- 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
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:09 pm to boosiebadazz
Well ..let's rally around the Constitution.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:10 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
so the next Dem president can’t declare a national emergency and do whatever he/she wants?
There are like 28 current national emergencies active. Trump will not be the catalyst to them thinking they are able to use it.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:12 pm to flyAU
Name one that’s been used to enact major policy that has not been able to be done legislatively.
As long as you’re good with President Warren seizing coal plants in 2024 to combat the national emergency that is global warming
As long as you’re good with President Warren seizing coal plants in 2024 to combat the national emergency that is global warming
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:17 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
It is. Under the law as it is today, Obama could have declared global warming a national emergency and had incredibly powerful options open to him on what he could do unilaterally.
The problem with that is you cannot show any adverse actions to the country.
They would point to drought in California. Has it happened before? Yes. Was it claimed then? No.
They would point to Midwest floods. Has it happened before? Yes. Was it claimed then? No.
They would point to hurricanes. Happened? Yes. Claimed? No.
They would point to winter storms.
Happened? Yes. Claimed? No
Conditions leading to fires.. yes.. no.
Tornados.. yes.. no.
You cannot show, without a doubt, a provable adverse effect of “climate change” so a claim of a national emergency is a no go. It would be like claiming a national emergency over Cuba invading Florida.
“What is the emergency?”
“We are being invaded by Cuba’s navy!!”
“Where?!”
“South Florida!”
“Uhh.. mr president.. that is 10 Cubans on a raft made of plastic drums and duct tape”.
Climate change is basically the same argument. The mythical president says Cubans are on a ship steaming to Key West. Evidence shows it’s a raft taking on water.
Stats are there for defense of the southern border. They were laid out to the speaker and Senate minority leader. The claims are based on actual stats. A discernible amount of money paid to support.... crime stats.... cartel violence near the border... a pathway of drugs into the country to continue to fuel the opioid epidemic..thousands of illegals marching at once on the southern border with no way to prove intent or who is actually in the crowd.
Guns? Little problem with a number 2 in a founding document.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:19 pm to boosiebadazz
Nah. Politics make it impractical. The vast majority of national emergencies do not rise to the caliber of Pearl Harbor. Consider more local issues like Obama declaring a state of emergency over Flints water issues. You really want Senate republicans wiping that away? What if there were a pest epidemic that hobbled the iowa corn industry? Today's House dems wouldn't hesitate to #resist aid to a state Trump expects to carry. It would be painted as political patronage.
The system is fine the way it is. Democrats need to step up and negotiate.
The system is fine the way it is. Democrats need to step up and negotiate.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:22 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Consider more local issues like Obama declaring a state of emergency over Flints water issues. You really want Senate republicans wiping that away? What if there were a pest epidemic that hobbled the iowa corn industry? Today's House dems wouldn't hesitate to #resist aid to a state Trump expects to carry.
Politics would make this impractical as well. If they’re legit emergencies with legit victims then politicians aren’t going to want to be on record opposing them, regardless of party affiliation.
You shouldn’t be able to threaten to declare a national emergency to force someone to the table to negotiate.
Courts shouldn’t be in the business of taking posts like the one above yours and deciding if that is a “national emergency”. That’s wildly speculative, subjective, and turns the courts into overt political animals.
It’s terrible for constituional roles and constraints.
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 10:24 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:27 pm to boosiebadazz
Better yet, tell us why this isn't a national emergency.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:29 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
You guys think you hate Roberts for his ACA decision now? Just wait until this gets to him
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:32 pm to boosiebadazz
How is what's going on at the border not an emergency
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:32 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Politics would make this impractical as well. If they’re legit emergencies with legit victims then politicians aren’t going to want to be on record opposing them, regardless of party affiliation.
Are you paying attention? Dems dgaf anymore. The current party platform is repealing tax cuts, russian spy fantasies, perpetual war, and pretending that dhs isnt snagging a half million migrants per year at the border.
You dont have to like it, but its the way it is for a reason. Nothing suggested here would work any better, or be less political.
And lets be honest... you only care about this now because you dont like Trump.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:36 pm to SDVTiger
How is what’s going on with rising sea levels and temperatures not an emergency?
*I don’t actually believe global warming is an emergency, but you’re a fool if you don’t think a Dem admin can’t cherry pick stats and run to the 9th and get it approved. Even if SCOTUS overturns it’s still not the way to structure government and implement policy.*
It’s really, really bad macro policy to have courts deciding this. It invites a trampling over checks and balances.
*I don’t actually believe global warming is an emergency, but you’re a fool if you don’t think a Dem admin can’t cherry pick stats and run to the 9th and get it approved. Even if SCOTUS overturns it’s still not the way to structure government and implement policy.*
It’s really, really bad macro policy to have courts deciding this. It invites a trampling over checks and balances.
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 10:37 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:38 pm to boosiebadazz
So build a wall along the coasts
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:40 pm to boosiebadazz
Illegal border crossings have precipitated an immigrant crisis that costs us tax payers roughly 113b. That's the cost of hurricane Katrina, every single year, and growing.
Yes, it's a national emergency.
Yes, it's a national emergency.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:41 pm to boosiebadazz
If trump declared a national emergency to build the wall on powers outlined in national security regulations he still has to withstand the Dems filing a lawsuit. Trump is making the move because he thinks he can win in court. The Dems will have to decide if they want to continue the shutdown to ride out the court case.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:43 pm to Vacherie Saint
Do you really want to justify it on a micro level?
Now do gun deaths. Now do heart disease and certain types of food.
This is Pandora’s Box and you’re grabbing at the lid because you support this particular policy proposal.
This belongs in the political process in the legislative branch.
Now do gun deaths. Now do heart disease and certain types of food.
This is Pandora’s Box and you’re grabbing at the lid because you support this particular policy proposal.
This belongs in the political process in the legislative branch.
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 10:44 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:51 pm to boosiebadazz
You're comparing heart disease and a constitutionally protected right to migrants sneaking into the country.
By most estimates, there are as many illegals in the united staes as there are americans with cardiovascular disease. Get some perspective.
Is Trump not trying to do this?
By most estimates, there are as many illegals in the united staes as there are americans with cardiovascular disease. Get some perspective.
quote:
This belongs in the political process in the legislative branch.
Is Trump not trying to do this?
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 10:53 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:53 pm to boosiebadazz
Well as the Democrats often say, “if it saves just one life, it’s worth it.”
Lol, but this time it’ll save many lives, save money, and it’ll save our economy from becoming a socialist shithole due to Hispanics voting for socialism.
Lol, but this time it’ll save many lives, save money, and it’ll save our economy from becoming a socialist shithole due to Hispanics voting for socialism.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 10:53 pm to Vacherie Saint
I can’t wait to cherry pick stats for you after President Warren’s multiple declarations of national emergencies
But Vach, economic inequality/unaffordable healthcare/ global warming really is an emergency
here’s a cherry-picked stat to justify my position
But Vach, economic inequality/unaffordable healthcare/ global warming really is an emergency
Popular
Back to top



0








