The shut down thread

#4,606
#4,606
BowlBrother85 said:
A precedent is a precedent... The SCOTUS can't uphold this action from a Republican but then reject it from a Democrat.
Click to expand...

This is an a precedent dude, he has the ****ing authority to declare a national emergency we’re still under national emergencies declared by other ****ing presidents
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,608
#4,608
FLVOL69 said:
This is an a precedent dude, he has the ****ing authority to declare a national emergency we’re still under national emergencies declared by other ****ing presidents
Click to expand...
The 1976 National Emergencies Act codifies the presidents' power to declare an emergency. This act, as well as narrower provisions in other laws, presumes that presidents would exercise these powers with great restraint and only in real emergencies, not to make good on campaign promises or mollify activists within their party. Clearly, that is what Trump is trying to do here. Just remember this the next time there is a mass shooting with a Democrat in the White House... It's not hard to imagine a national emergency being declared to address gun violence.
 
#4,610
#4,610
BowlBrother85 said:
The 1976 National Emergencies Act codifies the presidents' power to declare an emergency. This act, as well as narrower provisions in other laws, presumes that presidents would exercise these powers with great restraint and only in real emergencies, not to make good on campaign promises or mollify activists within their party. Clearly, that is what Trump is trying to do here. Just remember this the next time there is a mass shooting with a Democrat in the White House... It's not hard to imagine a national emergency being declared to address gun violence.
Click to expand...
Obama used great restraint? 11 out his 13 are still live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and FLVOL69
#4,611
#4,611
BowlBrother85 said:
The 1976 National Emergencies Act codifies the presidents' power to declare an emergency. This act, as well as narrower provisions in other laws, presumes that presidents would exercise these powers with great restraint and only in real emergencies, not to make good on campaign promises or mollify activists within their party. Clearly, that is what Trump is trying to do here. Just remember this the next time there is a mass shooting with a Democrat in the White House... It's not hard to imagine a national emergency being declared to address gun violence.
Click to expand...
I await their attempt to take guns away from law abiding people. Should be interesting .
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, T-TownVol, AM64 and 1 other person
#4,612
#4,612
BowlBrother85 said:
This adds nothing to the conversation because you didn't bother to explain what those emergencies were for.
Click to expand...
Well BB, IMO this border between ports of entry needing closed is top 5 in my book. It's probably even number 2 considering I can't remember any of them except W doing it over 9/11 which I would definitely rank 1st.
 
#4,613
#4,613
BowlBrother85 said:
The 1976 National Emergencies Act codifies the presidents' power to declare an emergency. This act, as well as narrower provisions in other laws, presumes that presidents would exercise these powers with great restraint and only in real emergencies, not to make good on campaign promises or mollify activists within their party. Clearly, that is what Trump is trying to do here. Just remember this the next time there is a mass shooting with a Democrat in the White House... It's not hard to imagine a national emergency being declared to address gun violence.
Click to expand...
Trump isn't changing the constitution with this if he declares. What you are insinuating does. Apples to oranges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol, AM64 and FLVOL69
#4,617
#4,617
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Trump isn't changing the constitution with this if he declares. What you are insinuating does. Apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
That remains to be seen. The case most often being cited right now as relevant to this action involved President Truman's attempt to seize a privately owned steel mill (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 1952). Basically, Congress is the branch of government with the exclusive power to tax and spend, the courts should overturn any unilateral executive branch action, as they did in Youngstown.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top