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

[Sactowndog]

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.

As you two are aptly proving.

 

[Sactowndog]

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.

You need to educate yourself while you are driving a truck and stop listening to Rush and Hannity. I suppose you can’t read so I suggest Tom Sullivan as you at least have a chance at getting some real data.

 

[Sactowndog]

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.

There is nothing enlightened in anything you have posted. Even members of the Republican Party are concerned about this action not to mention thinking independents.

The fact you show no concern about a clear assault on legislative powers and illegal extension of Executive powers disqualifies you as a Libertarian.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

There is nothing enlightened in anything you have posted. Even members of the Republican Party are concerned about this action not to mention thinking independents.

The fact you show no concern about a clear assault on legislative powers and illegal extension of Executive powers disqualifies you as a Libertarian.

LOL, I'm not a Libertarian kid. Were you EVER concerned about Barry's over reach? No you weren't. You never answered son, when the Courts decide will you agree with them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You need to educate yourself while you are driving a truck and stop listening to Rush and Hannity. I suppose you can’t read so I suggest Tom Sullivan as you at least have a chance at getting some real data.

What real data are you speaking of? Since the passage of the emergency act, it's been used over 50 times by various Presidents. Tell me, how were those declarations funded that made it constitutional in your opinion?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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....

I've never seen you before, so all I can go by is what I read. If it walks like a duck.....quacks like a duck......

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

We have laws against theft, but there are some desperate people who will still rob a bank. We have laws against murder, but some don't care about the penalties. And yes, even with a border of any kind, there will still be people trying to sneak in.

However in all cases, a deterrent prevents most offenders from breaking the laws. Walls and fencing give our border patrol more help where it's needed the most. If they didn't think a wall would help, most would have stated so. Trumps plan is far from just a wall, he wants more patrol and more technology to go with it.

Will it stop everybody? Not likely. Will it greatly reduce the amount of border jumpers? You can bet your life on it.

 

[xband]

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus which was a clear extension of Executive Power. Trump can label the Democrats a terrorist organization, lock them up and suspend Habeas Corpus.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

As you two are aptly proving.

LOL, go on, keep showing your ignorance son.

 

[Sactowndog]

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.

There is nothing enlightened in anything you have posted. Even members of the Republican Party are concerned about this action not to mention thinking independents.

The fact you show no concern about a clear assault on legislative powers and illegal extension of Executive powers disqualifies you as a Libertarian.

LOL, I'm not a Libertarian kid. Were you EVER concerned about Barry's over reach? No you weren't. You never answered son, when the Courts decide will you agree with them?

Yes I have been concerned about the expansion of Presidential power for some time. And it didn’t start with Obama either. Dick Cheney was a huge advocat if expanding the power of the Presidency. Bush implemented signing statements which essentially said he disagreed with X in a law and refused to follow it. I was concerned about Obama executing a US citizen who was never tried and I was concerned about the IRS targeting conservative groups. At the time, the far left was a bad as you are now about this further expansion of Presidential powers.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

There is nothing enlightened in anything you have posted. Even members of the Republican Party are concerned about this action not to mention thinking independents.

The fact you show no concern about a clear assault on legislative powers and illegal extension of Executive powers disqualifies you as a Libertarian.

LOL, I'm not a Libertarian kid. Were you EVER concerned about Barry's over reach? No you weren't. You never answered son, when the Courts decide will you agree with them?

Yes I have been concerned about the expansion of Presidential power for some time. And it didn’t start with Obama either. Dick Cheney was a huge advocat if expanding the power of the Presidency. Bush implemented signing statements which essentially said he disagreed with X in a law and refused to follow it. I was concerned about Obama executing a US citizen who was never tried and I was concerned about the IRS targeting conservative groups. At the time, the far left was a bad as you are now about this further expansion of Presidential powers.

LOL. Now I'm feeling sorry for you. Partisan blindness.

 

[Sactowndog]

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....

I've never seen you before, so all I can go by is what I read. If it walks like a duck.....quacks like a duck......

Then apparently Republican Senators like Collins and Thillis must be Democrat’s also because my points are the same as theirs.

Perhaps you should get your news from something other than Hannity talk radio.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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....

I've never seen you before, so all I can go by is what I read. If it walks like a duck.....quacks like a duck......

Then apparently Republican Senators like Collins and Thillis must be Democrat’s also because my points are the same as theirs.

Perhaps you should get your news from something other than Hannity talk radio.

Lord. Who cares what Pubs think? How are they ANY different than Dems? They aren't you dumbass, there are NOT two party's. Lord you are an idiot.

 

[MAGAman]

Trump the reckless, irresponsible tinpot dictator.

Obama declares 31 national emergencies. What does that make him?

BUT ....BUT.....BUT.....ITS DIFFERENT!

JO

Actually that is a lie, but nice try, luckily we have them on paper. He declared 10. And all 10 have been renewed by Trump, and 0 of the 10 were opposed by a bipartisan Congress who voted against it, but rather immediate events causing the need for an immediate response. Stopping support of groups like Los Zetas, MS-13 Somalian Pirates, terrorists, cyber terrorists, cartels.

This is what the last 24 national emergencies declared have been. An issue arises in a country. A military takeover killing civilians, a breakout of a gang or terrorist cell. A national Emergency is declared for this new issue that allows a quick and firm reaction against it. So yes... This one is a LOT different.

I believe this one is different also as this is the first one where the President in his private businesses actually is causing the national emergency he declares by providing a reward for the illegal immigrants in jobs with his companies for decades. Would be like a president who's private business was selling drugs for decades using MS-13 then declaring a national emergency against drug smuggling at the border.

Doesn't matter.... He can only win by doing it even if the courts block it ...

It's a brilliant move.

Jo

Yep

 

[Sactowndog]

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.

You need to educate yourself while you are driving a truck and stop listening to Rush and Hannity. I suppose you can’t read so I suggest Tom Sullivan as you at least have a chance at getting some real data.

What real data are you speaking of? Since the passage of the emergency act, it's been used over 50 times by various Presidents. Tell me, how were those declarations funded that made it constitutional in your opinion?

Try doing some real research Ray and look into the use of it to end run the budget process. It has never happened before. It’s a blatant attack on Article 1 of the Constitution.

 

[Sactowndog]

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....

I've never seen you before, so all I can go by is what I read. If it walks like a duck.....quacks like a duck......

Then apparently Republican Senators like Collins and Thillis must be Democrat’s also because my points are the same as theirs.

Perhaps you should get your news from something other than Hannity talk radio.

Lord. Who cares what Pubs think? How are they ANY different than Dems? They aren't you dumbass, there are NOT two party's. Lord you are an idiot.

No I am a constitutionalist and you are a Trumptard with a high school education. Sadly there are many of you.

 

[justoffal]

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....

I've never seen you before, so all I can go by is what I read. If it walks like a duck.....quacks like a duck......

Then apparently Republican Senators like Collins and Thillis must be Democrat’s also because my points are the same as theirs.

Perhaps you should get your news from something other than Hannity talk radio.

Lord. Who cares what Pubs think? How are they ANY different than Dems? They aren't you dumbass, there are NOT two party's. Lord you are an idiot.

The two party illusion is one of DC's most potent weapons. Anyone watching what just happened observed McConnell work with the Dems to sink the wall negotiations and pretend they just couldn't do any more.
It's a crock. They are all on the Cartel payroll.

Jo

 

[Sactowndog]

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....

I've never seen you before, so all I can go by is what I read. If it walks like a duck.....quacks like a duck......

Then apparently Republican Senators like Collins and Thillis must be Democrat’s also because my points are the same as theirs.

Perhaps you should get your news from something other than Hannity talk radio.

Lord. Who cares what Pubs think? How are they ANY different than Dems? They aren't you dumbass, there are NOT two party's. Lord you are an idiot.

The two party illusion is one of DC's most potent weapons. Anyone watching what just happened observed McConnell work with the Dems to sink the wall negotiations and pretend they just couldn't do any more.
It's a crock. They are all on the Cartel payroll.

Jo

The Cartel payroll? You two have really gone off the deep end.

To be fair it’s a good question why McConnell felt the wall wasn’t important enough to over ride the filibuster (done with a simple majority vote) 4 months ago

Yet today he is fully on board with an executive order which abrogates Congress’s 1st Article powers.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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

I've never seen you before, so all I can go by is what I read. If it walks like a duck.....quacks like a duck......

Then apparently Republican Senators like Collins and Thillis must be Democrat’s also because my points are the same as theirs.

Perhaps you should get your news from something other than Hannity talk radio.

Lord. Who cares what Pubs think? How are they ANY different than Dems? They aren't you dumbass, there are NOT two party's. Lord you are an idiot.

The two party illusion is one of DC's most potent weapons. Anyone watching what just happened observed McConnell work with the Dems to sink the wall negotiations and pretend they just couldn't do any more.
It's a crock. They are all on the Cartel payroll.

Jo

The Cartel payroll? You two have really gone off the deep end.

To be fair it’s a good question why McConnell felt the wall wasn’t important enough to over ride the filibuster (done with a simple majority vote) 4 months ago

Yet today he is fully on board with an executive order which abrogates Congress’s 1st Article powers.

Where did you fight boi?

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

You need to educate yourself while you are driving a truck and stop listening to Rush and Hannity. I suppose you can’t read so I suggest Tom Sullivan as you at least have a chance at getting some real data.

What real data are you speaking of? Since the passage of the emergency act, it's been used over 50 times by various Presidents. Tell me, how were those declarations funded that made it constitutional in your opinion?

Try doing some real research Ray and look into the use of it to end run the budget process. It has never happened before. It’s a blatant attack on Article 1 of the Constitution.

You never fought anyone but the girls. Grow up kid, you really know nothing.