Pelosi threatens 2A with Emergency in next Dem presidency

Picton said:
I'm not the one using words like "funny." I don't think this is any kind of joke. You're a veteran; you swore to defend the constitution, same as I did. Why is it hunky-dory for President Trump to shit on Article 1, but it's anathema for President Warren or President O'Rourke or President "fill in here" to shit on 2A? They're parts of the same document, and it's not a smorgasbord: you don't get to pick and choose which parts of CONUS you want to apply and conveniently forget the rest of them.

My choice is a president who follows the constitution. Feel free to get all snarky about that.
Click to expand...
Because Warren and o'Rourke crap on 1a too. Take your blinders off. Now answer the question. Who's your ideal candidate?
 
Picton said:
Okay. Even if you're right...

Choice 1: Follow the constitution, apply the Founders' principles, and do the hard work of governing the country.

Choice 2: Wad up the constitution and use it as toilet paper because it's the path of least resistance.

Presidents swear an oath to do one thing above all else: support and defend the constitution. It's unbelievable to me that so many of you are so eager to see your golden boy scrap the whole document, and you're cheering him on.
Click to expand...
Oh I am right. The constitution never covered invaders. Or do you view the war of 1812 unconstitutional? After all the Brits had rights.
 
Picton said:
When they do, I'd at least hope they're democrats, and not "republicans."
Click to expand...

Good point. Smarter people than me have suggested the USA currently looks a lot like Spain before the Spanish Civil War, there's a lot of similarity between the various factions apparently.
 
Lip said:
Because Warren and o'Rourke crap on 1a too. Take your blinders off. Now answer the question. Who's your ideal candidate?
Click to expand...

I did already.

We're not ruled by a president. We're ruled by a constitution. Figure it out.

And as long as you're busy pointing out what other people do? Like it matters in the here and now? Like Obama or Clinton or freaking Roosevelt misusing the CONUS somehow excuses Trump? My mom taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. She appears to be smarter than you.

Plainly I'm getting nowhere, but I'm not surprised. If your tenth-grade history teacher couldn't get you to understand separation of powers, I won't have any luck either. Enjoy watching the judiciary shred this "emergency declaration." He's left plenty of evidence that he's declaring it not because it's an actual emergency, but because it's an end-run around Congress. You can ignore that, but the courts won't.
 
glide said:
The constitution is the answer. A challenge to a sweeping ban on guns would easily be struck down in court.
Click to expand...

Why should we suppose that a "sweeping" ban would be the way they do it, especially since taking smaller bites has worked so well for them up to now? Declaring national emergency(ies) will only make it easier to get those bites, not let them tear off the whole thing at once.

We are currently under 31 active declarations of national emergency, split approximately evenly between democrat and republican presidents, going back to Carter. The large majority of them are very focused, setting trade embargoes, blocking specific people or their assets from entering the country, stuff like that. Only a couple are designed to secure funding, and only this one for something that should really otherwise fall within the purview of Congress... and something that, frankly, could have been easily done while the republicans had control of all three branches.

No matter would you slice it, this declaration sets a new precedent. I'm not sure I like it. This is designed to bypass Congress, not respond to a specific emergency.
 
The courts? Lol
Picton said:
I did already.

We're not ruled by a president. We're ruled by a constitution. Figure it out.

And as long as you're busy pointing out what other people do? Like it matters in the here and now? Like Obama or Clinton or freaking Roosevelt misusing the CONUS somehow excuses Trump? My mom taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. She appears to be smarter than you.

Plainly I'm getting nowhere, but I'm not surprised. If your tenth-grade history teacher couldn't get you to understand separation of powers, I won't have any luck either. Enjoy watching the judiciary shred this "emergency declaration." He's left plenty of evidence that he's declaring it not because it's an actual emergency, but because it's an end-run around Congress. You can ignore that, but the courts won't.
Click to expand...
Lols the courts formerly owned by democrats.. but heres a gem for you:
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” ... The spat between President Andrew Jacksonand Chief Justice John Marshall is an interesting hiccup in nation's evolving belief that the US Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether laws are constitutional
 
Picton said:
You're applying the principles of the founders by specifically advocating we abandon the principles of the founders. And not just one of the "little" principles, either: checks and balances/separation of powers is as basic and fundamental as it gets.

Twist your logic however you like. If you're in favor of this or any other president appropriating his own money against the will of Congress, you're against the constitution. That's as simple as it gets.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the same people? By now, George Washington would have snuck over in the dead of night to kill all the traitors, while on holiday no doubt. Defending your people from foreigners is a national emergency.
 
Koolmoose said:
When I first joined this board in 2011 there was a lot of talk about “go time”. That talk seems to have diminished here over the past several years IMHO. Personally idk when “go time” is for me or anyone else; a personal decision at best. Overall I think it will be connected to the attitudes of the Fudds and how far they perceive their backs are pushed against the wall. Nevertheless, an emergency declaration on guns by a dem president would most definitely move the hands of the go time clock forward.
Click to expand...

DoomsdayClock_black_2mins_regmark.jpg

It is 2 minutes to midnight.
 
Super99Z said:
Are we talking about the same people? By now, George Washington would have snuck over in the dead of night to kill all the traitors, while on holiday no doubt. Defending your people from foreigners is a national emergency.
Click to expand...

We're talking past each other, but here's the bottom line: the ends don't justify the means. A president can take steps to limit immigration, but if he does so in an unconstitutional way? Then he's better off not doing it.

These things aren't supposed to be easy. The Founders structured our government as they did precisely BECAUSE they knew that the impulse of future presidents would be to exercise absolute power. So they set up rules specifically to prevent that. If past presidents have ignored those rules, that doesn't give Trump the right to do likewise. It's like gun control: the "right way" to do it is to amend the constitution, which we all know would be just about impossible to do. And thank God it is. So, we correctly point out to the antis that if they're not prepared to do it the right way, it's not okay for them to do it the wrong way.

I'm just saying the same thing about Article 1. There's a "right way" for presidents to appropriate money. I don't think it's so unreasonable for me to expect that my president will follow the constitution, and why? Because the ends don't justify the means.
 
Picton said:
We're talking past each other, but here's the bottom line: the ends don't justify the means. A president can take steps to limit immigration, but if he does so in an unconstitutional way? Then he's better off not doing it.

These things aren't supposed to be easy. The Founders structured our government as they did precisely BECAUSE they knew that the impulse of future presidents would be to exercise absolute power. So they set up rules specifically to prevent that. If past presidents have ignored those rules, that doesn't give Trump the right to do likewise. It's like gun control: the "right way" to do it is to amend the constitution, which we all know would be just about impossible to do. And thank God it is. So, we correctly point out to the antis that if they're not prepared to do it the right way, it's not okay for them to do it the wrong way.

I'm just saying the same thing about Article 1. There's a "right way" for presidents to appropriate money. I don't think it's so unreasonable for me to expect that my president will follow the constitution, and why? Because the ends don't justify the means.
Click to expand...
I voted for him before and I will again, but Trump is a former NYC Democrat. Of course the ends justifies the means. He learned that from the Clintons.

I'll try to look on the bright side. Trump might be the only one who could get Presidential power limited by overstepping the bounds of his authority.
 
TLB said:
I voted for him before and I will again, but Trump is a former NYC Democrat. Of course the ends justifies the means. He learned that from the Clintons.

I'll try to look on the bright side. Trump might be the only one who could get Presidential power limited by overstepping the bounds of his authority.
Click to expand...
Until the next Democrat wins. Then the dims in Congress opens their legs.
 
TLB said:
Congress won't do much, IMO. It will need to be the courts.
Click to expand...
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” ... The spat between President Andrew Jacksonand Chief Justice John Marshall is an interesting hiccup in nation's evolving belief that the US Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether laws are constitutional
 
Lip said:
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” ... The spat between President Andrew Jacksonand Chief Justice John Marshall is an interesting hiccup in nation's evolving belief that the US Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether laws are constitutional
Click to expand...
We need a strong leader to tell the sc to stfu.
 
Picton said:
We're talking past each other, but here's the bottom line: the ends don't justify the means. A president can take steps to limit immigration, but if he does so in an unconstitutional way? Then he's better off not doing it.

These things aren't supposed to be easy. The Founders structured our government as they did precisely BECAUSE they knew that the impulse of future presidents would be to exercise absolute power. So they set up rules specifically to prevent that. If past presidents have ignored those rules, that doesn't give Trump the right to do likewise. It's like gun control: the "right way" to do it is to amend the constitution, which we all know would be just about impossible to do. And thank God it is. So, we correctly point out to the antis that if they're not prepared to do it the right way, it's not okay for them to do it the wrong way.

I'm just saying the same thing about Article 1. There's a "right way" for presidents to appropriate money. I don't think it's so unreasonable for me to expect that my president will follow the constitution, and why? Because the ends don't justify the means.
Click to expand...

I hope the Bolsheviks have soft hands when they take you.
 
I’ll just leave this here. I’m sure y’all have seen this before.



Don’t take my word for it that executive action on immigration is unconstitutional. Take Trump’s.
 
Bonesinium said:
She’s an idiot but she’s making a point that many people, including Republican are making. If Trump were to declare an emergency to build a wall because illegals are dangerous then what would stop a D President from declaring an emergency because “guns” are dangerous?
Click to expand...

Try as I may I cannot find a constitutional right afforded to foreigners to emigrate into this country.
 
probably shouldnt cross the Rubicon here.

This is like the DemoRats changing senate filibuster rules. I bet today they wished they hadnt opened that can of worms.
 
I'm pretty sure that a dem attack on 2A of the type she suggests, will neither go well, or end well. Maybe it's time to find out, once and for all, what America is made of. I for one, would like to know, if in the end, 2A has any real teeth. If in fact it does, it seems time for those teeth to be nipping at dems heels. Take the guns if you can. If you can't, shut up!
 
M60 said:
I'm pretty sure that a dem attack on 2A of the type she suggests, will neither go well, or end well. Maybe it's time to find out, once and for all, what America is made of. I for one, would like to know, if in the end, 2A has any real teeth. If in fact it does, it seems time for those teeth to be nipping at dems heels. Take the guns if you can. If you can't, shut up!
Click to expand...
This exactly, either gun owners have all this for their true purpose or everyone is a poser.
 

Similar threads

Teacher Threatens to ‘Shoot Up’ Preschool in Nashville
Replies
5
Views
173
timbo
timbo
Groton is next in line
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Need a good 2A attorney for a friend
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Exclusive: Rep. Andrew Clyde Urging Speaker Johnson to Protect 2A in Appropriations
Replies
1
Views
174
not new guy
N
Gopher hunting with a 22
Replies
22
Views
345
GL2020
GL2020
Back
Top Bottom