Trump is rocking it!

[mmpsteve]

Mistakes happen, I'm prone to them too.

Yes, yes you are, as we all are. And may I point out, it's a sign of grace to overlook an obvious typo, when the meaning of the post is obvious, in spite of the misstatement?

p.s.: I got your point also the 1st time around.

.

 

[cbhausen]

Yes, yes you are, as we all are. And may I point out, it's a sign of grace to overlook an obvious typo, when the meaning of the post is obvious, in spite of the misstatement?

p.s.: I got your point also the 1st time around.

.

Well said. Kind of like that could vs. couldn’t care less phrase. I got Ziggidy’s drift despite the phraseology. Kut’s taking advantage of the wording was... ungracious. Yeah, that’s it.

 

[cbhausen]

I'm actually prouder that you got it too!

Why? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[bwframe]

Still waiting on the nevertrump presidential alternative for 2020.

Come on, the enemy already has dozens of candidates, with dozens more possibly on deck.



Find someone we can get behind to vote that horrible do nothing, wall building, gun grabbing, Trump out of office.

Come on...



.

 

[cbhausen]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think that happened under Trump. And yes, odds are that the ATF took it upon themselves to re-evaluate the accessory. The difference, IMO, is that we hadn't heard a thing about the BATFE doing anything about bumpstocks, until after Las Vegas, and the president made a comment about doing "something." So at the very least, if he didn't directly order the ban one bump stocks (which I, personally, think he did), he gave them the opportunity, through his words, to look into the matter.

Agreed. I don’t think we would have a bump stock ban if it wasn’t for Trump directing BATFE to ban them. Hopefully Trump gets slapped down in the courts over this. And to be consistent, although I agree we need a wall on the southern border this needs to be done by Congress as well. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[mmpsteve]

Agreed. I don’t think we would have a bump stock ban if it wasn’t for Trump directing BATFE to ban them. Hopefully Trump gets slapped down in the courts over this. And to be consistent, although I agree we need a wall on the southern border this needs to be done by Congress as well. You can’t have it both ways.

Maybe you didn't see this? Does the President not have an obligation to protect our borders, constitutionally speaking?

 

[cbhausen]

I’ve been torn over the issue but the more I think about it the more I want to see the power of this and subsequent presidents limited. I feel betrayed by Trump over the bumpstock issue and I’m not in the mood to cut him any breaks at the moment.

 

[two70]

You can make everything be what you want by applying trivial technicalities for why something has to be the way you want.

Oh no, Trump's executive action isn't the egregious usurping of executive Power that Obama's was because blah, blah, blah, technicality, blah, blah blah.

C'mon. Think about it. Could it be that you think Obama's executive actions were egregious because they were opposed to your ideological side, and that overstepping executive authority really wasn't the reason? Do you really support Trump's use of executive actions because you want those things done? Is by any means necessary more justified when it's something you support? And it's only wrong when it accomplishes something you don't support?

Maybe when the next democrat is in office and employs a by-any-means-necessary strategy, you can once again see the principles which makes that wrong.

It is even easier to make everything be what you want by selectively ignoring differences that don't support your position. Labeling those differences as trivial or technicalities may help you feel better about ignoring them but it doesn't make for honest discussion. Such labeling is frequently intended to preclude actual discussion.

EOs should be judged by how they fit with the Constitution and to a much lesser extent, current law. Without getting into the weeds of each and every EO by every president and whether or not they were within bounds or an over extension of Executive Powers, it is not going out on a limb to conclude that no president ever batted a perfect 1000 or 0 and that trends exist when that metric is applied. Call it ideological if you like but that's really no different than how Laws are typically judged. Considering the limited scope and duration of EOs compared to Laws or even the bureaucratic rule making process that occurs during and after the enactment of Laws, the ado over most EOs seems overblown. We have 3 co-equal branches of government to settle these issues and elections to make changes if we don't like the results.

Democrats in office always employ a "by any means we can possibly get away with" strategy and when they are not in office they always employ a "you better not do that or when we get back in office we'll make it worse for you" strategy. When has a Democrat in office ever actually shown restraint? Instead, when Democrats are in control they wield their power like a club and when they are not in control they do everything possible to limit Republicans from exercising their power. Republicans are the ones that practice restraint and that restraint is a large part of why the Democrats have managed to bring us to where we are today.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why? Inquiring minds want to know.

No, I don't think you are dumb. It was just a comment that many simply would gloss over.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe you didn't see this? Does the President not have an obligation to protect our borders, constitutionally speaking?

How many times did Obama declare a national emergency, after Congress explicitly denied enacting the solution eventually taken by the president.
Hint: using whole numbers, it's less than one.

 

[mmpsteve]

How many times did Obama declare a national emergency, after Congress explicitly denied enacting the solution eventually taken by the president.
Hint: using whole numbers, it's less than one.

That's a fair question, but congress denying the President his solution does not implicitly limit Presidential powers granted by the constitution; that's just what the Dems would have you believe. In other words, he doesn't need their permission slip to use constitutionally enumerated power.

.

 

[bwframe]

Maybe you didn't see this? Does the President not have an obligation to protect our borders, constitutionally speaking?

Says a lot...

 

[cbhausen]

No, I don't think you are dumb. It was just a comment that many simply would gloss over.

It’s all good.

 

[BigRed]

I would suggest looking at what he has done not said, he spouts a lot of BS, but has done few of them...

MM

He requested a bumpstock ban under which property owners are forced to destroy their property without due process and without compensation.

 

[cbhausen]

He requested a bumpstock ban under which property owners are forced to destroy their property without due process and without compensation.

He sold us out on this issue after promising to “...never let us down.” How can he be trusted the next time some nut job pulls off another spectacular mass shooting? I can’t trust him anymore. I only have one vote and if it comes down to it I will vote for him again but I really hope at this point an electable true conservative or libertarian emerges.

 

[Fargo]

That's a fair question, but congress denying the President his solution does not implicitly limit Presidential powers granted by the constitution; that's just what the Dems would have you believe. In other words, he doesn't need their permission slip to use constitutionally enumerated power.

.

I am curious what the constitutionally enumerated power you are referring to is?

 

[BugI02]

The constitutionally enumerated power of previous congresses to propose a bill ceding their authority to the executive; which, when signed into law by the contemporaneous president, makes plenary power available to future presidents?

 

[mmpsteve]

I am curious what the constitutionally enumerated power you are referring to is?

Apparently, I may have misspoke, as to Constitutionally enumerated: the quote below describes that the power came from Congress itself, and that Congress could undo any emergency declaration, but that it would be difficult. This from the Washington Examiner:

The Constitution applies equally to Obama and Trump. But to enlarge our border walls, Trump refers to a law enacted in 1976 and previously used by other presidents. The National Emergencies Act, found in law books at 50 U.S.Code 1601–1651, empowers a president to bypass the usual legislative processes by declaring a national emergency. This catch-all provision replaced hundreds of prior laws whereby Congress gave special emergency authority to the chief executive.Once he declares an emergency, a companion statute, 10 U.S. Code 2808, says the president can create military construction projects, using funds originally intended for other military projects such as a $10-billion account that Congress approved last September. That money involves the Army Corps of Engineers, with its military and civilian workforce of 37,000 people, which is why a border wall might become a military project.
The law does not specify what qualifies as a national emergency. Instead, its “safeguard” is that Congress can reverse any presidential declaration they disapprove. But undoing a potential Trump declaration likely would require a two-thirds supermajority in both the House and Senate to override a certain White House veto.

And the thread to the link:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/congress-already-gave-trump-the-power-to-build-the-wall

.

 

[Fargo]

The constitutionally enumerated power of previous congresses to propose a bill ceding their authority to the executive; which, when signed into law by the contemporaneous president, makes plenary power available to future presidents?

When the Constitution gives certain powers to an exclusive branch of government, like the power over immigration or the power over appropriations, you don’t get to change that by statute.

It is as if John Roberts decided to grant the supreme court’s authority to the president.

If you want to change the constitution, there’s a process for that laid out in the document itself.

 

[2A_Tom]

I am curious what the constitutionally enumerated power you are referring to is?

The constitutionally enumerated power of previous congresses to propose a bill ceding their authority to the executive; which, when signed into law by the contemporaneous president, makes plenary power available to future presidents?

^^^THIS^^^

If congress does not like the law that their predecessors enacted they can propose to change it.

I believe a lot of people here including me complained when the the congress ceded power to the last President. I did not say that this particular law was enacted by those congresses.