• 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!

Trump just killed the emergency act move

If the situation on the border is a genuine national emergency, why has it taken the president over two years to make this move?

Not ONE Trump supporter can answer the question, hmmm.
 
yankintx said:
If the situation on the border is a genuine national emergency, why has it taken the president over two years to make this move?

Not ONE Trump supporter can answer the question, hmmm.
Click to expand...

The lack of a secure border is certainly a crisis, but it is not an emergency. In the same way that the opioid epidemic is a crisis, but not an emergency. The border is something that needs serious attention and requires serious security to stop illegal entry. But it does not require the President to engage in insincere and unconstitutional power grabs in its pursuit. What is needed is intellectually honest politicians who can put aside their inane squabbles to sit down with one another and actually discuss what needs to be done, rather than stand on these political soap boxes to rally their bases.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
The lack of a secure border is certainly a crisis, but it is not an emergency. In the same way that the opioid epidemic is a crisis, but not an emergency. The border is something that needs serious attention and requires serious security to stop illegal entry. But it does not require the President to engage in insincere and unconstitutional power grabs in its pursuit.
Click to expand...
Well said! :thumbs:
 
AlphaOmega said:
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA...Priceless! Well then, if you are correct then Hillary would be President right now...but ya aren't...and she isn't.
Click to expand...

see, this is the kind of post you get when Republican Media masters their craft and convinces the congregation that reality really isn't reality.

Trump is massively more corrupt than Hillary ever hoped to be. i just wish this place let me bookmark posts so i could show you once Mueller and the state Attorney Generals report/file charges.

get off Rush and Hannity. it will set you free.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Thats a lie. You did not answer either question. Please stop telling lies.
Click to expand...

Really now? Just wanted to make this painfully clear to you as having been covered before anyway:

The answer to your stupid question is fifty ****ing one. I'll prove it to you:
Click to expand...

I said that. I also said this:

Under normal rules, they would need a majority that was sufficient to override a veto (though why is another question, as they would have been passing legislation he actually wanted, but we digress). That stated, I already provided you the real answer to this. That answer was reconciliation. That would have required a simple majority.
Click to expand...

If one isn't being an obtuse asshole, they would admit to understanding that the words "a simple majority" would be the same as the number 51. That, or the person simply doesn't understand whats being discussed, which I still believe is your problem.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

Guns again.

I keep asking people to tell me...and nobody has yet...what laws that are affected by the National Emergencies Act could possibly be used to confiscate guns, limit gun sales or do any of the other things that gun banners want to do? I mean, seriously, do you think the Act is a blank check? Do you think it's martial law?

It's not.

Perhaps you should bone up on exactly WHAT the National Emergencies Act is.

It most certainly isn't a "power grab".
Click to expand...
A Dem declaring a firearms related emergency cannot nullify the 2nd A, but it may involve those bits around the edges that have not been found unconstitutional. I'm speaking of things like universal background checks, waiting periods, CCW provisions, records keeping, taxation, etc.

Ceding power to the Presidency can have its negative consequences. I prefer the majority of power remain with the People (House).
 
Felis Leo said:
The lack of a secure border is certainly a crisis, but it is not an emergency. In the same way that the opioid epidemic is a crisis, but not an emergency. The border is something that needs serious attention and requires serious security to stop illegal entry. But it does not require the President to engage in insincere and unconstitutional power grabs in its pursuit. What is needed is intellectually honest politicians who can put aside their inane squabbles to sit down with one another and actually discuss what needs to be done, rather than stand on these political soap boxes to rally their bases.
Click to expand...

Hell of a show they put on though. Vince McMahon would be proud.

I say 10 million people in this country who are not supposed to be here is a major crisis. All these clowns in DC on their soap boxes need to reduce that number to a few thousand before they have accomplished their job of securing our border. All this rhetoric is a smoke screen to cover up just what a pathetic job they have done of securing our border and enforcing our laws. We need to fire every one of them and get some people in office that know how to get something done beside spreading hate.
 
Chomsky said:
A Dem declaring a firearms related emergency cannot nullify the 2nd A, but it may involve those bits around the edges that have not been found unconstitutional. I'm speaking of things like universal background checks, waiting periods, CCW provisions, records keeping, taxation, etc.

Ceding power to the Presidency can have its negative consequences. I prefer the majority of power remain with the People (House).
Click to expand...

The democrats have been chipping away at our rights way too long already. Nothing new about that. Same story new attack.
 
trouble13 said:
Dont count out the endless legal challenges coming from the fascist left

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ironic that you cheer on the authoritarian move , yet call the people who oppose it 'fascist'. It seems like some key words are now meaningless due to misuse, but do carry a loaded context.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Trump should just ignore the courts. When a district judge somewhere in Hawaii says it’s unconstitutional trump should just declare that he doesn’t re cognize the jurisdiction of a court not created by the constitution to rule on constitutional issues
Click to expand...
Geezus! :roll:

That 200 year old piece of parchment you want to ignore, is all that keeps us together. Without law, we have nothing! What the hell, EMN? You need to think your statement through, next time.
 
Chomsky said:
Geezus! :roll:

That 200 year old piece of parchment you want to ignore, is all that keeps us together. Without law, we have nothing! What the hell, EMN?
Click to expand...

The piece of parchment has been ignored for at least the last 100 years, the fact that a district court which is not even provided for in the constitution is able to rule against the president exercising a power granted by congress means the parchment. I can fill pages with actions the government routinely takes that would be unconstitutional. You yourself support candidates who openly identify with socialism, an ideology incompatible with our constitution. Why lecture me?

The constitution was supposed to protect our right to religious practice, now bakers have to submit to homosexuals who want a cake celebrating their marriage, why lecture me? Universities silence conservative speakers and professors, why lecture me? The fact is, the constitution in leftist eyes is amazing when it backs them up and they ignore it when it suits them for their ideology.

Where were you on all these issues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chomsky said:
A Dem declaring a firearms related emergency cannot nullify the 2nd A, but it may involve those bits around the edges that have not been found unconstitutional. I'm speaking of things like universal background checks, waiting periods, CCW provisions, records keeping, taxation, etc.

Ceding power to the Presidency can have its negative consequences. I prefer the majority of power remain with the People (House).
Click to expand...

There may well be a national emergency on the border once Trump grabs private property from Texan landowners for his wall. Oh there will be some standoffs, and terrible PR for the Republicans.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
The democrats have been chipping away at our rights way too long already. Nothing new about that. Same story new attack.
Click to expand...
Yeah - but it's one thing to representatively legislate, and another to rule by fiat!

Imagine a national emergency declared over voter rights? Imagine how that might go? No, this is extremely dangerous territory we're crossing here. I'm shocked you'd support it.
 
Chomsky said:
A Dem declaring a firearms related emergency cannot nullify the 2nd A, but it may involve those bits around the edges that have not been found unconstitutional. I'm speaking of things like universal background checks, waiting periods, CCW provisions, records keeping, taxation, etc.

Ceding power to the Presidency can have its negative consequences. I prefer the majority of power remain with the People (House).
Click to expand...

And ironically Trump has been returning power to congress by Not utilizing the administrative bureaucracy to create new law.

I don’t think you were preaching this when the dept of Ed and EPA were created and given quasi congressional power to make law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
yankintx said:
There may well be a national emergency on the border once Trump grabs private property from Texan landowners for his wall. Oh there will be some standoffs, and terrible PR for the Republicans.
Click to expand...
You might be right.
 
Mycroft said:
The whole point of declaring a national emergency is to what? Yep...get it done quickly.

He tried going the Congress route and they insisted on dicking around and wasting time. Trump decided that enough time is wasted. He'll just go ahead and deal with the emergency.
Click to expand...



I predict "The Wall" will not be settled until after the 2020 election, and the entire White House knows this.

You cannot deny Trump's choice of words and manner have damaged his already porous integrity. That's what happens when he opens his mouth before watching his Fax News, his retention skills are too weak, he forgets what they told him to say.

I wonder how much the court fight over this is going to cost the American taxpayer?
 
Mycroft said:
You are correct. The Act doesn't grant any President unilateral power...not even for things having to do with guns.

The Act only allows provisions in various existing laws that have to do with emergencies to be utilized. Those provisions...enacted by Congress and Presidents...are the tools Trump will use to deal with the crisis on our southern border. He will be following laws...not acting unilaterally.

So again, I ask: What laws that are affected by the National Emergencies Act could possibly be used to confiscate guns, limit gun sales or do any of the other things that gun banners want to do?

If you can't find any, then your threats of using the National Emergencies Act to do those things...or any of the other things you are threatening...are nothing but nonsense.
Click to expand...
The laws don't support Trump building the wall either. That's my point. Neither actions are supported by law. But Trump is doing one of them anyway.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The piece of parchment has been ignored for at least the last 100 years, the fact that a district court which is not even provided for in the constitution is able to rule against the president exercising a power granted by congress means the parchment. I can fill pages with actions the government routinely takes that would be unconstitutional. You yourself support candidates who openly identify with socialism, an ideology incompatible with our constitution. Why lecture me?

The constitution was supposed to protect our right to religious practice, now bakers have to submit to homosexuals who want a cake celebrating their marriage, why lecture me? Universities silence conservative speakers and professors, why lecture me? The fact is, the constitution in leftist eyes is amazing when it backs them up and they ignore it when it suits them for their ideology.

Where were you on all these issues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Look - you can try to justify your desire to ignore the rule of law, anyway you'd like. I'm not buying it. We've heard these outlaw arguments before, from those who prefer to operate outside the law.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I predict "The Wall" will not be settled until after the 2020 election, and the entire White House knows this.

You cannot deny Trump's choice of words and manner have damaged his already porous integrity. That's what happens when he opens his mouth before watching his Fax News, his retention skills are too weak, he forgets what they told him to say.

I wonder how much the court fight over this is going to cost the American taxpayer?
Click to expand...

There might not be a court fight if trump does not follow the proper procedure for declaring a national emergency

I believe the trump administration has to do the following three items:

-Submit formally to Congress a declaration of the national emergency

-Enter the declaration into the Federal Register

-Specify within the declaration which the statutory authorities the President invokes to justify the action


I don’t think trump has done any of the following
 
Cardinal said:
"Trump, questioned by @PeterAlexander, concedes there’s no national emergency to justify building his wall. “I didn’t need to do this.� “I just want to do it faster.� A gift to all the lawyers preparing to sue him."

Joyce Alene on Twitter: "Trump, questioned by @PeterAlexander, concedes there’s no national emergency to justify building his wall. “I didn’t need to do this.� “I just want to do it faster.� A gift to all the lawyers preparing to sue him."

Trump just had another "I will own the shutdown" moment, guaranteeing that an injunction will be upheld and further illustrating why Presidents use teleprompters.



DoJ lawyers watching [Trump's speech announcing a national emergency] who will have to defend the emergency decree:

OrdinaryThornyBasenji-size_restricted.gif


-Popehat

25thHat on Twitter: "DoJ lawyers watching this who will have to defend the emergency decree:… "
Click to expand...


~ ".… "...Starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, presidents asserted the power to declare emergencies without limiting their scope or duration, without citing the relevant statutes, and without congressional oversight.[8] The Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer limited what a president could do in such an emergency, but did not limit the emergency declaration power itself. A 1973 Senate investigation found (in Senate Report 93-549) that four declared emergencies remained in effect: the 1933 banking crisis with respect to the hoarding of gold,[9] a 1950 emergency with respect to the Korean War,[10] a 1970 emergency regarding a postal workers strike, and a 1971 emergency in response to inflation.[11] Many provisions of statutory law are contingent on a declaration of national emergency, as many as 500 by one count.[12] It was due in part to concern that a declaration of "emergency" for one purpose should not invoke every possible executive emergency power, that Congress in 1976 passed the National Emergencies Act. "





~ ….."The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. A joint resolution passed by both chambers requires presidential signature, giving the president veto power over the termination. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress. "...~

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia




Trump wins again.jpg
 
Chomsky said:
Look - you can try to justify your desire to ignore the rule of law, anyway you'd like. I'm not buying it. We've heard these outlaw arguments before, from those who prefer to operate outside the law.
Click to expand...

In other words, you demand my side follow the rules so your side can ignore them more. Not happening anymore. When the democrats want to voluntarily return to constitutional order I will accept that argument. In war if your side violates Geneva convention international law allows mine to retaliate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Normal bill passage: 67 votes. The reason for that is to ensure a veto-proof majority. Not likely to be needed because the legislation would be what he wanted.

Reconciliation vote: 51 votes. Simple majority. What I have been telling you for 6 posts now.

I didn't lie about anything. You just don't understand what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Just a quick point to clarify: normal bill passage in the Senate requires 60 votes to get past filibuster. It is correct 67 is needed for a veto proof majority, but that is true for vetoes of reconciliation bills as well. But your point about AlphaOmega not knowing what he is talking about is correct either way.
 
RAMOSS said:
Ironic that you cheer on the authoritarian move , yet call the people who oppose it 'fascist'. It seems like some key words are now meaningless due to misuse, but do carry a loaded context.
Click to expand...



Have a re-read of the Novel "1984".

The governing party actually have slogans like "Peace is war"; the main character works for the "Ministry of Truth"; his job is to re-write history to suit the changing wars with enemies who overnight become allies and vice versa.

In this care read Macheavelli's "The Prince" who advises the court to keep the masses afraid by inventing various "emergencies" that require military action. In such a way they can continue kidnapping able bodied men to serve in war, which they consider entertainment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom