It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Well, if the president wants to claim a national emergency to get guns, he has to invalidate the Constitution which means all of congress and the presidency needs to cease existing. Guns are a part of the constitution which cannot be taken away from honest and good citizens, but they can be taken away from politicians if we want, while in office they might not qualify as a regular citizen, they are part of the government and get no protection rights because the second amendment is to protect us regular citizens from government.




posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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


2020 Republican candidates all over the country will have a mind-boggling amount of material supporting the party, and also for showing how out-of-touch with mainstream America Democrats are.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

But they won't come for your guns.....
Yeah right
Its the first thing that old bag mentioned
It is as much their agenda now as aoc's wacky green deal or eliminating ice



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

They just want to hurt Americans for daring to try to take away their power.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

She is angry cause trump got more than the 0 she promised for the wall.
No follow through with that hag.
What a loser.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
The next president will not be a democrat.

Thanks to democrats.

The President after that will not be a democrat either.

So, who cares?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
The next president will not be a democrat.
Thanks to democrats.
The President after that will not be a democrat either.
So, who cares?

This is quite the headline for liberal newspaper, Los Angeles Times.
(Pelosi, Waters, Schiff, Feinstein country)

Trump's 'national emergency' just played the Democrats for suckers

Article Itself: www.latimes.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
The next president will not be a democrat.
Thanks to democrats.
The President after that will not be a democrat either.
So, who cares?

This is quite the headline for liberal newspaper, Los Angeles Times.
(Pelosi, Waters, Schiff, Feinstein country)

Trump's 'national emergency' just played the Democrats for suckers

Article Itself: www.latimes.com...


Yeah they’re starting to cannibalise themselves. The article is true and correct but I bet the author gets attacked by their peers.

Played indeed.

2020 is in the bag. The “REEEEEEEEEE” from this is going to be memorable



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

like that wouldn't of happened by now had we had a Democrat in office,be overwelmed by dirtbags saying guns kill people,instead of the truth



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=24189300]Teikiatsu


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.


But this IS to stop something. Illegal immigration.
edit on 15-2-2019 by riiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:43 AM
link   

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".


That ship already sailed when Obamacare passed.
edit on 15-2-2019 by riiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Muninn

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


We'll all see soon enough, right?
Thanks, MS



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

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.


G'day Ket- that's why I mentioned it. We'll see...



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

For one we could enforce the laws that are already on the books and punish companies that employee illegal immigrants. If no companies are willing to hire illegal immigrants that cuts out a huge reason for them to come here in the first place.

Second we could legalize marijuana at the federal level. Currently 63% of the country has access to legal marijuana (either recreational or medicinal.) That alone has had a significant impact on the drug trade. In 2012 border patrol seized about $10 billion worth of drugs. Last year that number was about half.

Between those two initiatives you can cut down a significant number of illegal immigrants coming in to this country. But not only that you open up two new revenue streams for the government between fining companies that hire illegals and taxes on marijuana. Some of that new money can then be used to fund projects like a wall without putting the country even further in to debt.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

We could except most states are rebellious about it. Local, state and federal need to work together on the same page. When you have places declaring "sanctuary" status, that chain breaks down. So now it's a bigger issue than just enforcing laws on business. Now you have to find ways to use an enforcement mechanism to bring entire cities and states back into compliance with law and there is no political will to do it.

Do you begin to comprehend national emergency yet?
edit on 15-2-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You mean the national emergency that has seen a net decline in illegal immigrants for the past few years?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
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.



This came about from a Presidential Proclamation. PP's are not legally binding unless authorized by Congress.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was another example. By itself, just a speech. The 13th Amendment was the real deal.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

"Dangerous Precedent" like the one Obama did when he allowed for subsidies for Obamacare in the Billions?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

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.

So a city council can declare eminent domain to condemn your house so their buddy can put in a new strip mall , but the POTUS can’t put a fence up along our international border.
You realize that there are walls and fences existing on that border for long stretches already, right?
How the hell did they get built?




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join