Nancy Pelosi warns GOP that a Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency

[EpiscipalMe]

How many democrats voted against it?.....you don't mention that part. If 32 R's voted against it that left more than enough to pass it if MOST D's voted for it.

No Democrats voted against - it passed the Senate. All 32 no votes were Republicans.

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 - Wikipedia

 

[Ken Rank]

Most of those don't sound as if there is any imminent threat to the US as reason to implement a national emergency. It may be that the bar is pretty low in instituting such an order. It would be interesting to see the justification for the order.

No, but the point was simply that using the "National Emergency" is a bad precedent. I don't agree... we have upwards of 28,000 dying from drug overdoses that come across that border. We have a drain on resources, health care (in border states), and we don't have people paying into the system because they are here "illegally." So, is it an emergency that our border is being breached daily by we don't know who? Is it an emergency that on any particular day, a terrorist could walk across the border with a bio-agent that kills thousands or more? I would think so... but apparently, many don't. My opinion is... when they realize it is an emergency, it will be too late.

 

[Archivist]

And they would have one if they did it....this is the whole reason the 2nd Amendment was created, was for stuff like this, the right of the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government that seeks to take away their rights.

And, again, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't prohibit banning certain types of guns.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

True. But what can pop guns do against nukes? Cruise missiles? tanks?

Can't do much against those things, but can do a lot against gun grabbing legislators. And for every tank or missile there are easily 100 more guns.

I also think many military folks would object to firing on citizens unless the citizen are in some extreme riot mode etc.

 

[Yekcidmij]

No, but the point was simply that using the "National Emergency" is a bad precedent. I don't agree... we have upwards of 28,000 dying from drug overdoses that come across that border. We have a drain on resources, health care (in border states), and we don't have people paying into the system because they are here "illegally." So, is it an emergency that our border is being breached daily by we don't know who?

It sounds like the emergency is drug abusers.

Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Likewise, drugs crossing borders don't kill people; people kill people.

Is it an emergency that on any particular day, a terrorist could walk across the border with a bio-agent that kills thousands or more? I would think so... but apparently, many don't.

It looks like any risk at all could be considered an emergency by that standard. Anything at all could be used to justify granting the executive extraordinary powers. After all, risk X could be realized someday! Is a terrorist coming over the border with a bio weapon likely? No, but it could happen! Are we likely to all die from climate change within the next 50 years? No, but it could happen!! So clearly the solution is to grant the executive special powers and bypass the legislative process.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Here is a list of when national emergencies have been used, and what their purpose was:

The important thing to note is that the list keeps getting longer. We're moving toward an unfettered presidency, and that, in itself, is a real national emergency.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

By the way, on the bad precedent issue, I don't think that should be any consideration not anymore. The Democrats have been very good at skillfully avoiding the Constitution and the rule of law when it suits their purposes. Obama for instance selectively enforced the law, especially on immigration, and engineered things where various scandals in his administration would never see the light of day. If this was back in the 1970s-1980s I might agree, but we can't really expect the Dems to play by the rules, any more.

 

[civilwarbuff]

No Democrats voted against - it passed the Senate. All 32 no votes were Republicans.

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 - Wikipedia

So, what's your point?.....that the bill passed with bi-partisan support?

 

[Go Braves]

Pelosi is morally & legally correct about this.

 

[Yekcidmij]

By the way, on the bad precedent issue, I don't think that should be any consideration not anymore. The Democrats have been very good at skillfully avoiding the Constitution and the rule of law when it suits their purposes. Obama for instance selectively enforced the law, especially on immigration, and engineered things where various scandals in his administration would never see the light of day. If this was back in the 1970s-1980s I might agree, but we can't really expect the Dems to play by the rules, any more.

Wellllll.....if norms and rules are out the window, we better just go whole hog here. Let's pack the Supreme Court with 35 conservative justices and do a little judicial review. Wouldn't want the Dem's to get a chance to do it first.

 

[SolomonVII]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned Republicans on Thursday that a future Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency.

"You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today," Pelosi said, referring to the first anniversary of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead on Feb. 14, 2018.

She said the shooting was "another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America."

"That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that an emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would," she said. "But a Democratic president can do that. A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well."

Pelosi warns GOP that a Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency

The Constitution is a national emergency!!!
Yup, it sounds like something a Democrat might do all right.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Wellllll.....if norms and rules are out the window, we better just go whole hog here. Let's pack the Supreme Court with 35 conservative justices and do a little judicial review. Wouldn't want the Dem's to get a chance to do it first.

The Democrats have already talked about that and I wouldn't put it past them to try it when there next candidate gets in, especially if we successfully nominate a few more supreme court judges. As far as Republicans doing it, they are to weak to do the basic things legislatively speaking needed to support the president, so they could never pull that off.


There is saying, that "when Democrats get into office they get away with murder, when Republicans get into office they get murdered" This is something we especially see in the handling of the FBI and other agencies of Hilary vs. Trump. If there was a case for collusion with Russia, the hard evidence would point to Hilary selling uranium to the Russians, and Obama whispering in Dmitry Medvedev ear accidentally on a hot microphone "That he can have more flexibility on arms control after he is re-elected".


It's time for us, to do things the Obama way (which is actually Trumps natural style). You need to get away with us much stuff as you can when your in office and let the chips fall where they may later.

 

[tulc]

The Constitution is a national emergency!!!
Yup, it sounds like something a Democrat might do all right.

...but in this case it was a Republican President and all his Republican supporters in Congress.
tulc(just thought that needed to be pointed out)

 

[EpiscipalMe]

No, but the point was simply that using the "National Emergency" is a bad precedent. I don't agree... we have upwards of 28,000 dying from drug overdoses that come across that border. We have a drain on resources, health care (in border states), and we don't have people paying into the system because they are here "illegally." So, is it an emergency that our border is being breached daily by we don't know who? Is it an emergency that on any particular day, a terrorist could walk across the border with a bio-agent that kills thousands or more? I would think so... but apparently, many don't. My opinion is... when they realize it is an emergency, it will be too late.

National emergency that people are dying from drugs - the majority of which come through legal ports of entry.
National emergency that we have illegal immigration - in declining numbers with 2/3 coming in legally and overstaying visas.
National emergency that we could have a terrorist walk in - when most terrorists in the US are home grown and the others have come in through legal ports of entry.

But, hey, let's build a wall ...

So, what's your point?.....that the bill passed with bi-partisan support?

It passed the Senate despite the majority of Republicans voting against it (including ones who now declare that the border wall is a national emergency). The Republican Speaker of the House never brought it for a vote which is why it is not law now.

The point is that you and other conservatives like to repeat the Fox News mantra that Democrats were for a wall until Trump was in office. This is false. That bill was for comprehensive border security which included, among other things, a fence. Obama and the Democrats in Congress supported it. The Republicans, who now are lock-step with Trump on his wall and a declaration of a national emergency, opposed that bill and ultimately prevented it from becoming law in 2013.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It passed the Senate despite the majority of Republicans voting against it (including ones who now declare that the border wall is a national emergency). The Republican Speaker of the House never brought it for a vote which is why it is not law now.

You mean the one where virtually every illegal immigrant in the country would have been legalized and on the path to citizenship?.....that one? Yep, that one would not fly with republicans.....or the American people since they flipped the Senate to Republicans the very next year.

 

[His student]

Funny how many Dems are now using the "dangerous precedent" argument against Trump's declaring an open border from Mexico a national emergency.

As any person with access to a computer and an ounce of common sense can see - the "precedent" was set long ago and was used by Obama and Clinton some 25 times.

I don't know for sure if Pelosi has access to the internet - but I do know that she doesn't seem to have the common sense God gave a goose.

 

[tulc]

Funny how many Dems are now using the "dangerous precedent" argument against Trump's declaring an open border from Mexico a national emergency.

...what's even funnier is how two years into President Trumps administration how suddenly the border has become "an emergency". I guess getting huge tax cuts for President Trump and his friends was a "greater emergency" then the border huh?

As any person with access to a computer and an ounce of common sense can see - the "precedent" was set long ago and was used by Obama and Clinton some 25 times.

and apparently it was used by some Republican Presidents as well, what's your point?

I don't know for sure if Pelosi has access to the internet - but I do know that she doesn't seem to have the common sense God gave a goose.

...wasn't she put in her position by God? I thought we weren't supposed to talk about one of the Lords anointed like that?
tulc(is just wondering)

 

[EpiscipalMe]

You mean the one where virtually every illegal immigrant in the country would have been legalized and on the path to citizenship?.....that one? Yep, that one would not fly with republicans.....or the American people since they flipped the Senate to Republicans the very next year.

Yup. Like I said. More than just a wall. And it would only give a legal path to those who were present during or prior to 2011 and were law abiding citizens.

And, while we are on the topic of flipping Congress - The American people flipped the House this past election and do not support the Trump wall - so why the national emergency to get wall funding?

 

[tulc]

Wait...wasn't Mexico supposed to be paying for that wall?

tulc(wonders when that changed?)

 

[redleghunter]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned Republicans on Thursday that a future Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency.

"You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today," Pelosi said, referring to the first anniversary of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead on Feb. 14, 2018.

She said the shooting was "another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America."

"That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that an emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would," she said. "But a Democratic president can do that. A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well."

Pelosi warns GOP that a Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency

That would entail door to door searches of known criminals, ex-convicts and known mentally ill.

I say a Democrat President go for it. See what happens.