Pelosi on Border Emergency Declaration: Dems Can Declare Policy Emergencies, Too

[GURPS]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters today that filing a legal challenge is "an option, and we'll review our options."

"But it's important to note that when the president declares this emergency, first of all, it's not an emergency, what's happening at the border. It's a humanitarian challenge to us. The president has tried to sell a bill of goods to the American people," she said. ""...The president's doing an end run around Congress about the power of the purse."

"I know the Republicans have some unease about it no matter what they say, because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people," she warned. "...A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well. So, the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."

Pelosi on Border Emergency Declaration: Dems Can Declare Policy Emergencies, Too

pjmedia.com

 

[Hijinx]

Altogether, Clinton declared 17 national emergencies; Bush, 13; and Obama, 12; according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center. The Brennan Center has tracked 58 emergency declarations back to 1978, of which 31 remain in effect.
So Yes Nancy we know it can be done.

Of course what Nancy is hinting at is that some Democrat President intent on starting a Civil War might outlaw guns with an excuse of a National Emergency. I might add that if one did it would be a National Emergency, when they try to take them.

 

[Auntie Biache']

Altogether, Clinton declared 17 national emergencies; Bush, 13; and Obama, 12; according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center. The Brennan Center has tracked 58 emergency declarations back to 1978, of which 31 remain in effect.
So Yes Nancy we know it can be done.

Of course what Nancy is hinting at is that some Democrat President intent on starting a Civil War might outlaw guns with an excuse of a National Emergency. I might add that if one did it would be a National Emergency, when they try to take them.

What Nancy fails to realize is that gun ownership is constitutional. None of that other crap is. She also fails to realize that she's >this< close to causing civil unrest.

 

[glhs837]

What Nancy fails to realize is that gun ownership is constitutional. None of that other crap is. She also fails to realize that she's >this< close to causing civil unrest.

I think you are confusing not caring with not knowing. She knows these things, she simply doesn't care.

 

[Auntie Biache']

I think you are confusing not caring with not knowing. She knows these things, she simply doesn't care.

Well, she thinks she's God, so you're right.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think you are confusing not caring with not knowing. She knows these things, she simply doesn't care.

This ^^^

It's Hail Mary time for the Democrats.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Trump is setting a dangerous precedent here and I hope anyone who agrees with Trump realizes what the ramifications are.

 

[vraiblonde]

Trump is setting a dangerous precedent here and I hope anyone who agrees with Trump realizes what the ramifications are.

Oh please. That's a stupid talking point and I'm embarrassed for you that you're parroting it.

Other Presidents have declared emergencies and circumvented lazy ass do nothing Congress. This is not "unprecedented" in any way.

 

[Hijinx]

What Nancy fails to realize is that gun ownership is constitutional. None of that other crap is. She also fails to realize that she's >this< close to causing civil unrest.

I believe that Nancy realizes that the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right.
Here is the thing. Nancy swore to defend the Constitution and it's rights,but she opposes those rights and wants them rescinded.
We just swore in two Muslims on a Koran who also oppose America's Constitutional rights and want Sharia law.
Helen Keller can see that Nancy and Schumer are more worried about illegals than they are Americans.
Helen Keller can also see that the Democrats trying to perform a coup against the President no longer believe in Americans electing a President that doesn't suit the Democrat party.
We don't have to worry about Trump colluding with the Russians, that was BS from start to it's finish whenever that is.'

What we have to worry about is sedition in the highest leadership of the democrat party.

se·di·tion
[səˈdiSH(ə)n]

NOUN

1. conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

Can anyone deny this is what is going on?

 

[Hijinx]

Trump is setting a dangerous precedent here and I hope anyone who agrees with Trump realizes what the ramifications are.

Read my post number 2.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Oh please. That's a stupid talking point and I'm embarrassed for you that you're parroting it.

Other Presidents have declared emergencies and circumvented lazy ass do nothing Congress. This is not "unprecedented" in any way.

You, of all people, are not in a position to be embarassed for anyone else after your thread yesterday and I've talked about this since the idea of a national emeregency came up. Stop acting like anyone who disagrees with you is parroting some talking point and can't think for themselves.

Yes, other presidents have declared emergencies. In fact, 31 (of the 58 since 1976) are active. Including:

1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)
2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)
3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (January 23, 1995)
4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (March 15, 1995)
5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 21, 1995)
6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (March 1, 1996)
7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (November 3, 1997)
8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (June 26, 2001)
9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (August 17, 2001)
10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (September 14, 2001)
11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001)
12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (March 6, 2003)
13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)
14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)
15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (June 16, 2006)
16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (October 27, 2006)
17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (August 1, 2007)
18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (June 26, 2008)
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (April 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (February 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (March 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (April 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (March 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (April 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (November 23, 2015)
29. Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (December 20, 2017)
30. Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (September 12, 2018)
31. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (November 27, 2018)

Totally the same thing. Look, anyone who believes in seperation of powers should be worried about this. Anyone who decried Obama and his executive orders should be worried about this. I understand it's an important issue to many people, but this isn't the way to do it. Congress has the power to appropriate money and they have made it crystal clear they don't wish to do so. You should be asking yourself, "what other things am I comfortable with the President circumventing Congress about"? Because lord knows the next President will use that power also.

 

[vraiblonde]

You, of all people, are not in a position to be embarassed for anyone else after your thread yesterday

Actually, you dingbats who can't read full sentences and just pick out words here and there and respond based on that are the ones who should be embarrassed.

Look, anyone who believes in seperation of powers should be worried about this.

You're so cute. We haven't had sepAration (speaking of embarrassing) of powers in this country for a very long time. We have two ideologically opposed parties that control our government. The Dem Congress does not check or balance the Dem President. Ever. They'll check the crap out of their opponent President, but never the guy on their side. Supreme Court, same thing.

Now. I think you should disparage my education some more with misspellings and grammatical errors. Those are my favorite posts and always make my day.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Actually, you dingbats who can't read full sentences and just pick out words here and there and respond based on that are the ones who should be embarrassed.



You're so cute. We haven't had sepAration (speaking of embarrassing) of powers in this country for a very long time. We have two ideologically opposed parties that control our government. The Dem Congress does not check or balance the Dem President. Ever. They'll check the crap out of their opponent President, but never the guy on their side. Supreme Court, same thing.

Now. I think you should disparage my education some more with misspellings and grammatical errors. Those are my favorite posts and always make my day.

Sweetheart, you posted a math equation from middle school, not a disseration. No one picked any words "here and there".

You got me, I made a misspelling.

Congress has appropriated money since the dawn of time. Trump doesn't like what the money was appropriated for, threw a hissy fit, and will declare a national emergency to force American taxpayers to pay for a border he claimed Mexico would pay for (via numerous different proposals his voters had to explain), and pay for the military to seize private land along the border.

 

[GURPS]

Of course what Nancy is hinting at is that some Democrat President intent on starting a Civil War might outlaw guns with an excuse of a National Emergency. I might add that if one did it would be a National Emergency, when they try to take them.

Yes Please .....

 

[This_person]

Trump is setting a dangerous precedent here and I hope anyone who agrees with Trump realizes what the ramifications are.

Agreed. Trump today:

"I’m eager to work with all of you,” the president told the crowd gathered. “But America does not stand still - and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”​

I mean, you can't set more of a precedent for bypassing Congress than that.

But, wait, that wasn't Trump, that was Obama five years ago.

Now, I'm not a "your guy did it first, so it's ok" kind of guy. I think the president is wrong to use, as is reported he'll use, Defense MILCON funds for a border security mission. I do think he has every right in the Constitution to use troops, and that is what he should have limited his action to be.

But, let's not say it is Trump setting the precedent that Obama set.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Agreed. Trump today:

"I’m eager to work with all of you,” the president told the crowd gathered. “But America does not stand still - and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”​

I mean, you can't set more of a precedent for bypassing Congress than that.

But, wait, that wasn't Trump, that was Obama five years ago.

Now, I'm not a "your guy did it first, so it's ok" kind of guy. I think the president is wrong to use, as is reported he'll use, Defense MILCON funds for a border security mission. I do think he has every right in the Constitution to use troops, and that is what he should have limited his action to be.

But, let's not say it is Trump setting the precedent that Obama set.

From your link:

Standing in the House of Representatives chamber before lawmakers, Supreme Court justices and VIP guests, Obama declared his independence from Congress by unveiling a series of executive orders and decisions - moves likely to inflame already tense relations between the Democratic president and Republicans.

While his rhetoric was high flying, Obama’s actions were relatively modest, collectively amounting to an outpouring of frustration at the pace of legislative action with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives and able to slow the president’s agenda.

Not really the same thing.

I agree that Trump has the right, as President, to declare a national emergency.

I'm saying that doing so because Congress wouldn't fund his pet project, and despite the numbers he will use to justify the emergency going down the last 10 years or so, is a bad idea. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the next Democrat President thinks climate change is a national emergency, or guns, or a host of issues I'm sure we could all think of.

 

[vraiblonde]

Sweetheart, you posted a math equation from middle school,

And I also supplied the solution, so clearly I know how to solve a math problem using order of operations, and your insistence that I don't is just your lack of reading comprehension rearing its ugly head. Again.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yes Please .....

You just want to shoot progbots for free, admit it.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And I also supplied the solution, so clearly I know how to solve a math problem using order of operations, and your insistence that I don't is just your lack of reading comprehension rearing its ugly head. Again.

Oh no. I read it. I read where you were confused because someone didn't put parentheses around parts of the equation featuring a whopping 3 numbers. Not only that, but titled the thread "Screwing up math to add to the confusion".

2 + 2 x 4 = ?

16, right?

...Apparently this last generation was confused by that simplicity (which explains why they also don't know how to read), so they had to come up with a convoluted system in order to solve a very simple problem.

Why? Are we that lazy now that we can't be bothered to put a couple of ( ) in a math problem so everyone can get the same answer? It's easier to just use ( ) in an equation in the first place than to remember PEMDAS and put them there mentally.

 

[vraiblonde]

Oh no. I read it. I read where you were confused because someone didn't put parentheses around parts of the equation featuring a whopping 3 numbers.

I wasn't confused, and if you could read you would know that. So rather than bust on crap you've completely fabricated, you should consider bettering yourself and see if that doesn't work out for you.

And snipping my posts to make your case is just progbot bullshit, and explains why you spew the garbage you spew. Anyone who's not a moron like you can simply click the arrow and see my whole post. When you have to resort to that sort of thing to bolster your claims, you automatically lose.

2 + 2 x 4 = ?

16, right?

Wrong.

The correct answer, according to PEMDAS rules, is 10.