National Emergency Gun Control

[KLB]

Would be nice if Congress would reign in the President. Rather than giving the office more power every time we turn around, Congress needs to start taking some of it back.

 

[T.Lex]

Would be nice if Congress would reign in the President. Rather than giving the office more power every time we turn around, Congress needs to start taking some of it back.

The "national emergency" power is something inherent in the executive IMHO.

I absolutely agree that executive power in areas like rulemaking need to be more limited. Good luck with that, though.

 

[Fargo]

The "national emergency" power is something inherent in the executive IMHO.

I absolutely agree that executive power in areas like rulemaking need to be more limited. Good luck with that, though.

Curious why you say it is inherent, especially as regards appropriations?

 

[Ingomike]

Late to the thread again. But I just wanna say, “Toldjah!l

Obama didn’t do gun control through emergency action because he didn’t think he could get away with it. Trump has no such inhibitions. He’ll do what he wants and take his chances that he’ll get away with it. And he usually does. When Trump does it to get the things Trumpers want, they think he’s awesome. If he can bypass congress to get funding for the wall, he can bypass congress to redefine the legislated definition of a machine gun. It’s one of the more dangerous aspects of him. Just think what this new tactic can do in the hands of democrats. Trump has shown them the way. Would really be nice to have a rule of law president.

Here is what is wrong in this post, is "gun control" a Presidential duty in the Constitution? Nope, in fact the opposite it is enumerated as a right of the people. Is national security a Presidential duty in the Constitution? Yep, is national sovereignty and border security a part of that? Yep. I believe the Supreme Court will agree with both of those.

You are right, the whole bumpstock thing is wrong. However, here is how l see it, Congress was going to pass something and p***y Republicans were going to cave. DJT did this, gave them cover to not do "bi-partisan" gun control, knowing the courts would later rule out or they could settle it after the lawsuits were filed, and the fever gun control pitch had subsided.

MM

 

[El-Cigarro]

No.

I said that the president has LAWFUL authority to change allocation of funds within a given budget--like for securing the border, and national security is something both the president and congress have a CONSTITUTIONAL obligation to provide.

Democrat's aspiring to disarm the public is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore ILLEGAL.

This is what I'm thinking. ^^^^^ NOW, if the Dems can threaten to do this with the 2A, who's to say another REP President can't do this to,say, ABORTION???? Something for the Far-Left to think about .....

 

[T.Lex]

Curious why you say it is inherent, especially as regards appropriations?

The power to declare an emergency, IMHO, is inherent in the executive. "Real" emergencies don't allow for things like committee hearings.

Now, the extent to which the executive cuts corners is (obviously) tricky. A good executive would start with things that have general application, or can be diverted from "rainy day funds," or are roughly in the same department as the original appropriation. For instance, if a certain amount of funds are appropriated for military training, using those funds to send troops to the border to address an emergency makes sense.

Much is dependent on the integrity of the executive, for good or bad.

Once the emergency resolves (as real emergencies tend to do), supporting legislation/appropriations can confirm the actions of the executive or a collaboration can produce an effective result based on the roles of the entities.

 

[El-Cigarro]

Late to the thread again. But I just wanna say, “Toldjah!l

Obama didn’t do gun control through emergency action because he didn’t think he could get away with it. Trump has no such inhibitions. He’ll do what he wants and take his chances that he’ll get away with it. And he usually does. When Trump does it to get the things Trumpers want, they think he’s awesome. If he can bypass congress to get funding for the wall, he can bypass congress to redefine the legislated definition of a machine gun. It’s one of the more dangerous aspects of him. Just think what this new tactic can do in the hands of democrats. Trump has shown them the way. Would really be nice to have a rule of law president.

Even if Trump DIDN'T do this, who's to say the Dems wouldn't have used this "National Emergency Act" for whatever purposes down the road????

 

[ghuns]

According to a 2007 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the 1976 National Emergencies Act entitles the president to "statutory delegations from Congress" that let him "seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

Sooooo...

Perish the thought, but say Trump isn't reelected in 2020. Say a president Harris, Booker, Sanders, whatever declares climate change a national emergency and seizes "the means of production" for power generation, oil refineries, etc. and " commences to "regulate the operation" of them?

How will INGO feel about it?

 

[Ingomike]

Would be nice if Congress would reign in the President. Rather than giving the office more power every time we turn around, Congress needs to start taking some of it back.

The "national emergency" power is something inherent in the executive IMHO.

I absolutely agree that executive power in areas like rulemaking need to be more limited. Good luck with that, though.

Curious why you say it is inherent, especially as regards appropriations?

The executive has a Constitutional duty to protect the countries sovereignty and security, that is an inherent obligation. Yes the President must follow the appropriations of the Congress BUT, they already lazily gave that away in the Emergecy Powers act.

The Executive has supervision responsibility over all parts of the governmental agencies. Congress in a dereliction of their duties has been passing outlines and allowing the agencies to fill in the rest, the agencies under the executive supervision. They can easily take back those duties by passing full and complete laws and when questions come up fixing them.

MM

 

[Fargo]

The power to declare an emergency, IMHO, is inherent in the executive. "Real" emergencies don't allow for things like committee hearings.

Now, the extent to which the executive cuts corners is (obviously) tricky. A good executive would start with things that have general application, or can be diverted from "rainy day funds," or are roughly in the same department as the original appropriation. For instance, if a certain amount of funds are appropriated for military training, using those funds to send troops to the border to address an emergency makes sense.

Much is dependent on the integrity of the executive, for good or bad.

Once the emergency resolves (as real emergencies tend to do), supporting legislation/appropriations can confirm the actions of the executive or a collaboration can produce an effective result based on the roles of the entities.

I would say that his "extraordinary" power to compel congress to convene under Article II Sec 3 suggests that outside of his Commander in Chief role, the executive was not granted much if any inherent emergency powers as long as there is a congress.

 

[T.Lex]

Sooooo...

Perish the thought, but say Trump isn't reelected in 2020. Say a president Harris, Booker, Sanders, whatever declares climate change a national emergency and seizes "the means of production" for power generation, oil refineries, etc. and " commences to "regulate the operation" of them?

How will INGO feel about it?

The '70s had some strange exercises in Congressional power with respect to the executive. The War Powers Act is the one I usually think of. This National Emergencies Act is in a similar vein IMHO.

Congress did some stuff assuming they had the power to do so (which in some ways mirrors things the POTUS had done). I'm not convinced Congress can "delegate" the power to do this things that Congress couldn't actually do in the first place.

 

[T.Lex]

I would say that his "extraordinary" power to compel congress to convene under Article II Sec 3 suggests that outside of his Commander in Chief role, the executive was not granted much if any inherent emergency powers as long as there is a congress.

Keeping in mind the context of a "real" emergency, then things would still need to be done to address the emergency while ordering Congress to convene and (supposedly) make a decision.

I think there is a significant overlap, though, both in terms of "real" emergencies and his role as CINC. I believe DOD funds are the ones being targeted for the wall. Those appropriations are in line with the CINC-like actions anticipated to be necessary.

Importantly, he "may" convene Congress. He doesn't have to.

Again, that relies on a certain amount of integrity of the officeholder.

 

[Fargo]

Sooooo...

Perish the thought, but say Trump isn't reelected in 2020. Say a president Harris, Booker, Sanders, whatever declares climate change a national emergency and seizes "the means of production" for power generation, oil refineries, etc. and " commences to "regulate the operation" of them?

How will INGO feel about it?

Most of those things were already done by FDR, both during the New Deal and expansively during WWII.

IMO Trump is helping crank open the door to executive tyranny on pretense, which is a terrible thing for the future of the Republic.

 

[Fargo]

Keeping in mind the context of a "real" emergency, then things would still need to be done to address the emergency while ordering Congress to convene and (supposedly) make a decision.

I think there is a significant overlap, though, both in terms of "real" emergencies and his role as CINC. I believe DOD funds are the ones being targeted for the wall. Those appropriations are in line with the CINC-like actions anticipated to be necessary.

Importantly, he "may" convene Congress. He doesn't have to.

Again, that relies on a certain amount of integrity of the officeholder.

I would agree that the CINC job has inherent contextual emergency power, it is in its nature. Beyond that though, I think Congress has to act.

 

[Ingomike]

Sooooo...

Perish the thought, but say Trump isn't reelected in 2020. Say a president Harris, Booker, Sanders, whatever declares climate change a national emergency and seizes "the means of production" for power generation, oil refineries, etc. and " commences to "regulate the operation" of them?

How will INGO feel about it?

We will hate it and say Congress legislated their obligations away to the executive branch and they need to take this back. The President is not a dictator, the Congress can override the President anytime they wish. In fact in the current skirmish, the President could not do this if McConnell was not in agreement on this.

This is a made up Constitutional crisis...

MM

 

[ArcadiaGP]

We will hate it and say Congress legislated their obligations away to the executive branch and they need to take this back. The President is not a dictator, the Congress can override the President anytime they wish. In fact in the current skirmish, the President could not do this if McConnell was not in agreement on this.

This is a made up Constitutional crisis...

MM

I'm seeing a lot of blame being put on the government for allowing this to happen rather than the person that's doing it. Not just you.

Sort of a "aw man, if only we wouldn't have made this possible... shucks... but oh well he's doing it anyway." I have a hard time believing anyone would feel that way if the parties involved were reversed.

 

[JettaKnight]

I've heard people saying this but I am wondering what SPECIFIC entities are paying for the migrants move toward the US?

The left.
Probably Soros. It's been documented from the beginning.

Denny, just take his word, why would you need any proof? Proof is only required when it's dealing with Russia.

At the end of it all I think that big law firms will be the only winners here.

Always follow the money

And Trump and construction companies.

If we use the "follow the money" rule, the winners here are Trump, and Trump loyalist. They get their wall, they win. Ergo, the money leads to them.


The caravans, and all the hype around it, creates a sense of urgency to build the wall. Trump needs this urgency to garner support. Trump needs the caravans. The caravans need money. So, if we follow the money, then it came from Trump.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm seeing a lot of blame being put on the government for allowing this to happen rather than the person that's doing it. Not just you.

Sort of a "aw man, if only we wouldn't have made this possible... shucks... but oh well he's doing it anyway." I have a hard time believing anyone would feel that way if the parties involved were reversed.

Really? I hope this is the wake up call that prods Congress into doing their job. The outrage should be delivered to Congress for their failings. If Congress passed the law and the President uses it he should be blamed for doing it right?

MM

 

[Fargo]

Really? I hope this is the wake up call that prods Congress into doing their job. The outrage should be delivered to Congress for their failings. If Congress passed the law and the President uses it he should be blamed for doing it right?

MM

The power to appropriate was given to Congress and Congress alone, and quite explicitly can only be done by an act of Congress. Art. 1 Sec. 9. This appears to me to be a constitutionally non-delegable power, especially to a branch of government that it is constitutionally withheld from.

 

[Ingomike]

Denny, just take his word, why would you need any proof? Proof is only required when it's dealing with Russia.




And Trump and construction companies.

If we use the "follow the money" rule, the winners here are Trump, and Trump loyalist. They get their wall, they win. Ergo, the money leads to them.


The caravans, and all the hype around it, creates a sense of urgency to build the wall. Trump needs this urgency to garner support. Trump needs the caravans. The caravans need money. So, if we follow the money, then it came from Trump.

As with many of these things there is a kernel of truth here that has been extrapolated. The caravan he's been spotted with UN support and UNsupplied aid bags. Soros is an open borders guy and financialy supports UN efforts to move migrants from the third world to the west.

MM