Wouldn't surprise me for them to try this if they get the whitehouse back.
Forget that Firearm ownership is a protected right, and that immigration is restricted by Laws, because, well apparently, Nancy has.
Pelosi said she is not advocating presidents doing an “end run around Congress,” but warned that a “Democratic president can” declare national emergencies as well on issues like gun control, and “the precedent that the president is setting is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
“You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today—the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency,” Pelosi said, in reference to the one-year anniversary of the Parkland shooting. “Why don’t you declare that a national emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.”
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
BIIIGGGG difference. Declaring a national emergency to build the wall would be using the power to carry out the duties as outlined in the Constitution and as allowed by existing U.S. law. Declaring a national emergency on so-called "guns violence" would be using the power to subvert and defy the Constitution.
To paraphrase the lyrics of a friend's song (FAKIN' THE RACE CARD by Right Arm of Wyoming )...
"And furthermore, she knows this,
And therefore, she lies"
Bruenor wrote:Wouldn't surprise me for them to try this if they get the whitehouse back.
Forget that Firearm ownership is a protected right, and that immigration is restricted by Laws, because, well apparently, Nancy has.
Pelosi said she is not advocating presidents doing an “end run around Congress,” but warned that a “Democratic president can” declare national emergencies as well on issues like gun control, and “the precedent that the president is setting is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
“You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today—the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency,” Pelosi said, in reference to the one-year anniversary of the Parkland shooting. “Why don’t you declare that a national emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.”
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Bruenor wrote:Wouldn't surprise me for them to try this if they get the whitehouse back.
Forget that Firearm ownership is a protected right, and that immigration is restricted by Laws, because, well apparently, Nancy has.
A democrat will once again occupy the White House.
"Public Safety" is destroying RKBA all over the nation. Judges have capitulated to this lie for decades, many times to the applause of pro-RKBA groups.
They just tried to execute a coup in America. But THIS will be a bridge too far?
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
I wouldn't worry too much about Trump setting precedent for declaring an emergency. There is really nothing to stop the Dems from doing so for gun control anyway. And they WILL do so just as soon as they figure they can get away with it.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WY_Not wrote:BIIIGGGG difference. Declaring a national emergency to build the wall would be using the power to carry out the duties as outlined in the Constitution and as allowed by existing U.S. law. Declaring a national emergency on so-called "guns violence" would be using the power to subvert and defy the Constitution.
IANAL but
1) As stated, Trump would be within the law and the Constitution.
2) Suspending the Second Amendment be going beyond the Constitution, it would be declaring Martial Law. There is no provision within the Constitution for suspending part of it.
This has always been a possibility that a Dem POTUS could attempt in Violation of the Constitution.
And as for her statement, "...“the precedent that the president is setting is something that should be met with great unease and dismay...," Obamacare and DAPA set the precedents. But DAPA was found to be unconstitutional.
John 3:16
Romans 1:16- "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ..."
NRA Lifetime Member
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils" - John Stark
MacDonald wrote:This has always been a possibility that a Dem POTUS could attempt in Violation of the Constitution.
And as for her statement, "...“the precedent that the president is setting is something that should be met with great unease and dismay...," Obamacare and DAPA set the precedents. But DAPA was found to be unconstitutional.
Are you sure about that? I thought I recalled that the injunction was continued and that it was sent back to the lower courts, not finding anything constitutional or unconstitutional. It was just one justice away at the time from going either way. Here's a link:
While the U.S. Supreme Court may have dealt a hard blow to the Obama immigration legacy with its intensely anticipated but anticlimactic 4-4 split decision in United States v. Texas, the last word on the future of the contested deferred action programs has yet to be written. The case now goes back to the lower courts, where a number of scenarios could play out based on how the Justice Department and the presiding appellate and district judges respond. Court rulings aside, one thing is clear: It will be up to the next administration to determine the future of these executive actions. And the Supreme Court outcome leaves an altered—and potentially more open—landscape for immigration policy changes to occur in the next Congress.
Next Steps in the Legal Case
The tie vote, announced on June 23, simply affirms a lower court decision to maintain a nationwide injunction on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program and expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. As with all Supreme Court tie votes, no legal precedent was set, and no insight was provided into individual justices’ positions on the legal issues raised in the case. U.S. v. Texas is perhaps the most high-profile of the four Supreme Court cases to end in a 4-4 tie since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February and the decision by Senate Republican leaders to delay confirmation hearings for a successor until after the November 2016 presidential election.
MacDonald wrote:This has always been a possibility that a Dem POTUS could attempt in Violation of the Constitution.
And as for her statement, "...“the precedent that the president is setting is something that should be met with great unease and dismay...," Obamacare and DAPA set the precedents. But DAPA was found to be unconstitutional.
0
It will hit the fan when they try that. A lot of ammo is somewhere mostly 22 l. r. from the last Dem Potus threats
A lot of ammo is somewhere mostly 22 l. r. from the last Dem Potus threats