Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NO, not an armed revolt against the United States government, you worthless dumbass, but those that support the invasion of this country by a diseased horde that is hell bent on killing US. Dont like it, then go to Cuba...Or be in the purge thatandaronjim, post: 21742159Maybe it is time that the US citizens just arm up and go after those that dont want to keep US secure.
The U.S. Is secure. The Intel Chiefs report no national security threat at the Mexican land border. Your call for an armed revolt against the United States government and its lawful citizens based upon a lie is duly noted.
Isn't that standard procedure for militant fascists?
Forgive me. But you want to legalize people to lick and ph uk the azzes of toddlers. Idiots to one issue is an agenda to another.
NO, not an armed revolt against the United States government, you worthless dumbass,
Not at all, just giving TRAITORS to this country what they deserve. You really are one stupid mother fucker....andaronjim, post: 21744465NO, not an armed revolt against the United States government, you worthless dumbass,
What did “arm up” mean? You are dumber than Trumpo. Can’t remember the things you say one day to the next.
Are you arming up with nerf guns and marshmallows?
By the way if you organize armed insurrection against the opposing members of Congress, Governors, elected leaders and all their constituents you are demanding a murderous revolt against the US, State and local governments.
I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.
The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.
The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.
Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.
LMOA, the CRA is to give congress a path to nullify executive agency regulations, not address a Presidential Emergency Declaration. Do you folks just make shit up as you go along?
.
Mitch has warned idiot Trumpo that the vote of disapproval could happen if idiot Trumpo declares a fake emergency.
Explain how you know more about this than the Senate Majority leader.
Doesn't mean people aren't dying. My point is the congress can't agree on a damn thing BUT to keep our troops in harms way.No one cares. Least of all President Trump. The only thing these CLOWNS in congress can agree on is to continue getting our military members killed in Syria and Afghanistan,sorry I don't take anything they say or do seriously or even to be legitimate.I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.
The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.
The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.
Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.
More cops are being killed on the streets in this country per week than have died in Afghanistan, Syria, or any other hot spot we're are deployed.
My daughter's unit (a regiment) is just now completing a completing a deployment to Iraq that started last summer. Casualties? Zero.
Well, the source is Daily Kooks, so.......LMOA, the CRA is to give congress a path to nullify executive agency regulations, not address a Presidential Emergency Declaration. Do you folks just make shit up as you go along?
.
If there is a vote, it won't be done under the CRA. That's not the process prescribed by law. And considering the commies aren't negotiating in good faith, I don't think you should be making any bets how a vote would turn out.Mitch has warned idiot Trumpo that the vote of disapproval could happen if idiot Trumpo declares a fake emergency.I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.
The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.
The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.
Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.
LMOA, the CRA is to give congress a path to nullify executive agency regulations, not address a Presidential Emergency Declaration. Do you folks just make shit up as you go along?
.
Explain how you know more about this than the Senate Majority leader.
If there is a vote, it won't be done under the CRA. That's not the process prescribed by law. And considering the commies aren't negotiating in good faith, I don't think you should be making any bets how a vote would turn out.Mitch has warned idiot Trumpo that the vote of disapproval could happen if idiot Trumpo declares a fake emergency.I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.
The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.
The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.
Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.
LMOA, the CRA is to give congress a path to nullify executive agency regulations, not address a Presidential Emergency Declaration. Do you folks just make shit up as you go along?
.
Explain how you know more about this than the Senate Majority leader.
I disagree with you on the CRA. I googled "resolution of disapproval" and the CRA came up. Neither the House nor the Senate could get 2/3 to override Trump's veto.
Congressional Review Act - Wikipedia
"A "joint resolution of disapproval" meeting certain criteria cannot be filibustered. For a regulation to be invalidated under the CRA, the Congressional resolution of disapproval must be either signed by the President or passed over the President's veto by two thirds of both Houses of Congress."
I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.
The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.
The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.
Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.
Nonsense. The Congressional Review Act only applies to new regulatory rules, not any action whatsoever the Executive Branch takes. A State of Emergency is not a regulatory rule.
A "resolution of disapproval" would not pass the Senate.
Just look at the "national emergencies" that Obama declared:
Here are the 28 active national emergencies - CNNPolitics
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)
The migrant and opioid crisis on the southern border requires firm action, and not with drones. Any GOP senators who vote against it will be primaried. This vote will be like for Kavanaugh.
All of the national emergencies involve foreign policy. They do not directly contradict the Constitution. Using a national emergency to build a wall directly contradicts the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Congress which is the power of the purse.
Congress intentionally delegated that authority to the president to address emergencies. He is authorized by law to move appropriated money around within the executive branch. Congress can only remove that authority by a joint resolution as prescribed by the National Emergency Act. Not the CRA.
.
A "resolution of disapproval" would not pass the Senate.
Just look at the "national emergencies" that Obama declared:
Here are the 28 active national emergencies - CNNPolitics
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)
The migrant and opioid crisis on the southern border requires firm action, and not with drones. Any GOP senators who vote against it will be primaried. This vote will be like for Kavanaugh.
All of the national emergencies involve foreign policy. They do not directly contradict the Constitution. Using a national emergency to build a wall directly contradicts the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Congress which is the power of the purse.
You are incorrect. It is not a National Emergency to build a border wall.
It is a National Emergency, to secure our entire southern border and stop
the mass invasion of illegal s-p-I-c-s into the country.
A "resolution of disapproval" would not pass the Senate.
Just look at the "national emergencies" that Obama declared:
Here are the 28 active national emergencies - CNNPolitics
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)
The migrant and opioid crisis on the southern border requires firm action, and not with drones. Any GOP senators who vote against it will be primaried. This vote will be like for Kavanaugh.
All of the national emergencies involve foreign policy. They do not directly contradict the Constitution. Using a national emergency to build a wall directly contradicts the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Congress which is the power of the purse.
Congress intentionally delegated that authority to the president to address emergencies. He is authorized by law to move appropriated money around within the executive branch. Congress can only remove that authority by a joint resolution as prescribed by the National Emergency Act. Not the CRA.
.
A law cannot override the Constitution. Hew can move money around but he cannot spend it without authorization from Congress. Conservative Republican Justin Amish tweeted
"@POTUS can’t claim emergency powers for non-emergency actions whenever Congress doesn’t legislate the way he wants,"
He is 100% right.
It's left to the president to decide what's an emergency, it's been explained how it works, believe it or not.
OKTexas, post: 21750892It's left to the president to decide what's an emergency, it's been explained how it works, believe it or not.
And if Pelosi and the House pass a resolution of disapproval the Senate will have to bring it up for a vote.
We don’t have a king who can decide something is an emergency whether it truly is or whether it is not.
The House must appropriate how the people’s money is to be spent.
You may want a king or dictator to decide things for you since freedom means nothing to you, but I’m confidant most Americans do not.
A "resolution of disapproval" would not pass the Senate.
Just look at the "national emergencies" that Obama declared:
Here are the 28 active national emergencies - CNNPolitics
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)
The migrant and opioid crisis on the southern border requires firm action, and not with drones. Any GOP senators who vote against it will be primaried. This vote will be like for Kavanaugh.
All of the national emergencies involve foreign policy. They do not directly contradict the Constitution. Using a national emergency to build a wall directly contradicts the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Congress which is the power of the purse.
You are incorrect. It is not a National Emergency to build a border wall.
It is a National Emergency, to secure our entire southern border and stop
the mass invasion of illegal s-p-I-c-s into the country.
You are incorrect. A national emergency cannot be used to build a wall without Congressional approval.
There is no invasion.
The house can pass a resolution, there's nothing that says the senate must vote on it for 6 months. That's the requirement in the law.
He does not need congressional approval to declare a National Emergency and does not need their approval to take the steps needed to handle
the emergency
