• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Future "National Emergencies" from the left

MrShangles said:
Oh, the front door thingy doesn’t fit into your narrative? Sure we got some RINOs but we cleared out some during the midterms, so if you’re holding your breath hoping for some miracle Republican boycott of Trump, that isn’t gonna happen, we finally got Republicans behind Trump, and looks like Trump s fixing to get another SC pick so he definitely has the SC support.
Was that what you wanted me to discuss?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't have a narrative, and I wasn't talking about my door. I was talking about the declaration of a national emergency and the impact it would have on the Republican Party.

Pay attention.
 
haymarket said:
It is ironic that so called LIBERTARIANS and members of things like the LIBERTY or FREEDOM CAUCUS would be the cheerleaders for this unconstitutional expansion of executive power which rapes the US Constitution.

They and their hollow claims about freedom and liberty and rights are as phony as a three dollar bill with a picture of Pee Wee Herman on one side and a whoopee cushion on the other.
Click to expand...

1976 democrats put this rule in for a president, so how could it be an unconstitutional expansion of executive powers? Was it only there for a democrat president?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
The democrats wanted wanted this law in 1976 so sit back and let a grownup handle things
Click to expand...

And to you, Trump is a grown up?



You must live in one sad sad community if Trump represents how a grown up behaves. No wonder you support him.
 
Welp...if this is how it's going to be then this is how it's going to be. I look forward to the next Democratic President declaring a National Emergency after the next mass shooting and enacting the most stringent gun control policy, per executive powers. I also look forward to him or her declaring a National Emergency and shutting down all coal plants and fracking operations, and enacting the most stringent carbon emissions standards for automobiles.

**** Congress.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Lots of things could have happened but what is happening are thousands of illegal border crossings per month. That, of course, begs the question: if thousands of illegal immigrants attempting entry (most of which are stopped and deported) are a national emergency then what are many millions of illegal immigrants already inside the US (most of which are never deported)?
Click to expand...

The point being this wasn't a "crisis" or "National Emergency" When both houses of congress and the Presidency were Republican controlled. It only became a "crisis" when the Dems took the house. Sorry but courts do look at things like that. Trump is the little boy who cried "crisis". Trump is throwing a temper tantrum and the world is laughing at the US for it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
As has already been said...declaring an emergency does not allow POTUS to change law. He/she can temporarily suspend it, but he/she cannot change it.

So, while the POTUS could use an emergency to build say... a 50 sq mile wind turbine field they could not change the law imposing a carbon tax on everyone.

This is all assuming that such a POTUS is able to prove to the courts that such a declaration of emergency would fall under one of the existing provisions in the law that allows for such an emergency to be called of course.

Plus Congress can at any time disagree with and suspend/end any POTUS's declaration of emergency with a simple vote and the Presidents signature or with a 2/3rds vote that would override the Presidents Veto power. This can happen even now if Trump declares an Emergency and the courts upheld it.
Click to expand...

There is no real EMERGENCY to declare. So the whole this is a farce built on a ruse constructed on a lie.
 
tres borrachos said:
I still want to know why this wasn't called a national crisis or a national emergency before the Democrats took control of the House.

Why didn't Jim Jordan declare this a national emergency in September of 2017 and demand that the President pull this stunt then?

I'm also not saying that the Democrats aren't doing this for political reasons. They are. And that's their right. But for people (aka The Citizens of Trump Fan Nation) to be so dishonest that they refuse to ask themselves that question shows that this is about politics on both sides.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is no more an emergency that any other routine proposal for a spending bill.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Blame Congress for enacting the Emergency Powers act in the 70's. :shrug:

I've said for years now that Congress has abdicated too many of its powers to the executive branch. Do you believe me now?
Click to expand...

A true EMERGENCY is one thing. This farce sham is a horse of a different color. There is no such EMERGENCY for Trump to declare.
 
Lutherf said:
A liberal Democrat already used this type of authority to lock up 100,000 or so Japanese Americans. I can definitely see another liberal Democrat doing something similar.

What should stick out as different between the wall and, for example, an EO regarding gun confiscation, is that in the first case the EO is being used to protect the rights of US citizens and in the second it's being used to take rights away. Should an EO be used to take away the rights of citizens I would hope that there would be a massive uprising against it. The fact that there was no such uprising in 1942, however, is troubling.
Click to expand...

Really!?!?!?!? How many property owners will lose their property rights because of this phony EMERGENCY?
 
MrShangles said:
1976 democrats put this rule in for a president, so how could it be an unconstitutional expansion of executive powers? Was it only there for a democrat president?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is there for actual EMERGENCIES like a hurricane or massive fires. This bogus border issue is not an emergency.
 
haymarket said:
It is there for actual EMERGENCIES like a hurricane or massive fires. This bogus border issue is not an emergency.
Click to expand...

Also, if this was TRULY a CRISIS, why does he not have all the available guard units in the US down there at the border right now? I mean ALL of them, this is a "crisis" after all right?
 
haymarket said:
If Trump declares his national emergency over border security and it is supported by the Republicans who simply want to give Trump a way out of the hopeless corner he has painted himself into and it is held up by the Courts - what happens down the road when a liberal Democrat is President and decides to pull the same measure regarding an issue like climate change or gun policy or something that Republicans are not eager to accede to? If a Court has already stated that the President indeed has the powers Trump claims, what is to stop future presidents from using them to effectively seriously weaken the powers of Congress in these areas?

And given this argument, how can Republicans in Congress stand by and encourage Trump to do this and not loudly object to it?

Is the momentary benefit to Trump so important that they would risk the very powers of the Congress as established by the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Gun ownership is protected by The Constitution. Go ahead and use emergency powers to nullify The Constitution and see what happens.
 
apdst said:
Gun ownership is protected by The Constitution. Go ahead and use emergency powers to nullify The Constitution and see what happens.
Click to expand...

What will happen?
 
haymarket said:
So the wall only be built on government owned land and will have no impact on private land use?
Click to expand...

The land owners will continue to use there's land as they have been. Nothing will be stopping them.
 
apdst said:
Only a few feet that borders another country. At the end of the day those big ranches owned by ruch people that are made up of thousands of acres will still be made up of thousands of acres.
Click to expand...

So property IS being taken, I'm right and you're not. Deal with the facts, this is why your comments are nothing but a joke to the forum and people laugh at you.
 
Praxas said:
So property IS being taken, I'm right and you're not. Deal with the facts, this is why your comments are nothing but a joke to the forum and people laugh at you.
Click to expand...

It's no different than when property is bought to be used for a road. The land owners will be compensated. Is property being "taken"? No, the property will be purchased. And the land owners will still have thousands of acres that they own.
 
Praxas said:
The point being this wasn't a "crisis" or "National Emergency" When both houses of congress and the Presidency were Republican controlled. It only became a "crisis" when the Dems took the house. Sorry but courts do look at things like that. Trump is the little boy who cried "crisis". Trump is throwing a temper tantrum and the world is laughing at the US for it.
Click to expand...

I agree, the true "crisis/emergency" is the lack of adequate interior immigration law enforcement. Expecting about 6K ICE/ERO agents to round up and deport between 12M and 20M illegal immigrants scattered throughout the entire US interior is mission impossible. Perhaps it's time to enlist the help of state/local LEOs by offering them federal bounties for each illegal immigrant turned over to federal immigration agents.
 
apdst said:
It's no different than when property is bought to be used for a road. The land owners will be compensated. Is property being "taken"? No, the property will be purchased. And the land owners will still have thousands of acres that they own.
Click to expand...

Oh yes and as we all know the federal government is ALWAYS fair in "purchasing" property at FAIR values right? Gimme a break. My point stands. Theft under Eminent Domain is still theft. If I go to your house and say I'm taking your brand new corvette but giving you the fair price of $35K, that wouldn't be theft using your logic right?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The national emergency statutes do not permit the president to change law, it permits the president to do certain things including the construction of military facilities and fortifications. I guess the president can order the military to construct bulletproof doors in schools or seawalls for climate change, but a declaration of national emergency does not give the executive unilateral lawmaking authority
Click to expand...

Which is haymarket’s point. The country is not facing a national emergency at the border and will not be facing one because the president says so. If Trump gets away with a phony NE, it will set a bad precedent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom