This_person
Well-Known Member
You don't expect him to explain how Trump is doing something Trump isn't doing, do you?
He just is spouting the talking points without any concept that there's nothing behind them.
2020 Dems make it clear if Supreme Court upholds Trump emergency declaration, they’ll go after guns
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
He just is spouting the talking points without any concept that there's nothing behind them.
I'll that as "I got nuthin'" Your usual response. Carry on.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
whats that derpy?
LtownTaxpayer
Active Member
Nope. The President is exercising his constitutional authority to take care of a matter that he deems a national emergency. It is directly from the law that Congress passed in 1976. He isn't removing any authority from them. He is addressing an immediate need. Besides he isn't even increasing the amount of money up to what congress had previously voted on but never followed through on the appropriations act. And the only money affected by this emergency declaration is the military construction money. The rest is already within his authority to move. This President gets things done - which is antithetical to how Washington, DC usually works.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You just explained reality (I would disagree that he is "get[ting] things done" when he's risking 1/3 of MILCON money, which is already grossly underfunded, but that's a whole separate issue), and reality and MidnightSpanker are like oil and water.
Toxick
Splat
I'm no Student of Law by any means, however, I don't think precedent could possibly be applicable as you describe. The Second Amendment is an expressed guarantee, enumerated in the Bill of Rights in The Constitution of the United States of America. I don't think the Bill of Rights can simply be overridden in the case of an Emergency or even Martial Law.
Emergency declarations, as they are, have been administered by how many recent Presidents - six? Seven? What Trump is doing is not so drastically different that the declarations of those guys. In all of those cases, none of the Bill of Rights have been dismissed or overridden as far as I'm aware - Not even by Trump's thing.
However, if Democrats are successful in their promise to spite Trump by allowing an Emergency Declaration override Constitutional Guarantees, you may as well consider the United States a ****ing gulag. Because you can bet your ass that Freedom of Speech, Due Process and the like will be disappeared faster than you can say "Freedom is Slavery" and Cruel and Unusual Punishment will be administered faster than you can say "Do it to Julia"
That I can pretty much damn well guarantee.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
how many emergencies have been declared where the congress not only didn't support it, but directly voted not to fund it?
a student of law would know that the constitution gives the power of the pursestrings to the house of reps. Therefore any declaration that takes that power away from the house violates article 1 of the constitution. If a president can violate the constitution via a national emergency then clearly he can similarly violate a ammendment.
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
So this is your answer as to how, exactly?
Because alot of us here want to see how you twist this one into something to laugh at
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
its explained in the post immediately before yours.
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
Hey, this is a serious question...
Are you actually getting dumber with each passing day?
Your answers tell me YES, you are definitely intellectually regressing...
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
Oh ok....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Got dam you are friggin stupid!!!
It's answers such as yours that actually make me appreciate AOC's intelligence!!
It must be maddening for him. He's an efficient workaholic who knows how to make a decision. Congress, on the other hand, piddles around doing pretty much nothing of worth, and it takes forever for them to decide on even the most slam dunk mundane issue. "I'm sorry, we must first hold hearings to determine if we should take a vote to take a vote, then we must hold more hearings in order to take that vote. Everybody get your 3 hour speeches ready because this is very important government work....we'll be ready in a couple of years."
This is why working on committees is so frustrating, especially when you have a weak leader who lets everyone run amok. Unfortunately, the President has no real leadership over Congress and it's up to the majority leaders to herd their cats, and they're just as do-nothing "vote to vote" as those they're supposed to be leading.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Toxick
Splat
Dunno.
You don't have to be student of Law to know that. I am not a Lawyer or Judge, but I have read the Constitution. I know they hold the purse strings but surely you see the difference between diverting money - in particular military money by the Commander In Chief (constitutionally charged with national security and defense) - and summarily quashing rights granted to The People.
That said - I am against this so called National Emergency. Not for the same reasons as you, clearly - but I'm not hot-to-trot for arguing in favor of either the wall or protecting this emergency. I'm not a big fan of the wall either. I can see why Republicans and Trump want it, but I'm lukewarm on the idea, at best.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Is it your contention that 50 U.S. Code § 1621 is unconstitutional law? If so, when did SCOTUS declare that?
Any idea why Congress did not challenge the legal authority of the president to declare the emergency? (HINT: It's because it was within the authority Congress abdicated to the Executive branch).
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
zero. this would be the first emergency that was declared over the objections of the congress.
I see both as clear violations of the costitution. They also both quash the rights of the people. Who do you think voted for all those representatives who voted no on the funding?
Same ones who voted for all the representatives that are busy passing all sorts of new anti-gun legislation?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Is it your contention that 50 U.S. Code § 1621 is unconstitutional law?
If so, why didn't Congress declare the 43 year old law as the reason Trump must rescind his declaration of emergency instead of simply following the law through their (so far failed) attempt to declare the emergency terminated?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
yep, and if we IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION they just might get that crap done.
You see how that works Mo. The constitution is there for a reason. It is not a fair weather document that you only heed when the otherside is in power.