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

[Lakhota]

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!

Queer Barry DID declare national emergencies, you drooling retard.

{
Past emergencies have focused on everything from swine flu to rough diamonds.

Here's a list of the 28 active national emergencies:

1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)

2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)

3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (Jan. 23, 1995)

4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (Mar. 15, 1995)

5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (Oct. 21, 1995)

6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (Mar. 1, 1996)

7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (Nov. 3, 1997)

8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (Jun. 26, 2001)

9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (Aug. 17, 2001)

10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (Sept. 14, 2001)

11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (Sept. 23, 2001)

12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (Mar. 6, 2003)

13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)

14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)

15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (Jun. 16, 2006)

16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Oct. 27, 2006)

17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (Aug. 1, 2007)

18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (Jun. 26, 2008)

19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)

20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)

21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)

22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)

23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)

24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)

25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)

26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)

27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)

28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)
}

Full List of National Emergencies Declared By Obama, Bush, Clinton Is Published!



You fucking retard.

How many of them stole money from natural disaster funds and/or military to fund projects that Congress refused to authorize?

 

[nat4900]

Queer Barry DID declare national emergencies, you drooling retard.

Obama declared 13 emergencies, with most of them focused on international affairs and containing foreign conflicts

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually my bet is to the next time a mass shootings incident happens under a democratic president this will be the inevitable reaction.

That is interesting. According to ICE about 1800 people in the US have been killed by illegal immigrants. And according to the CDC 39,773 Americans were killed by firearms. So if this is a national emergency, what happens with 22 times the number of deaths attributed to something killing Americans? Could a national emergency be declared that people still have the right to firearms less deadly than a pellet gun only?

Same could be said on the effects of climate change on weather, backed by scientific data. That's a much higher death toll as well. Should a national emergency be declared to fund renewable energy and shutter coal?

Lung Cancer kills 300k a year. Should cigarette sales be a national emergency to shut them down?

Diabetes and heart disease are hundreds of times more deadly than this emergency, should a national emergency limit sales of red meat and shut down the soda industry?

Lack of healthcare kills hundreds of thousands of Americans. Should a national emergency be declared to completely socialize healthcare.

White Supremacists accounted for the majority of extremist killings the past 15 years. Should those groups be banned under a national emergency, and anyone supporting them be locked up?

It's an interesting box of worms to try and open.

First off, Global Warming is not a science, it's a theory, but even if it were proven somehow, there is absolutely no evidence we could do something about it, so you can't declare a national emergency based on a theory and unproven ways to solve it.

Pop, cigarettes and red meat are all known to be unhealthy. You can't declare a national emergency on choices people freely make. What "white supremacy" groups killed all these people?

We just discussed the definition of a scientific theory and why it's different than crap you come up with off the top of your head.

And all of those things are more of an emergency than the southern border, so if the don't meet your definition the border doesn't either.

Sure it does because there is no question on the border. People ARE entering through there. The Border Patrol supports that, the ranchers support it, and our apprehension statistics support it. They are coming through our borders illegally and against the will of our people and laws.

Big difference. BTW, there are plenty of scientists that refute man made global warming yet alone the possible effects.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are several ways to undermine and weaken the 2nd Amendment without changing or repealing it. A national emergency is only one way. Just think of how many ways anti-choice NaziCons have undermined and weakened Roe v. Wade.

What goes around comes around.

You cannot undermine the US Constitution by declaring a national emergency. Where do you get this stuff from anyhow?

 

[Crepitus]

Actually my bet is to the next time a mass shootings incident happens under a democratic president this will be the inevitable reaction.

That is interesting. According to ICE about 1800 people in the US have been killed by illegal immigrants. And according to the CDC 39,773 Americans were killed by firearms. So if this is a national emergency, what happens with 22 times the number of deaths attributed to something killing Americans? Could a national emergency be declared that people still have the right to firearms less deadly than a pellet gun only?

Same could be said on the effects of climate change on weather, backed by scientific data. That's a much higher death toll as well. Should a national emergency be declared to fund renewable energy and shutter coal?

Lung Cancer kills 300k a year. Should cigarette sales be a national emergency to shut them down?

Diabetes and heart disease are hundreds of times more deadly than this emergency, should a national emergency limit sales of red meat and shut down the soda industry?

Lack of healthcare kills hundreds of thousands of Americans. Should a national emergency be declared to completely socialize healthcare.

White Supremacists accounted for the majority of extremist killings the past 15 years. Should those groups be banned under a national emergency, and anyone supporting them be locked up?

It's an interesting box of worms to try and open.

First off, Global Warming is not a science, it's a theory, but even if it were proven somehow, there is absolutely no evidence we could do something about it, so you can't declare a national emergency based on a theory and unproven ways to solve it.

Pop, cigarettes and red meat are all known to be unhealthy. You can't declare a national emergency on choices people freely make. What "white supremacy" groups killed all these people?

We just discussed the definition of a scientific theory and why it's different than crap you come up with off the top of your head.

And all of those things are more of an emergency than the southern border, so if the don't meet your definition the border doesn't either.

Sure it does because there is no question on the border. People ARE entering through there. The Border Patrol supports that, the ranchers support it, and our apprehension statistics support it. They are coming through our borders illegally and against the will of our people and laws.

Big difference. BTW, there are plenty of scientists that refute man made global warming yet alone the possible effects.

They mostly come through regular crossing points.

And no, there are not " plenty" of climate denying scientists.

 

[Crepitus]

Can anyone answer this?

Because you can kill at a distance with a firearm; something your attacker likely has.

So then they aren't as lethal as the AR.

 

[my2¢]

Trump has already unleased that genie and so he might as well go for it. It is like Biden saying there was no chance that a Democratic Senate would confirm a GOP Supreme Court nominee in the final year of the president's term. That action wasn't taken but the damage was done and it didn't prevent Biden's comment from giving Republicans cover in not taking action on nominee Merrick Garland.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Ho

“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.”



What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!

Because the world has a 'right' to enter our country, but the people have no 'right' to own fire arms.

Yeah, try and sell that as an emergency.

Like I said, the Constitution has NO say on what firearms the 1st amendment protects. It's why you can't buy a bazooka or nuclear weapon and say the 1st amendment protects you. Also background checks heavily enforced through this, basically could get the tightest gun control ever. Like I am saying, not a bag of worms I think Trump wants to open, unless he's looking at today and has no care about the repurcussions.

You can't declare an emergency in violation of the US Constitution. Big difference between what Trump is doing and what Piglosi predicts.

 

[Lesh]

Clearly there is no "emergency". This is political...and it's setting a precedent that you right wingers may not like

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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!

The President can not change the Constitution and any Democratic party President who tried to to ignore the 2nd Amendment would immediately get slapped down by the Courts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Mexico has invaded.

The number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants has been declining since 2007,

Rightwing bigots don’t care about the facts.

All they care about is focusing on their fear, bigotry, and hate.

Would you like me to post some "facts" on illegals in this country?

 

[Lakhota]

There are several ways to undermine and weaken the 2nd Amendment without changing or repealing it. A national emergency is only one way. Just think of how many ways anti-choice NaziCons have undermined and weakened Roe v. Wade.

What goes around comes around.

You cannot undermine the US Constitution by declaring a national emergency. Where do you get this stuff from anyhow?

Roe v. Wade is backed by the Constitution and SCOTUS - yet it still gets undermined and weakened. BTW, the 2nd Amendment only means what SCOTUS says it means on any given day. I expect that universal background checks will become law in the near future.

Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only "national emergency" that currently exists for Trump, is that he desperately needs to hold on to hls on to his moronic base.

Otherwise, the "emergency" to build a wall would have been declared TWO years ago.

The only way Trump holds on to his base is if the wall starts to get built, and not just 1.6 billion of it either.

Honestly, I don't think he's lost much support if the wall hadn't gotten built. I mean, considering everything else he's done, I certainty wouldn't hold him accountable for the BS resistance he's had to put up with from not only the Dems, but his own party.

I guess that would depend on the economy at the time. If it''s not doing great, the wall would seal the deal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If its so bad if Trump does it, why threaten to do it yourself?

What happened to "moral high ground", liberals?

To a liberal, building 50 miles of wall is moral, but for some reason, building 1,200 of wall is immoral. No.....I can't figure that out either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Mexico has invaded.

The number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants has been declining since 2007,

So does that mean we should stop efforts to halt illegal crossings?

If you live in a town where 12 women get raped a year, and you cut that down to 6 rapes a year, is that any reason to discontinue stopping them all?

 

[skews13]

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!

Imagine the green new deal on steroids. Starting with a moratorium on all new oil drilling leases. Followed by a moratorium on any new pipe line being built. Then completely eliminating all subsidies to oil companies, and redistributing that money plus some to the mandatory building of commercial solar farms, and windmill farms, and new subsides to home owners for residential solar.

followed by new laws requiring all state and private utility companies that lease right of ways to the state to incorporate the new generated current onto existing infrastructure, and to purchase any net current generated from home owners.

New regulations requiring fuel mileage on all new vehicles of a minimum of 40 miles per gallon, and laws requiring infrastructure for electric vehicles to be charged at any business that sells gasoline. Ending export tariffs on any electric vehicle manufacturer any where in the world freely export their vehicles into the US, which will force US manufacturers to make new electric vehicles here if they wish to remain solvent.

And that's just the short list for the new plan to crush the fossil fuel industry within 20 years of the declaration of the national emergency.

Don't think that can't happen?

Go for it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Clearly there is no "emergency". This is political...and it's setting a precedent that you right wingers may not like

I agree that it would be setting a precedent that NOBODY will like, if and when more statists take control.

We may have no choice. Trump is the only politicianr who at least pretends to be serious about border security.

The States may need to take matters into their own hands.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are several ways to undermine and weaken the 2nd Amendment without changing or repealing it. A national emergency is only one way. Just think of how many ways anti-choice NaziCons have undermined and weakened Roe v. Wade.

What goes around comes around.

You cannot undermine the US Constitution by declaring a national emergency. Where do you get this stuff from anyhow?

Roe v. Wade is backed by the Constitution and SCOTUS - yet it still gets undermined and weakened. BTW, the 2nd Amendment only means what SCOTUS says it means on any given day. I expect that universal background checks will become law in the near future.

Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

If you believe that abortion is undermined, then take the issue to court and see what happens. Gun rights are no different. We have liberal cities and states placing all kinds of un-constitutional regulations on guns, but until somebody challenges it in court, the rule of law stays.

If Trump was declaring a national emergency on abortion, then you'd have a point because as you stated, it's been ruled on by the Supreme Court. However illegals coming into this country is not constitutional.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clearly there is no "emergency". This is political...and it's setting a precedent that you right wingers may not like

I agree that it would be setting a precedent that NOBODY will like, if and when more statists take control.

We may have no choice. Trump is the only politicianr who at least pretends to be serious about border security.

The States may need to take matters into their own hands.

Arizona did just that, and Hussein took it to court and stopped them. Immigration is not a state issue unfortunately.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Imagine the green new deal on steroids. Starting with a moratorium on all new oil drilling leases. Followed by a moratorium on any new pipe line being built. Then completely eliminating all subsidies to oil companies, and redistributing that money plus some to the mandatory building of commercial solar farms, and windmill farms, and new subsides to home owners for residential solar.

followed by new laws requiring all state and private utility companies that lease right of ways to the state to incorporate the new generated current onto existing infrastructure, and to purchase any net current generated from home owners.

New regulations requiring fuel mileage on all new vehicles of a minimum of 40 miles per gallon, and laws requiring infrastructure for electric vehicles to be charged at any business that sells gasoline. Ending export tariffs on any electric vehicle manufacturer any where in the world freely export their vehicles into the US, which will force US manufacturers to make new electric vehicles here if they wish to remain solvent.

And that's just the short list for the new plan to crush the fossil fuel industry within 20 years of the declaration of the national emergency.

Don't think that can't happen?

Go for it.

No, I think the next Global Warming clown should do it.

This Union is shit. It needs to end. That is the kind of overreach horseshit that would do it.

.