Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

a reply to: Xcalibur254

While her example may be idiotic it doesn't mean her message is wrong. This sets a dangerous precedent for any future President.

How so?

I would think anyone opposed to a big Federal government would be against this move just out of principle.

You think someone against big government would be against National Security?
How so?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: watchitburn

Ummm. . . .


As a comparison, Pelosi needs something else.

Trump isn't violating a Constitutional right.

He's securing the border.

Who would be against that?

Is Pelosi saying that a leftist president would violate a Constitutional right?

As I understand it the argument is two-fold:

1) Trump would have to permanently claim large swaths of private property for the wall, and

2) Trump would have to temporarily claim control of private industries to produce and install the wall.

I can see the arguments against it. To this point, the majority of 'National Emergencies' have been to stop activities, not create activities. Stop this trade, stop that payment, stop that etc etc.

Since there are so many of these duplicate threads today, I've resorted to copy/paste:

-----------------Begin Copy/Paste------------------

Nancy Pelosi: "If Trump declares one, we'll do the same for our causes, when a Democrat is President!"

1. Democrats will challenge President Trump's declaration all the way up to the Supreme Court...and LOSE.

2. Republicans will challenge a Democrat President's declaration all the way up to the Supreme Court...and WIN.

By the time a Democrat is President, the Supreme Court will be SOLIDLY Right/Republican-friendly.

Pelosi, Schumer and the small-brained liberal pundits on CNN, MSNBC, are incapable of thinking beyond the next few months, lol.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

1) Trump would have to permanently claim large swaths of private property for the wall, and

You mean like the government does every time they put in a new highway???

a reply to: watchitburn

So Pelosi should have told Harry Reid that line of thinking before he triggered the nuclear option.

Liberals want to disarm you Americans.

So basically the liberal endgame is to elect someone like AOC, declare the climate to be a state of emergency and scrap the COTUS to save all of us from ourselves with the Green New Deal.

Scary stuff.

what pelosi has said should be played every day hour after hour all through 2020 the Dems want our guns the Dems want our guns. there for anybody that owns a gun will never vote for a dem again

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm opposed to spending money on a pointless monument to Trump's ego. As I've stated in numerous threads there are a number of other actions the government could take that would not only be more effective at curtailing illegal immigration but actually net the country money.

The only problem is they aren't as flashy.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm opposed to spending money on a pointless monument to Trump's ego. As I've stated in numerous threads there are a number of other actions the government could take that would not only be more effective at curtailing illegal immigration but actually net the country money.

The only problem is they aren't as flashy.

Please tell me the steps you would take to curtail illegal immigration? I'm sure you will find most "Wall Supporters" in favor of doing those as well. You seem to think we think a wall would be the end all, be all of border security. It's not.

yeah DC v Heller would like a word with her if she tries lol and if he really wants to be crafty he can add his orginal protection for DACA kids in his declaration i guess havent heard them talked about in a while

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm opposed to spending money on a pointless monument to Trump's ego. As I've stated in numerous threads there are a number of other actions the government could take that would not only be more effective at curtailing illegal immigration but actually net the country money.

The only problem is they aren't as flashy.

So you're not against border security, you're just against Trump enforcing border security.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Teikiatsu

1) Trump would have to permanently claim large swaths of private property for the wall, and

You mean like the government does every time they put in a new highway???

Yes, it's called imminent domain, and it's not a power the President has.

a reply to: watchitburn

One could argue if a precedent is set...it could be our homes, cars, banks accounts, assets next. Everything could be a "national emergency".

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: watchitburn

Ummm. . . .


As a comparison, Pelosi needs something else.

Trump isn't violating a Constitutional right.

He's securing the border.

Who would be against that?

Is Pelosi saying that a leftist president would violate a Constitutional right?

Lol
Nancy is funny
Like we would elect a dem president again after her threat

Immediately after the 2nd tho
It will make a swell campaign ad

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: watchitburn

One could argue if a precedent is set...it could be our homes, cars, banks accounts, assets next. Everything could be a "national emergency".

So it's the 32nd national emergency that broke the camel's back?

It's only a big deal because the Orange man wants to declare one.

Lol

a reply to: shooterbrody

Pelosi's warning does make for a good GOP ad.

a reply to: DBCowboy

This stuff writes itself

With regards to, "seizing land," upon which to build the wall. It's already done in California, Arizona, and New Mexico; been done in fact since 1907:

In 1907, President Roosevelt reserved from entry and set apart as a public reservation all public lands within 60-feet of the international boundary between the United States and Mexico within the State of California and the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico.

Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border - Congressional Research Service March 16, 2009.

Texas is a slightly different matter, but not insurmountable.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: watchitburn

One could argue if a precedent is set...it could be our homes, cars, banks accounts, assets next. Everything could be a "national emergency".

Why do you think I referenced the Green New Deal. Nothing in that could be achieved without such seizures and control.