- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How many prior national emergencies were declared AFTER failing to pass legislation?
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:07 pm to cahoots
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:07 pm to cahoots
quote:
We can take it from the military and save american lives!
I think there'd be an argument that this precedent has not been set here. I suppose they could do it and set their own precedent, but I could see the argument that health and military are not as closely related as defense/security and a border wall.
0
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:08 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
LOL
this is what the left has come to.
"Well we did it without even trying Congress!!!!"
The point is lost on you. Bush didn't declare a nat'l emergency during katrina because congress didn't support assistance. He did it because it made sense in the heat of the moment.
Trump is doing this to bypass the need for congressional support.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:09 pm to cahoots
quote:
Dude that was well over a decade ago! Are you telling me that Republcians now have to support any measure they partly supported in 2006?
Bruh, the first fence/wall/steel slates started going up in the 80s
They always had full support from both parties in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
Dems were 100% on board for extra security and fencing just a few years ago 13/14, voting unanimously for it.
I will ask again, what has changed to make it a manufactured, inhumane and immoral starting in 2016???! What has changed that they are 100% against it from 13/14??
What changed for the DEM party, especially the Nancy and Chuck to pull a freakin 180 on border security?
Barack Obamas border advisor and immigration advisor said and still say more wall is needed. This is why it was part of Dem platform and dems supported it all the way up to 2016.
If B.O was still POTUS, dems would be onboard for more wall.
You're being intellectual dishonest!
The only thing that has changed is Trump in office, nothing more...nothing less
Dems don't want him to deliver on his campaign promise and get a "WIN" bc of the upcoming election in 2020.
This is all the Dems have left.
Sure as hell cant speak on ending wars, economy, jobs, unemployment, wages
This post was edited on 2/15/19 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:09 pm to cahoots
Can you explain the relevance as it pertains to the rights delegated to the president via the act?
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:13 pm to cahoots
quote:No cahoots, with all due respect, you are missing the point. You raised the specter of "intent".
You're missing the point.
How in the world do you excuse Pelosi's "intent", when she readily supported wall construction during every administration she served under? She supported wall construction during every one of her previous administrations until now. Now we have 30K caravans attempting to breach our border and Pelosi suddenly says "not 1¢" for a wall???
WTF is the intent there?
You raised the question. Provide the answer!
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:14 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Can you explain the relevance as it pertains to the rights delegated to the president via the act?
I'm arguing that trump is setting a precedent. In the past, national emergencies weren't declared AFTER failing to get congressional support for a measure. It's just hard to view this declaration as akin to every other one. It's different.
Now whether the president has a right to this variety is a separate issue.
I'm arguing that this one has a much different and more political tone. And it's in response to and not in lieu of congressional support
This post was edited on 2/15/19 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:15 pm to cahoots
quote:Harry Reid set several.
I'm arguing that trump is setting a precedent.
Bad or Good?
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:16 pm to ShortyRob
quote:More nonsensical hackery
LOL
this is what the left has come to.
"Well we did it without even trying Congress!!!!"
Conservative Rob is now an extra-congressional executive order advocate
Good times
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:16 pm to cahoots
Did the president have a phone and a pen?
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:18 pm to cahoots
quote:
Trump is doing this to bypass the need for congressional support.
As did Obama for DACA.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:18 pm to cahoots
One beautiful one.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
How in the world do you excuse Pelosi's "intent", when she readily supported wall construction during every administration she served under? She supported wall construction during every one of her previous administrations until now. Now we have 30K caravans attempting to breach our border and Pelosi suddenly says "not 1¢" for a wall???
WTF is the intent there?
Her 1 cent jab was in response to the idea that he should get whatever the frick he wanted for the wall. Democrats provided funding for the wall, just not as much as he wanted. They did so well before the shutdown.
Are republicans not allowed to limit funding for things they previously supported? How about some medicaid expansions?
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:20 pm to cahoots
quote:
Democrats can make a good faith effort to expand medicaid and if that doesn't work, national emergency?
Healthcare is not a job of the national government, protecting the borders is the primary job of the national government get your shite together.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:20 pm to cahoots
quote:
I'm arguing that trump is setting a precedent. In the past, national emergencies weren't declared AFTER failing to get congressional support for a measure. It's just hard to view this declaration as akin to every other one. It's different.
This is likely because you are ignorant of the act. It requires the president cite one of the enumerated issues that congress specifically delegated power to the president via the act.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Harry Reid set several.
Bad or Good?
That story is yet to be told. But don't tell me this one isn't different.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:23 pm to cahoots
Congress is the body that gave the president the authority to use emergency powers. They can take that power away whenever they are ready through the same process they gave it.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:23 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
This is likely because you are ignorant of the act. It requires the president cite one of the enumerated issues that congress specifically delegated power to the president via the act.
So what? That is rather ambiguous and you know it.
The point is that this emergency is unlike any of the former ones. The context is clearly different. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:24 pm to cahoots
quote:
So what? That is rather ambiguous and you know it.
It is? Which section, specifically, do you find ambiguous?
quote:
The point is that this emergency is unlike any of the former ones. The context is clearly different. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
Well clearly. A bad orange man did this one.
This post was edited on 2/15/19 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:25 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
quote:
Congress is the body that gave the president the authority to use emergency powers. They can take that power away whenever they are ready through the same process they gave it.
And when they gave him the power, you think they were intending to let him bypass a decision that they have made? frick no.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 4:27 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Well clearly. A bad orange man did this one.
Great retort. The fact that you think this emergency declaration somehow resembles all of the ones before it demonstrates how truly unreasonable you are.
Page 3 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News