time landlord. How are you against Communists when your party stands for just about the same things? Why do you suppose the US Communist party endorsed your last three presidential candidates and strongly supported Bernie Sanders?

My Party? I’m not registered Democrat. You know the comment about assuming....