National Emergency Gun Control

[JettaKnight]

Nancy Pelosi is taking shots at Trump saying that the border is not a national emergency... but gun violence is. She states that this declaration sets a precedent that a later Democrat President could now use to institute gun-control and other Liberal policies, bypassing the legislature.

I believe if this was possible Obama would have done it, what say you?

Not tracking - are you saying what Trump is doing "is possible", but what Nancy proposes, is not possible?

Both of those situations are not 100% certain.

Well, 100% of the spies doing recon in Hawaii were indeed Japanese. Call it racial profiling but that was the correct group to go after. I'll also add that most all of the people living in Hawaii were not Americans other than American visitors and military.

100% of the Soviet spies in America were white, so...


Side note: There's the ruins of an interment camp on the KS border not far from CO, pretty interesting spot to stop if you every find yourself leaving Pueblo and headed East...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

How does border wall equate to unconstitutional gun confiscation? One is lawful, the other isn't

It's about justification. They'll be saying the same things you're saying. It wont matter how legal it is.

 

[JettaKnight]

Democrats don't need precedents to do anything. They will do what they want and will get away with it.

Um.. just like the current president is doing right now?

 

[JettaKnight]

This central government is a clear and present danger to liberty. We are living in dangerous times.

Per your beliefs, those "dangerous times" began March 4, 1789.

 

[GIJEW]

Government accounting is complicated and fundamentally different that private sector. Basically, appropriations are dedicated to something. If Trump raids those appropriations for those things, there's no guarantee that money will then be available for those things.

For instance, the DOD has a huge pension issue. If Trump takes money for that to spend on the Wall, then it likely won't be available for veterans' pensions.

I'm not sure what resources there are out there to help understand the fiscal ramification of something like this. Well, we don't really know yet how Trump is going to use the national emergency powers to re-arrange the financial deck chairs.

Suffice to say that government budgeting is an art an science all to itself.

Understood. My point is that it's not an unconstitutional abuse of power for the executive to change spending priorities within a particular budget area. Pelosi saying that kind of action enables unconstitutional gun confiscation would be illegal and something else entirely.

 

[JettaKnight]

Just a couple of days ago it was said a HUGE 30,000 new caravan is forming and coming through the Colombian jungle and is on its way to the United States. Laura Ingraham speaks with the intelligence secretary of Guatemala to discuss a new migrant caravan.

If accurate, that alone seems like pretty good ground for declaring a national emergency. Heck, close the border completely if you have to. No more illegal immigration!

EDIT: Do you honestly think this wall will go up in time to stop the people on the border this very moment? If the emergency is right meow, then do something right meow!


If I was to use common logic found 'round these parts (You know, false flag, manufactured crisis, do whatever it takes to push an agenda), I'd say that Trump was the one paying these folks to join the caravan coming to America.


But no, it can't be, only Democrats do that, Republicans are magically immune to those shenanigans.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

We must do the wall one way or the other.

We must feel safe by any means necessary.

 

[GIJEW]

It's about justification. They'll be saying the same things you're saying. It wont matter how legal it is.

No.

I said that the president has LAWFUL authority to change allocation of funds within a given budget--like for securing the border, and national security is something both the president and congress have a CONSTITUTIONAL obligation to provide.

Democrat's aspiring to disarm the public is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore ILLEGAL.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm not sure the courts will rule against Trump on this.

Serious question: Isn't that how despotic regimes start? Stack the court with sycophants, then start making laws and the courts stand by and respond:

(PS sorry for the binge posting, just trying to catch up)

 

[digitalphoenix]

Sadly, the 2nd’s community just isn’t vigilant enough and it may end up going through. Even the majority of gun owners still think the NRA is on their side.
Not looking good.

 

[Ingomike]

All this discussion is caused by the abdication of duties by Congress. As I look over the list of emergency orders, all should have been passed by congress. Instead congress gave this power to the President, if Congress does not like it, they can just take it back by reversing the 1976 law that allows the President to do this.

Like him or loathe him DJT is exposing a lot of the laziness and failures of Congress over the years.

MM

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump, just now:

"I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster."

Doesn't sound like much of an emergency. Sounds more like wanting to get something done before 2020 so you can check off another campaign promise.

Yes, he can... but this isn't what national emergencies were intended for. Just leaves a bad taste that might come back to bite us.

 

[Ingomike]

Serious question: Isn't that how despotic regimes start? Stack the court with sycophants, then start making laws and the courts stand by and respond:

(PS sorry for the binge posting, just trying to catch up)

The ability to do this was passed by Congress, not any type of usurpation.

MM

 

[Ingomike]

Trump, just now:

"I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster."

Doesn't sound like much of an emergency. Sounds more like wanting to get something done before 2020 so you can check off another campaign promise.

Yes, he can... but this isn't what national emergencies were intended for. Just leaves a bad taste that might come back to bite us.

What is the law intended for?

MM

 

[Ingomike]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693


Here are the 31 in effect.


MM

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What is the law intended for?

MM

Probably not fulfilling campaign promises with dubious reasoning.

But I don't know, I wasn't there when they wrote it. Could be wrong.

 

[JettaKnight]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693


Here are the 31 in effect.


MM

Other than the few dealing with Iraq & 9/11, I don't see any that have anywhere near the magnitude of this. Almost all are either "blocking property" or sanctions.

I really don't see a problem here. I do see the most current one being a very clear "One of these thing is not the other..." on Sesame Street.

 

[Ingomike]

Probably not fulfilling campaign promises with dubious reasoning.

But I don't know, I wasn't there when they wrote it. Could be wrong.

Do you think that 12 million people that have invaded the US without permission is a dubious reason?

MM

 

[Ingomike]

Other than the few dealing with Iraq & 9/11, I don't see any that have anywhere near the magnitude of this. Almost all are either "blocking property" or sanctions.

I really don't see a problem here. I do see the most current one being a very clear "One of these thing is not the other..." on Sesame Street.

Then should Congress do their job and rescind this law?

MN

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The essential problem with the widespread notion that Trump is declaring an emergency when there is no emergency is this:

Emergency isnt typically defined in relevant law, presidents've always had discretion to decide if there’s an emergency, & they’ve often declared emergencies under circumstances short of necessity, to address a real problem but not an emergency as understood in common parlance.

As Koh and Yoo put it (and this has not changed in the three decades since they wrote): “Presidents “have declared national emergencies with little regard to whether a real emergency has actually existed.”

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.ed...om/&httpsredir=1&article=1589&context=facpubs

So as we have seen many times in the last two years, Trump is building on very broad congressional delegations and past presidential practices.

But Trump makes what he is doing seem, and in reality be, much worse because he suggests openly that there is no real emergency (“I didn’t need to do this”), instead of (as past presidents did) hiding the ball or using more effective rhetoric in a less divisive context.

Here as elsewhere, Trump hurts himself – legally if not otherwise – by his lack of hypocrisy.

As in many contexts, Trump by his willingness to push the envelope, combined with his shamelessness and lack of hypocrisy, shines the brightest of lights on how much power Congress has given away, and how much extraordinary power presidents have amassed.

Definitely not wrong about that last line. He's doing it because he can, not because it's right. I guess it goes back to the 2016 idea of "burn it all down" that many here cherished.

https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/1096454014328324096