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

[Oddball]

Just when you think that Peloski couldn't possibly say something any more absurd and idiotic.....

Makes you wonder if she hasn't joined the Trump 2020 campaign. Nancy just made the point that democrats really do plan to go for the guns.

IMO there's a method there. A growing number of new age Dems want her out and she knows it. She's not going to go down without one hell of a fight. On her way down she'll take a pound of flesh from the esophageal tissue of the party leaving them totally fucked. Her comment on gun grabbing could be a bow shot to the rest of the party.

Jo

Well, let's grab some popcorn and Junior Mints, and enjoy the show.

 

[danielpalos]

Tell her to try and come and get them herself

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

 

[danielpalos]

Dems Look To Declare National Emergency Over Climate Change, Not A ‘Fake Crisis’

Well, that would certainly make more sense than Trump's phony crisis at the border.

No, because the crisis at the border is real.....not made up.

Ray, they think they park and play at the border. They’re too stupid to know they infiltrated our country up to Canada

“They” infiltrated our country. Just curious when did your ancestors get here?

What difference would that make? As long as they came here legally.

We don't have an immigration clause. We have a naturalization clause. Everyone comes here legally. The federal government must ensure all foreign nationals in the US are federally identified.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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 thinks declaring a National Emergency can override a Constitutional Amendment? Wow!

/----/ Nancy Piglosi - Leader of the Pack.
CONFUSION: Pelosi wishes 'Happy Thanksgiving' - on Valentine's Day! - The American Mirror
The House Speaker held a public bill signing on Thursday, and during her remarks, she wished reporters a “Happy Thanksgiving.”

It was Valentine’s Day. She was a mere 84 days late.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Someone who wishes all a happy Thanksgiving on valentine's day always knows what they are talking about.

 

[eagle1462010]

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!

Try to take them.......and it would become an instant EMERGENCY ON GUNS...........we aren't giving them up...........they want them ......they gotta come and take them...................

We are NOT CANADA AND EUROPE..........Pelosi is the poster child for TERM LIMITS.

 

[Flash]

A national emergency to do away with our Constitutional rights. Yep, the filthy ass Democrats would come with something like that.

 

[justoffal]

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.

Money is allotted for specific uses. You can't spend it for something it wasn't approved for. That would be misappropriation of funds.

Under normal circumstances, that would be correct. However in a declaration of emergency, they can shift money around. For instance Homeland Security or perhaps the Military Budget. It's very easy to see how a border wall could fit into either of those categories. Nearly a half million illegals apprehended last year, Lord knows how many that were not, over 70,000 Americans dead because of narcotic use; most of it coming from the southern border. The murders, the rapes, the theft. Human trafficking, undercutting American wages, there is just nothing good about them coming here. Oh yes, our peaches are cheaper.

That's the point of the country's opposition to Trump's so called emergency. It isn't an emergency, and him calling it that just to use emergency powers is dangerous. If a president can just mouth the word "emergency" in a time when there is no real emergency to gain political advantage, that is in direct opposition to the spirit and word of our constitution.

Outside of 911, were all the other declarations real emergencies? Most of them had to do with other countries that were not a threat to the US.

Trump tried everything he could to get the wall the usual way by going through Congress. They refused to negotiate. And even with the crummy 1.6 billion, we still got the royal screwing. They simply played politics with it. They want illegals to have easy access to our country. Democrats don't care about the fatal drugs, the murders, the diseases, the poor people we are going to be obligated to take care of, just as long as they get their foreigners into this country.

They smell the cartel money slipping away...both parties. They are now like cornered rats. Don't underestimate them.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

A national emergency to do away with our Constitutional rights. Yep, the filthy ass Democrats would come with something like that.

Ooooooh..... Let them try that one! I can't wait. Go right the fukkin' head and try it.
The voting booths would explode in the very next election.

Jo

 

[Flash]

A national emergency to do away with our Constitutional rights. Yep, the filthy ass Democrats would come with something like that.

Ooooooh..... Let them try that one! I can't wait. Go right the fukkin' head and try it.
The voting booths would explode in the very next election.

Jo

Ask Slick Willy how he lost his lost his Democrat Congress in 1994 and he will tell you that it was because he pissed off gun owners.

Al "Fruitier than a Nutcake" Gore did not lose the 2000 election in Florida. He lost it in his home state of Tennessee and states like Arkansas that had gone for Slick Willy. He lost it in those states because the NRA targeted his support of anti right to keep and bear arms legislation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Money is allotted for specific uses. You can't spend it for something it wasn't approved for. That would be misappropriation of funds.

Under normal circumstances, that would be correct. However in a declaration of emergency, they can shift money around. For instance Homeland Security or perhaps the Military Budget. It's very easy to see how a border wall could fit into either of those categories. Nearly a half million illegals apprehended last year, Lord knows how many that were not, over 70,000 Americans dead because of narcotic use; most of it coming from the southern border. The murders, the rapes, the theft. Human trafficking, undercutting American wages, there is just nothing good about them coming here. Oh yes, our peaches are cheaper.

That's the point of the country's opposition to Trump's so called emergency. It isn't an emergency, and him calling it that just to use emergency powers is dangerous. If a president can just mouth the word "emergency" in a time when there is no real emergency to gain political advantage, that is in direct opposition to the spirit and word of our constitution.

Outside of 911, were all the other declarations real emergencies? Most of them had to do with other countries that were not a threat to the US.

Trump tried everything he could to get the wall the usual way by going through Congress. They refused to negotiate. And even with the crummy 1.6 billion, we still got the royal screwing. They simply played politics with it. They want illegals to have easy access to our country. Democrats don't care about the fatal drugs, the murders, the diseases, the poor people we are going to be obligated to take care of, just as long as they get their foreigners into this country.

They smell the cartel money slipping away...both parties. They are now like cornered rats. Don't underestimate them.

Jo

I don't think it has anything to do with cartels. Democrats want foreigners in this country to wipe out the white race and some Republicans want them here for cheap labor. Democrats don't care about money as much as they do power, and they would sell their souls for it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Money is allotted for specific uses. You can't spend it for something it wasn't approved for. That would be misappropriation of funds.

Under normal circumstances, that would be correct. However in a declaration of emergency, they can shift money around. For instance Homeland Security or perhaps the Military Budget. It's very easy to see how a border wall could fit into either of those categories. Nearly a half million illegals apprehended last year, Lord knows how many that were not, over 70,000 Americans dead because of narcotic use; most of it coming from the southern border. The murders, the rapes, the theft. Human trafficking, undercutting American wages, there is just nothing good about them coming here. Oh yes, our peaches are cheaper.

That's the point of the country's opposition to Trump's so called emergency. It isn't an emergency, and him calling it that just to use emergency powers is dangerous. If a president can just mouth the word "emergency" in a time when there is no real emergency to gain political advantage, that is in direct opposition to the spirit and word of our constitution.

Outside of 911, were all the other declarations real emergencies? Most of them had to do with other countries that were not a threat to the US.

Trump tried everything he could to get the wall the usual way by going through Congress. They refused to negotiate. And even with the crummy 1.6 billion, we still got the royal screwing. They simply played politics with it. They want illegals to have easy access to our country. Democrats don't care about the fatal drugs, the murders, the diseases, the poor people we are going to be obligated to take care of, just as long as they get their foreigners into this country.

They smell the cartel money slipping away...both parties. They are now like cornered rats. Don't underestimate them.

Jo

I don't think it has anything to do with cartels. Democrats want foreigners in this country to wipe out the white race and some Republicans want them here for cheap labor. Democrats don't care about money as much as they do power, and they would sell their souls for it.

That's true too.

 

[jc456]

Dems Look To Declare National Emergency Over Climate Change, Not A ‘Fake Crisis’

Well, that would certainly make more sense than Trump's phony crisis at the border.

No, because the crisis at the border is real.....not made up.

Ray, they think they park and play at the border. They’re too stupid to know they infiltrated our country up to Canada

“They” infiltrated our country. Just curious when did your ancestors get here?

Legally they followed the law

 

[jc456]

Again, if there is no crisis, why do we20 plus million illegals here? Of course you leftists can’t answer, there is none

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="LeftofLeft, post: 21836804, member: 33282"]As she was trying to make a point, she really affirmed that Democrats want to take guns from law-abiding citizens.[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY ^^^^^^^^^

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

If the Democratic leadership felt the need to rally its supporters behind a political gesture for purely partisan purposes, they might but they would have to find the specific powers in the National Emergencies Act to justify it to make it more than just a political gesture. The Act does give the President the power to redirect some of the funds already appropriated under a national emergency.

 

[jc456]

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!

Try to take them.......and it would become an instant EMERGENCY ON GUNS...........we aren't giving them up...........they want them ......they gotta come and take them...................

We are NOT CANADA AND EUROPE..........Pelosi is the poster child for TERM LIMITS.

And admitted that is indeed what they want to do. Amazing the Freudian slip

 

[Cellblock2429]

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!

Try to take them.......and it would become an instant EMERGENCY ON GUNS...........we aren't giving them up...........they want them ......they gotta come and take them...................

We are NOT CANADA AND EUROPE..........Pelosi is the poster child for TERM LIMITS.

/—-/ Nancy Pants is the GOPs secret weapon in Congress. She needs to stay put.

 

[ThisIsMe]

'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.

Ok then, we need to immediately abolish all laws pertaining to anything that could be considered "arms"

 

[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!

Try to take them.......and it would become an instant EMERGENCY ON GUNS...........we aren't giving them up...........they want them ......they gotta come and take them...................

We are NOT CANADA AND EUROPE..........Pelosi is the poster child for TERM LIMITS.

/—-/ Nancy Pants is the GOPs secret weapon in Congress. She needs to stay put.

No reason to now that we have this.