Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Democrats don't want to take their guns away

  1. #11
    Site Supporter SeriousStudent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Texas
    My response would be "Bring it, beyotch."

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Western Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by SeriousStudent View Post
    My response would be "Bring it, beyotch."
    Yeah, it would be stepping on a serious trip line.........

  3. #13
    Member olstyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    Trump plans to use a specific federal statute to execute his plan. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808
    Apologies for the slowness of my reply - I've not really had a moment to visit P-F since writing the post you quoted.

    I feel that it sets a dangerous precedent in that Trump is, in my view, at least, using an emergency declaration purely as a way to get around the will of congress. He's as much as admitted it himself when he said "I don't have to do this." That, to me, is an admission that it's not actually an emergency.

    It also does not seem to line up with this clause from the statute you linked, both because it doesn't seem to be a legitimate emergency and because it doesn't seem to actually require the use of the armed forces except in that that's where he seems to want to pull the money from:

    "(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces"

    Admittedly I am not a lawyer, so my opinion on legal text means roughly nil, but that's the way I personally see it. I'm somewhere between neutral on the wall and for the wall, but I think the way the president is going about getting it built is incorrect at best, and potentially politically damaging to the country's future at worst.

  4. #14
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by olstyn View Post
    Apologies for the slowness of my reply - I've not really had a moment to visit P-F since writing the post you quoted.

    I feel that it sets a dangerous precedent in that Trump is, in my view, at least, using an emergency declaration purely as a way to get around the will of congress. He's as much as admitted it himself when he said "I don't have to do this." That, to me, is an admission that it's not actually an emergency.

    It also does not seem to line up with this clause from the statute you linked, both because it doesn't seem to be a legitimate emergency and because it doesn't seem to actually require the use of the armed forces except in that that's where he seems to want to pull the money from:

    "(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces"

    Admittedly I am not a lawyer, so my opinion on legal text means roughly nil, but that's the way I personally see it. I'm somewhere between neutral on the wall and for the wall, but I think the way the president is going about getting it built is incorrect at best, and potentially politically damaging to the country's future at worst.
    Congress chose to invest the President with that authority and left it to his discretion to determine when there is a "national emergency." It's also as least as much of a "national emergency" as many of those that are currently in effect and renewed on an annual basis. The vast majority of which deal with freezing assets of foreign persons/governments that we don't like.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    How? People keep treating this like it gives the President unknown broad powers, but the 1976 National Emergencies Act provides for the suspension of specific laws and only provides statutory allowances to do specific things. The President cannot simply decide to do anything under the statute.

    Pelosi is trying to scare Trump's base about the consequences of his proposal, but has no legal basis for any of her claims.

    Trump plans to use a specific federal statute to execute his plan. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808

    ETA: I forgot to note that some people already thought of this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5207
    Not to mention, so I'll mention it, border/national security is directly under the explicit purview (and responsibility) of the executive branch, and "open borders" or any legal or illegal immigration is not a 'right' inherently protected by the U.S. Constitution. All this suing to stop the Trump's "illegal move" will be to no avail. Declaring an emergency, itself, is pretty common. As you mention, this is all leftist scare tactics (and also one of the very reasons we have a 2nd amendment).. Obama declared emergencies, IIRC, something like 13 times as did many other precedent setting presidents.
    You will more often be attacked for what others think you believe than what you actually believe. Expect misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and projection as the modern normal default setting. ~ Quintus Curtius

  6. #16
    Member GuanoLoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Please show me on the graph where the emergency is.





    Q: How is Trump’s “Wall” going to help with the more pressing issue of Visa Overstays?





    Q: Which countries are leading in terms of Visa Overstays?

    Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Doodie Project?

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by GuanoLoco View Post

    Q: How is Trump’s “Wall” going to help with the more pressing issue of Visa Overstays?
    The charts indicate what? That since only 400k were apprehended compared to much larger numbers in 1998 there is no problem? How many got through?

    The wall won't stop Visa Overstays... Ten years hard labor building roads twelve hours a day might. Have to start somewhere. No one else has even been willing to start -- with anything -- going back decades. The first step is to stop all welfare/medical/whatever benefits illegals can get as well as shut the borders down -- all immigration -- and begin mass deportations or chain gang labor (demand nothing short of summary execution -- so hard labor becomes a "common sense" compromise... ). No amnesty. Period. Get 'em out or bury 'em in the desert. Institute a tap on/ tap off policy allowing in only what the country needs and not a blanket benefit for others wanting a better life. Meaning that most of the time -- no one is allowed to immigrate, period. Kill the H-1B program which is another cheap labor scam which keeps U.S. Citizens out of work. Replace it with a system that brings in workers for only jobs where there are zero U.S. Citizens to do the job (and initiate training programs to qualify U.S. Citizens where necessary prior to issuing visas). Put ankle trackers on all temporary visa recipients upon entry (a joke, but some kind of tracking device appears to be necessary).

    When I am king it shall be decreed (and all pistols shall be required to be available with a lever magazine release).
    You will more often be attacked for what others think you believe than what you actually believe. Expect misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and projection as the modern normal default setting. ~ Quintus Curtius

  8. #18
    Member GuanoLoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Quote Originally Posted by critter View Post
    The charts indicate what? ...
    Well, I’d say these charts indicate that this is anything BUT an “emergency”.

    I guess you’ve mostly given up on being a moderate.
    Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Doodie Project?

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by GuanoLoco View Post
    Well, I’d say these charts indicate that this is anything BUT an “emergency”.

    I guess you’ve mostly given up on being a moderate.
    The hilarious thing is how well the chart you posted lines up with the dates that the border wall in California was constructed. But you didn't know that, of course.

  10. #20
    Building the wall is not a political move for President Trump. It has become a necessity for the safety and security of our border and our nation. The dems are against him, so what is he supposed to do that would be effective at securing our southern border thats not just just political BS. It amazes me that our country is being invaded by people and drugs and yet there is resistance to effectively stopping it.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •