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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...precedent.html
By Carol Brown ~~ Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here). Really?
A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future. To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.
The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.
Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.
~~~~~~
Hmm..., " Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land". Who said that? Well, it wasn't a Republican that said those words.
It appears that the more they fight it, the more Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats and friends the RINOs prove themselves to be lawless supporters of criminals who want America to be overrun and destroyed. How many Americans really support that view? Some, but not most.
The Constitution does not give Congress or Courts rights to interfere into President's actions to secure US border. The president does not need 'State of Emergency' to build the 'Wall' on the border.
According to the article, there are approximately States of Emergency declared by George W. Bush '43' declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN. Trump's States of Emergency So far, the president has declared three national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, according to the Brennan Center.
IMO, there are at least 2 sources outside of the US budget. Money the US government has confiscated from criminals are not in a budget and can be used to secure US.
Then the US Government can impose fees and fines for certain business activity, which are not in a budget and can be used to secure US. Additionally, Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to various national security related departments and I am sure that Pentagon can survive if some of the troops training would be done not deep inside US territory, but on a construction of the Wall.
Trump using emergency powers to build the wall does not necessarily create a bad precedent. As soon as we elect a democrat, he can use emergency powers to tear it down in order to protect migrating wildlife.
Or confiscate firearms.
I mean thanks for admitting that you want to confiscate firearms, but even a national emergency can't do away with the second amendment.
Though it is true that a Democratic President has actually removed the rights of American's via Executive Order once before so this would not be a precedent
Trump using emergency powers to build the wall does not necessarily create a bad precedent. As soon as we elect a democrat, he can use emergency powers to tear it down in order to protect migrating wildlife.
Or confiscate firearms.
I mean thanks for admitting that you want to confiscate firearms, but even a national emergency can't do away with the second amendment.
Though it is true that a Democratic President has actually removed the rights of American's via Executive Order once before so this would not be a precedent
Oh?
More like 22 million illegals.
Hey you're only off by a factor of 2. Damn good by Trumper standards. 11 million and a bunch of them have worked for TRUMP for years
Oh and I wonder how you're going to feel when President Harris declares an emergency because (for instance) we have had 25 mass shootings in the first month of 2019 and wants executive action to address guns when Congress won't do it...
Eh?
Trump using emergency powers to build the wall does not necessarily create a bad precedent. As soon as we elect a democrat, he can use emergency powers to tear it down in order to protect migrating wildlife.
Or confiscate firearms.
I mean thanks for admitting that you want to confiscate firearms, but even a national emergency can't do away with the second amendment.
Though it is true that a Democratic President has actually removed the rights of American's via Executive Order once before so this would not be a precedent
Oh?
Are you prepared to argue that a Democratic President has not ever removed the rights of Americans via EO?
Trump using emergency powers to build the wall does not necessarily create a bad precedent. As soon as we elect a democrat, he can use emergency powers to tear it down in order to protect migrating wildlife.
Or confiscate firearms.
I mean thanks for admitting that you want to confiscate firearms, but even a national emergency can't do away with the second amendment.
Though it is true that a Democratic President has actually removed the rights of American's via Executive Order once before so this would not be a precedent
Oh?
Are you prepared to argue that a Democratic President has not ever removed the rights of Americans via EO?
/——/ Maybe if you bitter, angry, sore losers would stop nipping at his ankles and get the hell out of the way- he’d have gotten to it sooner."Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades."This is a National Emergency, there's no question.
You are being bombarded by thousands a day, criminals just planning to make money in the USA and the Mexican government unwilling or unable to stop it.
Build the wall, protect your sovereignty and citizens safety.
Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades.
We have over 11 million illegals in this country right now. They are costing we the tax payer billions every year.
They have killed American citizens and need to be booted the hell out of the US.
If it was such an emergency why is Drumpf just now addressing it after 2 years?
Trump using emergency powers to build the wall does not necessarily create a bad precedent. As soon as we elect a democrat, he can use emergency powers to tear it down in order to protect migrating wildlife.
Or confiscate firearms.
I mean thanks for admitting that you want to confiscate firearms, but even a national emergency can't do away with the second amendment.
Though it is true that a Democratic President has actually removed the rights of American's via Executive Order once before so this would not be a precedent
Oh?
Are you prepared to argue that a Democratic President has not ever removed the rights of Americans via EO?
Are you prepared to argue that there is actually an “emergency”?
/——/ Maybe if you bitter, angry, sore losers would stop nipping at his ankles and get the hell out of the way- he’d have gotten to it sooner."Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades."This is a National Emergency, there's no question.
You are being bombarded by thousands a day, criminals just planning to make money in the USA and the Mexican government unwilling or unable to stop it.
Build the wall, protect your sovereignty and citizens safety.
Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades.
We have over 11 million illegals in this country right now. They are costing we the tax payer billions every year.
They have killed American citizens and need to be booted the hell out of the US.
If it was such an emergency why is Drumpf just now addressing it after 2 years?
So youre saying he is too weak to concentrate on an national emergency?/——/ Maybe if you bitter, angry, sore losers would stop nipping at his ankles and get the hell out of the way- he’d have gotten to it sooner."Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades."This is a National Emergency, there's no question.
You are being bombarded by thousands a day, criminals just planning to make money in the USA and the Mexican government unwilling or unable to stop it.
Build the wall, protect your sovereignty and citizens safety.
Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades.
We have over 11 million illegals in this country right now. They are costing we the tax payer billions every year.
They have killed American citizens and need to be booted the hell out of the US.
If it was such an emergency why is Drumpf just now addressing it after 2 years?
Trump had a "pen and a phone" so the only question is: how many democrat leaders will be on the south side of the Wall?Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...precedent.html
By Carol Brown ~~ Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here). Really?
A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future. To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.
The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.
Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.
~~~~~~
Hmm..., " Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land". Who said that? Well, it wasn't a Republican that said those words.
It appears that the more they fight it, the more Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats and friends the RINOs prove themselves to be lawless supporters of criminals who want America to be overrun and destroyed. How many Americans really support that view? Some, but not most.
The Constitution does not give Congress or Courts rights to interfere into President's actions to secure US border. The president does not need 'State of Emergency' to build the 'Wall' on the border.
According to the article, there are approximately States of Emergency declared by George W. Bush '43' declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN. Trump's States of Emergency So far, the president has declared three national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, according to the Brennan Center.
IMO, there are at least 2 sources outside of the US budget. Money the US government has confiscated from criminals are not in a budget and can be used to secure US.
Then the US Government can impose fees and fines for certain business activity, which are not in a budget and can be used to secure US. Additionally, Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to various national security related departments and I am sure that Pentagon can survive if some of the troops training would be done not deep inside US territory, but on a construction of the Wall.
Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...precedent.html
By Carol Brown ~~ Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here). Really?
A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future. To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.
The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.
Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.
~~~~~~
Hmm..., " Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land". Who said that? Well, it wasn't a Republican that said those words.
It appears that the more they fight it, the more Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats and friends the RINOs prove themselves to be lawless supporters of criminals who want America to be overrun and destroyed. How many Americans really support that view? Some, but not most.
The Constitution does not give Congress or Courts rights to interfere into President's actions to secure US border. The president does not need 'State of Emergency' to build the 'Wall' on the border.
According to the article, there are approximately States of Emergency declared by George W. Bush '43' declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN. Trump's States of Emergency So far, the president has declared three national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, according to the Brennan Center.
IMO, there are at least 2 sources outside of the US budget. Money the US government has confiscated from criminals are not in a budget and can be used to secure US.
Then the US Government can impose fees and fines for certain business activity, which are not in a budget and can be used to secure US. Additionally, Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to various national security related departments and I am sure that Pentagon can survive if some of the troops training would be done not deep inside US territory, but on a construction of the Wall.
Dims usually are the ones to set a bad precedent. I reckon they feel cheated.
I can just hear them as they use emergency powers to invoke something like AOC's socialists Green plan, "Trump did it!" as if they justifies everything.
Hilarious.
/——/ Not me, I think Obama was born in Area 51 and wet nursed by Hillary. Settled science./——/ Maybe if you bitter, angry, sore losers would stop nipping at his ankles and get the hell out of the way- he’d have gotten to it sooner."Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades."This is a National Emergency, there's no question.
You are being bombarded by thousands a day, criminals just planning to make money in the USA and the Mexican government unwilling or unable to stop it.
Build the wall, protect your sovereignty and citizens safety.
Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades.
We have over 11 million illegals in this country right now. They are costing we the tax payer billions every year.
They have killed American citizens and need to be booted the hell out of the US.
If it was such an emergency why is Drumpf just now addressing it after 2 years?
Coming from the low-class losers like yourself who still think Obama was born in Africa…your anger means little.
/——/ Happy hour at the corner dive bar? 2 PBRs for the price of 1?Cocaine Mitch was driving the car and Dastardly Donald was in the baby seat next to him honking the horn and playing with the plastic wheel and Mitch was like: "you're driving us buddy", and told him he could drive us into a ditch, but then Cocaine Mitch went to the grocery store.
unpopular wall. unpopular shutdown. unpopular president. Dastardly Donald had nowhere to go. of course he was gonna cave!
Yeah yeah. I've heard all the horror stories but it still doesnt explain why its suddenly an emergency.I'm not worried. I'm just pointing out the fact that its not an emergency if you wait 2 years to decide its an emergency.He would have declared it an emergency because thats what he is saying now that the Dems have the house. If he had a good chance why did he wait 2 years to decide its an emergency?
LMAO He hasn't declared it an emergency yet. And I wouldn't worry about it until and if he does.
These illegals cost us billions in tax dollars every year.
They kill American citizens every year.
They mule drugs into the country every year.
They work under the table and bring wages down every year.
If you don't believe these assholes are an emergency then you are a fool.
Because it is not.
An emergency is, by definition, something that happens.
An emergency is not, by definition, something that can be predicted
/——/ We reject your false narrativethe shutdown that trump created by creating a phony crisis, actually created one real crisis after another
Ok...if you want to go with that number consider that it DOUBLES the number of people we would have to remove.More like 22 million illegals.
Hey you're only off by a factor of 2. Damn good by Trumper standards. 11 million and a bunch of them have worked for TRUMP for years
Oh and I wonder how you're going to feel when President Harris declares an emergency because (for instance) we have had 25 mass shootings in the first month of 2019 and wants executive action to address guns when Congress won't do it...
Eh?
Yale and MIT estimate that it's 22 million illegals.
Yale, MIT study: 22 million, not 11 million, undocumented immigrants in US
