Top
    What's New Babes Board Galleries Free Videos Sex Cams myFreeOnes Reviews Various

Sign up for FreeOnes to get rid of this ad today!

Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: State of emergency.

  1. #1
    I am in my own little world but it's okay they know me here. zeeblofowl_1969's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Age
    49
    Posts
    4,872
    Rep Power
    27529

    State of emergency.

    This is just a puppet show of distraction it has zero basis in reality.

    Noise noise noise.

  2. #2
    Proctor In Admiralty
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FEMA Region IV
    Posts
    22,906
    Rep Power
    104999

    Re: State of emergency.

    63,000,000 people in 30 states voted for a wall and it seems we are going to get one.
    I know you’d like to keep an endless supply of undocumented Democrats just walking across the border but it must end.

    Suck it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    63,000,000 people in 30 states voted for a wall and it seems we are going to get one.
    I know you’d like to keep an endless supply of undocumented Democrats just walking across the border but it must end.

    Suck it.
    “And now we wait...” FreeOnes_Adam

  3. #3
    Sex, OK. Rock 'n' Roll, OK. Drugs, no way ! Johan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12,860
    Rep Power
    80637

    Re: State of emergency.

    No, Trump Cannot Declare an ‘Emergency’ to Build His Wall

    If he did, and used soldiers to build it, they would all be committing a federal crime.



    President Trump on Friday said that he was considering the declaration of a “national emergency” along the border with Mexico, which he apparently believes would allow him to divert funds from the military budget to pay for a wall, and to use military personnel to build it.

    While it is hard to know exactly what the president has in mind, or whether he has any conception about what it would entail, one thing is clear: Not only would such an action be illegal, but if members of the armed forces obeyed his command, they would be committing a federal crime.

    Begin with the basics. From the founding onward, the American constitutional tradition has profoundly opposed the president’s use of the military to enforce domestic law. A key provision, rooted in an 1878 statute and added to the law in 1956, declares that whoever “willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force” to execute a law domestically “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years” — except when “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.”

    Another provision, grounded in a statute from 1807 and added to the law in 1981, requires the secretary of defense to “ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel)” must “not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.”

    In response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, Congress created an express exception to the rules, and authorized the military to play a backup role in “major public emergencies.” But in 2008 Congress and President Bush repealed this sweeping exception.
    Is President Trump aware of this express repudiation of the power which he is threatening to invoke?

    The statute books do contain a series of carefully crafted exceptions to the general rule. Most relevantly, Congress has granted the Coast Guard broad powers to enforce the law within the domestic waters of the United States. But there is no similar provision granting the other military services a comparable power to “search, seize and arrest” along the Mexican border. Given Congress’s decision of 2008, this silence speaks louder than words. Similarly, the current military appropriations bill fails to exempt military professionals from criminal punishment for violating the law in their use of available funds.

    It is, I suppose, possible to imagine a situation in which the president might take advantage of the most recent exception, enacted in 2011, which authorized the military detention of suspected terrorists associated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban. But despite President Trump’s unsupported claims about “terrorists” trying to cross the border, it is an unconscionable stretch to use this proviso to support using the military for operations against the desperate refugees from Central America seeking asylum in our country.

    It is even less plausible for the president to suspend these restrictions under the National Emergencies Act of 1976. From the Great Depression through the Cold War, presidents systematically abused emergency powers granted them by Congress in some 470 statutes, culminating in the Watergate fiasco. In response, the first section of the 1976 act terminated all existing emergencies and created a framework of checks and balances on the president’s arbitrary will.

    If President Trump declared an emergency, Section Five of the act gives the House of Representatives the right to repudiate it immediately, then pass their resolution to the Senate — which is explicitly required to conduct a floor vote within 15 days. Since President Trump’s “emergency” declaration would be a direct response to his failure to convince Congress that national security requires his wall, it is hard to believe that a majority of the Senate, if forced to vote, would accept his show of contempt for their authority.

    The Supreme Court’s 1953 decision in Youngstown v. Sawyer would be critical in Congressional consideration of such a decision. In a canonical opinion by Justice Robert Jackson, the court invalidated President Truman’s attempt in 1952 to use his powers as commander in chief to nationalize steel mills in the face of labor strikes. The decision imposed fundamental constitutional limits on the president’s power to claim that a national emergency — in this case, the Korean War — allowed him to override express provisions preventing him from using those powers domestically.

    The law is clear; how it would play out is less so. But undoubtedly, we would see a period of passionate debate on Capitol Hill, with scores of representatives, from both parties, condemning the president’s move as an unconstitutional abuse of his powers as commander in chief.
    This would play out in public, with millions of service members watching closely. They would immediately be obliged to decide whether to obey President Trump — and risk criminal punishment. For the president to put these men and women in such a position, simply out of petulance over congressional opposition, would be especially unconscionable.

    Should the president proceed, he should ask the Office of Legal Counsel to issue an opinion explaining to service members why they would not be “willfully” acting illegally if they heeded the president’s command. But we know this president well enough to know that will not happen.
    Instead, he will likely take the most irresponsible path possible, issuing his “national emergency” through a tweet or a question-begging written pronunciamento. Recall how legally flawed his first stabs at the so-called travel ban were; if anything, his willingness to seek legal advice, and the ability of those around him to provide it, has declined since then.

    What this all adds up to is a potential crisis much graver than whatever immigration emergencies the president has in mind: A legally ignorant president forcing our troops to choose between his commands and the rule of law in a petty political struggle over a domestic political question.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/o...-his-wall.html

  4. #4
    Proctor In Admiralty
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FEMA Region IV
    Posts
    22,906
    Rep Power
    104999

    Re: State of emergency.



    This is what happens when libtards become hysterical about their plans crashing down around them.
    They write shit like this to comfort each other. Oh he could use the defense budget to build the wall alright and he will if he has to.
    He has a legal team advising him of his options and he is not sitting around plotting using military funds on his own and as some trap to get him to commit federal crimes.

    The president has wide and sweeping plenary powers and if they want to get technical, we can use civilian employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or subcontractors as civilians to do the job.
    We’re getting our wall snowflakes.
    Deal with it.
    “And now we wait...” FreeOnes_Adam

  5. #5
    Sex, OK. Rock 'n' Roll, OK. Drugs, no way ! Johan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12,860
    Rep Power
    80637

    Re: State of emergency.

    The article provides legislative texts supporting its claims. You may do likewise

  6. #6
    Sex, OK. Rock 'n' Roll, OK. Drugs, no way ! Johan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12,860
    Rep Power
    80637

    Re: State of emergency.

    We’re getting our wall snowflakes.
    Deal with it.
    If the wall gets built (which will never happen 'cause a Democrat will be POTUS before construction even actually starts, let alone be over), you can bet demolishing it will be the very first thing a Democrat president will order.

  7. #7
    Proctor In Admiralty
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FEMA Region IV
    Posts
    22,906
    Rep Power
    104999

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johan View Post
    If the wall gets built (which will never happen 'cause a Democrat will be POTUS before construction even actually starts, let alone be over), you can bet demolishing it will be the very first thing a Democrat president will order.
    We’re not getting a Democrat President for at least 6 more years. The wall will start construction within 90 days.
    Oh and tearing down any wall that was built during Trump’s 2 terms in office will lead to Civil War 2.0 which will eliminate liberal ideology or at least send it into back room discussion for the next 100 years.
    “And now we wait...” FreeOnes_Adam

  8. #8
    ...keeps forgetting to remove his buttplug. pool_hustler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SF bay area
    Posts
    3,494
    Rep Power
    65477

    Re: State of emergency.

    Yeah watch out for that civil war, Johan.
    You don't wanna mess with fatass keyboard warriors who'd have coronaries trying to run a half mile.

  9. #9
    Proctor In Admiralty
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FEMA Region IV
    Posts
    22,906
    Rep Power
    104999

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by pool_hustler View Post
    Yeah watch out for that civil war, Johan.
    You don't wanna mess with fatass keyboard warriors who'd have coronaries trying to run a half mile.
    Yeah, that’s always the narrative from dumb fuck liberals.
    Pretty much everyone I know lives a healthy lifestyle unlike worthless liberal filth who spent most of their adult life watching MSNBC and stuffing their faces from their couch and consuming as many controlled substances as they can get away with.
    “And now we wait...” FreeOnes_Adam

  10. #10
    Sex, OK. Rock 'n' Roll, OK. Drugs, no way ! Johan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12,860
    Rep Power
    80637

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by pool_hustler View Post
    Yeah watch out for that civil war, Johan.
    You don't wanna mess with fatass keyboard warriors who'd have coronaries trying to run a half mile.
    I certainly don't wanna mess with people telling me that the reason why Americans have the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the country from having an authoritarian regime, have watched Fox News telling them Obama was a dictator for 8 years but still never got their fat ass out of the sofa.

  11. #11
    Proctor In Admiralty
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FEMA Region IV
    Posts
    22,906
    Rep Power
    104999

    Re: State of emergency.

    My Del-Ton AR-15 gives me the capability to pick off Dorito’s at 150 yards.
    “And now we wait...” FreeOnes_Adam

  12. #12
    Moderator georges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    europe
    Age
    40
    Posts
    39,863
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johan View Post
    I certainly don't wanna mess with people telling me that the reason why Americans have the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the country from having an authoritarian regime, have watched Fox News telling them Obama was a dictator for 8 years but still never got their fat ass out of the sofa.
    Says almost everey Obama muppet who prefers Nancy the Dumb Cunt Pelosi, Crying Chuck Schumer, MS13, illegal aliens, criminals as well as unwilling to work people, free healthcare and social security leech offs to hardworking and honest law abiding citizens. The 2nd amendment is for a good reason only the leftists like you hate the 2nd amendment.

  13. #13
    ...keeps forgetting to remove his buttplug. pool_hustler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SF bay area
    Posts
    3,494
    Rep Power
    65477

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johan View Post
    I certainly don't wanna mess with people telling me that the reason why Americans have the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the country from having an authoritarian regime, have watched Fox News telling them Obama was a dictator for 8 years but still never got their fat ass out of the sofa.
    Be careful not to be too overconfident. Even if they're just blowhards the chubby ones can still neg rep you into oblivion

  14. #14
    Sex, OK. Rock 'n' Roll, OK. Drugs, no way ! Johan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12,860
    Rep Power
    80637

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Davenport View Post
    My Del-Ton AR-15 gives me the capability to pick off Dorito’s at 150 yards.
    Wow, I'm impressed. I bet you can also suck your own dick ?

    The 2nd amendment is for a good reason only the leftists like you hate the 2nd amendment
    I don't hate it. I just think it's outdated. It's been written at a time when they only had muskets that needed to be recharged after every shot. modern weapons can fire tens of rounds in a minutes, making them capable of killing many people very rapidly. For fuck sake, it's so vague that some people argue bazookas fall under the 2nd Amendment ! It was written at at time when communities wre self regulated, peple looked after each other and would make sure the village's idiot wouldn' be allowed to bear guns. Today, under the 2nd Amendment, people featuring on the CIA watchlist, people we're told could be a threat to the nation, are allowed to bear guns, all kind of guns.


    The US Constitution is great, nor agueing against that. But it's not perfect. Over History, changes have been made. Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights (1791), 17 more amendments have ben ratified
    The 2nd amendment needs to be updated, it needs to be interpreted differently for how it used to be because it's not 1785 anymore

  15. #15
    God damn it, Baconsalt! Straight Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    28
    Posts
    8,847
    Rep Power
    176251

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by georges View Post
    Says almost everey Obama muppet who prefers Nancy the Dumb Cunt Pelosi, Crying Chuck Schumer, MS13, illegal aliens, criminals as well as unwilling to work people, free healthcare and social security leech offs to hardworking and honest law abiding citizens. The 2nd amendment is for a good reason only the leftists like you hate the 2nd amendment.
    2nd amendment? I think nobody knows more about the constitution than I do, maybe in the history of the world
    We're all full of shit

    Wickr: Abraxas22
    Signal: 773-666-4080 Email: [email protected]

  16. #16
    Proctor In Admiralty
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FEMA Region IV
    Posts
    22,906
    Rep Power
    104999

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johan View Post
    Wow, I'm impressed. I bet you can also suck your own dick ?

    I don't hate it. I just think it's outdated. It's been written at a time when they only had muskets that needed to be recharged after every shot. modern weapons can fire tens of rounds in a minutes, making them capable of killing many people very rapidly. For fuck sake, it's so vague that some people argue bazookas fall under the 2nd Amendment ! It was written at at time when communities wre self regulated, peple looked after each other and would make sure the village's idiot wouldn' be allowed to bear guns. Today, under the 2nd Amendment, people featuring on the CIA watchlist, people we're told could be a threat to the nation, are allowed to bear guns, all kind of guns.


    The US Constitution is great, nor agueing against that. But it's not perfect. Over History, changes have been made. Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights (1791), 17 more amendments have ben ratified
    The 2nd amendment needs to be updated, it needs to be interpreted differently for how it used to be because it's not 1785 anymore
    You leftists are always whining about freedom of the press. It was ratified during an era of only printing presses and town criers. Perhaps its usefulness ended with electronic and social media.
    “And now we wait...” FreeOnes_Adam

  17. #17
    Sex, OK. Rock 'n' Roll, OK. Drugs, no way ! Johan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12,860
    Rep Power
    80637

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Davenport View Post
    You leftists are always whining about freedom of the press. It was ratified during an era of only printing presses and town criers. Perhaps its usefulness ended with electronic and social media.
    Or perhaps some "opinions", some speeches shouldn't fall under the 1st Amendment. Things such as hate speeches, holocaust-denying, etc.

  18. #18
    Moderator georges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    europe
    Age
    40
    Posts
    39,863
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: State of emergency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Shooter View Post
    2nd amendment? I think nobody knows more about the constitution than I do, maybe in the history of the world
    You voted democrat twice, so stop pretending that you know more about the 2nd amendment or even the constitution than anyone else, the fact that you were for Obamacare and are against closed borders says a lot about you. No,you aren't above nor better anyone else Mr Knowitall and you have a lot to learn.

  19. #19
    Trolls are Trollin' - I'll keep Rollin' Supafly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Schleswig-Holstein
    Posts
    17,469
    Rep Power
    218063

    Re: State of emergency.

    You don't need to believe us, you can listen to the people on FOXNews


  20. #20
    Proctor In Admiralty
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FEMA Region IV
    Posts
    22,906
    Rep Power
    104999

    Re: State of emergency.

    Jonathan Turley >>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot Napalitano.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...or-border-wall
    The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency”¯ to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities”¯ of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.”¯ The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,”¯ rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”

    Democrats have not objected to use of this authority regularly by past presidents, including roughly 30 such emergencies that continue to this day. Other statutes afford additional emergency powers. Indeed, a report by the Congressional Research Service in 2007 stated, “Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may 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.”


    Congress spent decades yielding authority to the executive branch. When it agreed with the president, such mighty authority was even celebrated. But now, consider the objections from Representative Joaquin Castro, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He has declared that it would be “profoundly inappropriate for the president of the United States to circumvent the legislative branch and single handedly, against the will of the American people and the American Congress, put up a wall.”

    This is a curious statement from one of many lawmakers who supported Obama when he openly circumvented Congress on immigration reforms. Obama ordered agencies to stop enforcing some federal laws and used executive orders to do precisely what Congress refused to do. When Obama declared in a State of the Union address that he would circumvent Congress if it failed to approve his immigration reforms, Democrats cheered at the notion of their own circumvention, if not obsolescence.

    Likewise, Castro and his colleagues supported Obama when he ordered the payment of billions out of the Treasury into ObamaCare, after being denied the funds by Congress. These same Democrats were largely silent when Obama attacked Libya without a declaration of war or legislative authorization. Obama funded the Libyan war out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without a specific appropriation. I represented lawmakers who opposed the Libyan war. I also served as attorney for the entire House of Representatives in successfully opposing the ObamaCare payments. Most Democrats opposed both these lawsuits.

    Congress can act to stop circumvention under the National Emergencies Act. Trump must notify Congress of his declaration and detail the powers being claimed under that law. Congress could and should negate the declaration with a vote of both chambers. However, that does not make the declaration unconstitutional. Any declaration would create a myriad of legal issues and likely face an immediate legal challenge. Two questions that a court would have to consider are the source of the authority and the source of any funds. The latter is where some challenges could arise.
    They will try and challenge but SCOTUS will rule in favor of Trump, a Ruth Bader Ginsberg-less
    court. Thoughts and prayers.
    “And now we wait...” FreeOnes_Adam

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •