To Act Or Not To Act. A Question

I have no axe to grind, but i have a question for those who support Trump.

Take a look at these two National Emergency Act Proclaimed by Trump

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States

www.whitehouse.gov...

And

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and consistent with section 1135 of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5), do hereby find and proclaim that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Why was he applauded for using The Act for the wall, but decried when using the exact same Act for Corona Virus.

Don't you find this inconsistent ?

When referring to the measures that have been implemented by governments from Covid-19 — the word ‘consistent’, has vanished from our vocabulary.

a reply to: alldaylong

My guess is one has been a decades long, ongoing issue that's never been seriously addressed, and the other is something that just came up within the last 6 months and has no precedent to speak of?
Just spitballing here.

originally posted by: alldaylong

Why was he applauded for using The Act for the wall, but decried when using the exact same Act for Corona Virus.

Don't you find this inconsistent ?

I thought it was rather the opposite. Some people decried his use of the act to build the wall, but applauded him using the act to provide Corona virus relief. In any case, it's the same act, but far different issues. I don't see any inconsistency here. I think you have a very narrow view of the issues. There are people on the opposite side of the fence on everything Trump does. If he has bacon and eggs for breakfast some reporter will claim he is anti-vegan.

a reply to: schuyler

The question was asked to those who support Trump.

If my memory services me correctly, i cannot recall a Trump supporter who was against The Act being used for The Wall ( Not The Pink Floyd One ) yet some Trump Supporters are saying it is against your Constitution for using The Act for Corona Virus.

Surely they are trying to have their cake and eat it.

The answer depends upon which straw man answers the question.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: schuyler

The question was asked to those who support Trump.

If my memory services me correctly, i cannot recall a Trump supporter who was against The Act being used for The Wall ( Not The Pink Floyd One ) yet some Trump Supporters are saying it is against your Constitution for using The Act for Corona Virus.

Surely they are trying to have their cake and eat it.

Where are you getting this? Nobody cares about the declaration of an emergency.

Are you conflating an emergency declaration and the lockdown/quarantine orders being issued to suppress rights?

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Where are you getting this?

Links supplied.

Nobody cares about the declaration of an emergency.

So you're not bothered if The Border Wall is built or not then ?

a reply to: alldaylong

Since you're being intentionally dense I'll quote you.

Why was he applauded for using The Act for the wall, but decried when using the exact same Act for Corona Virus.

Where are you getting this?

Then the other question you ignored. Are you conflating an emergency declaration and the lockdown/quarantine orders being issued to suppress rights?

a reply to: Ksihkehe

The same Act id being used for The Wall and The Lockdown.

If people say the lockdown is against The Constitution then it is also against The Constitution to use The Act for The Wall.

If you think anyone is " dense " i suggest you look in the mirror.

a reply to: alldaylong

If Trump implemented a travel ban on 31 December 2019 due to the virus, why did it take him until the 1 March the next year to declare a national emergency.

Also, how many lives were lost before declaring each national emergency, in each case?

Surely the degree of emergency should take into consideration the actuality and the immanence of the threat?

a reply to: alldaylong
the President did not lock down the country. His declaration of that act did not lock down the fifty US states in a consolidated effort. The execution of that order was so that he can fund the states that were begging for money because they decided to impose totalitarianism against their populations in a build-up towards an election coup by shutting down their own economies, and gradually over the next six months groom the public psyche to connect that with acts of the POTUS.

South Dakota did nothing, they left their economy open like any other day. No apocalyptic cataclysm. In fact, other than the exaggerated lying from NYC specifically, the actual corona death count, which is closer to half of the official tally, is literally just a reporting of any years death by respiratory illness.

So, I don't know what blowback you have been hearing about a national emergency, other than I will state for the record I do not agree with it. But knowing the cabal controls the media, he has to play their game in election year. They are literally taking every step with the intent of trying to kill the support of POTUS.

I will say this, remember who wanted you to just go about your day and be a free American, and remember which governors and mayors chose to instead play the game of the cabal and inflict this psychological terror on the US, and the world.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Ksihkehe

The same Act id being used for The Wall and The Lockdown.

If people say the lockdown is against The Constitution then it is also against The Constitution to use The Act for The Wall.

If you think anyone is " dense " i suggest you look in the mirror.

So the answer to my question, are you conflating an emergency declaration and the lockdown/quarantine orders being issued to suppress rights, is yes. You don't understand the difference.

I'm sorry for saying you were being intentionally dense. It's clearly not intentional.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Lockdowns and emergency decelerations are a worldwide phenomenon right now - it has absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming US election and everything to do with a global Pandemic.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: schuyler

The question was asked to those who support Trump.

If my memory services me correctly, i cannot recall a Trump supporter who was against The Act being used for The Wall ( Not The Pink Floyd One ) yet some Trump Supporters are saying it is against your Constitution for using The Act for Corona Virus.

Surely they are trying to have their cake and eat it.

How do you figure? They are two entirely different issues. A declaration of emergency isn't tailor made to one kind of emergency. It's a generic piece of legislation that can be used for a variety of topics including natural ones and those posed by circumstance. The use of it to build a wall DOES NOT PRECLUDE it's use for Corona virus relief. That you can find some Trump supporters that don't like his use of the act for virus relief is typical. You can ALWAYS find people who don't like what he does, whether they are Trump supporters or not. I am a Trump supporter and I see nothing at all wrong with his use of the act for the virus. So at the very least you are generalizing. I don't see your argument as having any merit at all.

Further, "lockdowns" are not coming from the Feds, but from the state governors citing their own states' constitutions granting them emergency powers. Protests against lockdowns are targeted to the state capitols, not the White House, for good reason. THAT is where the abuse is coming from. I suspect you are simply not understanding the separation of powers in effect here.

To me it obvious. One is simpatico with our constitution. One is not.
Not being a smartass. Hope that helps

a reply to: harold223
negative sir. the global lock-down has actually mostly occurred exclusively in the nations whos leaders and industrial heads are regulars at the Bilderberg meeting, and has a very big thing to do with who is in charge of the USA. The USA was the Global financial and military leader of this cabal, and by association those nations currently under lockdown.

The contact tracers many government and domestic jurisdictions are discussing are not actually searching for infected people. A handful may, to keep the illusion going, but in reality they are efforts at purging out friendly or enemy agents/spies working in various industries and political offices. There has been no cataclysm or apocalypse anywhere in the world related to the coronavirus 2019 mutation. The financial Armageddon was exclusively result of a mass deception operation which these internationalists work on together and sort out at their Bilderberg conferences.

This years meeting is postponed. People are being blackbagged all over the world right now and calling it "corona" . Are you going to question spec-ops agents dressed as paramedics driving detained folk to locations in ambulances? As far as you know, they are just taking someone to the hospital.

Mike Pompeo straight up said this was a live exercise in a press conference where Trump quietly under his breath stated "I wish you woulda have told someone" .This video has been scrubbed from youtube and twitter just like many channels covering global conflict news at the beginning of the month, but I am going to find it again.

a reply to: alldaylong

No - One is protection from an external threat - the border. The other was done in order for FEMA to be able to assist states.

In order for FEMA to activate, a jurisdiction in a state has to declare an emergency. Then the State has to approve it and declare it an emergency. At that point they request the Feds declare an emergency.

At that point federal resources become available to the state. The other issue, at least in the virus case, is medical assistance. Each state is responsible for accrediting medical staff (Doctors, Nurses, specialists etc). That accreditation does not always transfer to another state. A federal declaration allows medical staff from one state to essentially be covered as federal employees, allowing them to work in another state without the need to comply with said states medical training requirements.

During Hurricane Katrina the same thing had to be done with medical and law enforcement. The Governor had to swear in out of state law enforcement to allow them to enforce state law. As a matter of fact Katrina and medical "deputizing" is where it came from and what we are using now for the virus.

Legal stuff -
Trumps EO did not and cannot affect civil liberties. In 1866 the US Supreme court dealt with Ex Parte Milligan. Section 11 of that ruling specifically forbade the executive, legislative and Judicial branches from removing / interfering with any civil liberty spelled out ion the constitution (the sole exception being the ability of Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus since its granted in the Constitution).

Once he declared the emergency, states got to use there emergency power acts (each state has there own), allowing the Governor (not all states but a few, like CA and MI and MO) to be able to unilaterally suspend any law in the state. Scotus has upheld emergency declarations before however none were pandemic based (even though we have had pandemics before).

The irritation came in once he declared the nationwide emergency, which allowed states to pull the bs they are now - violating the constitution. Hence the reason the DOJ has threatened states to end the stay at home bs. They are viewing it as a defacto house arrest, which they cant do.

The only people pissed at Trump is the left. The rest are pissed at Governors for overstepping their authority.