Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Democrats say "No!" to Wall (Read 5113 times)
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11346
Gender: male
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #45 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 3:23pm
 
SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 2:57pm:
Panther wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 1:49pm:
The moment a demon-rat President, or any suicidal President for that matter, tries to enforce firearm confiscation, or "infringes" upon all individual American's Constitutional Rights to Keep & Bear Arms for Self-Defense, there will be government blood flowing in the streets of America, & it won't stop until the government is completely wrested from their Anti-Second Amendment hands, & put back in the hands of a Pro-Second Amendment government.


But they would have bypassed the constitution with a National Emergency like Trump has, so it's ok.

You can't only pretend to care about the constitution when it matters to you...


@
SadKangaroo 
And you can't pretend you know the US Constitution as well as you might think you do (The Constitution was written for the People, not the Government), & what you posted, in any way manner or form, answers the question(s) I put forth.

Just because Nancy Rotten Krotch says that's what a President might attempt, the Supreme Court would immediately step in before the ink has dried, & declare his actions are 100% unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has done before to other proclamations.

Sad........Funny that the SCOTUS hasn't interceded here with President Trump's 'Southern Border Emergency'.......that's because what the President has done is obviously Constitutional for one, & secondly, the powers by which the President is procuring the funds to build THE WALL was also derived directly from Congress when they wrote the original law. Constitutionality is not an issue there......Congress abdicated it's own powers to be consulted.........abdicated it's Right to the President, in times when he, & he alone, can exercise the Power this Law gives him.......JFYI....... Emergency Powers Act of 1976 isn't written anywhere in the US Constitution, but it was written in Legislation passed by an earlier Congress, & signed into Law by an earlier  Presidents Signature, as the Constitution requires, & much to the chagrin of today's 2019 Congress.  Wink

Just because no other President used the powers Congress itself bestowed upon the President this way, doesn't mean he can't, just that that was another Congress, & no subsequent Congresses felt it worth repairing the law as written........

So until Congress can get a 2/3rds majority vote in each of BOTH houses to bypass the President's sure veto, the President is on SOLID Grounds, & until Congress defines exactly what does & does not constitute an National Emergency via a Veto proof vote, how it is defined is solely up to the President. Wink


American Law......doncha love it!!

I do!!  Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 21st, 2019 at 3:43pm by Panther »  

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'
 
IP Logged
 
SadKangaroo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


#FightStupid

Posts: 16853
Mianjin (Brisbane)
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #46 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:00pm
 
Panther wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 2:19pm:
@SadKangaroo
Quote:
........It is a 100% politically motivated proposal to help Trump in the 2020 election that is exploiting laws, bypassing the constitution and disrespecting the country and their people...........


Specifically regarding THE WALL....... How is President Trump:
1. Exploiting laws?


National Emergency Powers are not constitutionally granted, they the result of a federal law.  He is exploiting that law, because there is no emergency.

Not a single statistic supports his claims.  These are not "fake news" statistics, these are released either by the Government Agencies or the Whitehouse themselves.

To continue claiming that there is an emergency, when there isn't, to get funding for a wall, that even if there WAS an emergency, would not do a thing to alleviate it, is exploiting the National Emergency laws, or more specifically the NEA.

Quote:
2. Bypassing the US Constitution?


The constitution states that,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There was bipartisan negotiation in the Congress about the funding for the wall post the shutdown.  An agreement was reached.  It was only after this agreement was reached, and Trump didn't like the outcome, that he declared the National Emergency.

He's bypassing Congress to get his funding.  As the constitution makes it clear that Congress is the only body who can approve spending of funds raised via taxation, in bypassing them, Trump has bypassed the constitution.

He said the same about Obama when he used these same powers, although under different circumstances,

...

It is almost scary how Trump is doing literally what he complained about Obama doing.

AND, not only that, he even said on his announcement that he doesn't need to declare an emergency, he's just doing it to get the money faster.

Quote:
3. Disrespecting the People & for that matter, the Country?


You Panther have made it clear in the gun debate, that anyone who wants to infringe on the constitutionally granted rights of the people by advocating for keeping assault rifles and weapons of war out of the hands of civilians are disrespecting the constitution, the founding fathers, the people and the country.

Trump isn't talking about subverting the constitution, he's actively trying to do so.  Given the reasons why, detailed able, but in shorthand, to save himself from the political embarrassment of his failures, not an actual emergency, but to pacify his ego, that is the hight of disrespect to the people, the constitution and the country.

It's very simple, what Trump is doing vs what he says he's doing, as usual, are not the same.

He claims there is an emergency when there is no evidence to support there is.

He claims his fictional emergency is because of x, y & z, yet his solution he's seeking funding for in bypassing Congress, the wall, will not help with x, y & z.

He had 2+ years to get funding for the wall and get construction started but he strung it along as an election issue for the midterms, the Dems and more so the people, called his bluff, he lost his majority in the House and now has to negotiate with the Democrats.

This should be a piece of cake, this is Trump but as we've quickly learned, he can't negotiate his way out of a paper bag unless he is holding all the cards or can use legal threats to force the hand of those at the table.  Without that unlosable position, he's simply can't succeed. 

He went from $25billion in funding via his amazing negotiating skills down to 55 miles of fence and all he had to do was shut down the Government ruining countless lives in the process, and shutting down the very agencies (among others) whose role it is to protect the people in many of the areas he is now claiming, against all the facts and figures, that now the cause for a National Emergency.

All of this because he's failed at every other attempt to get funding for the wall, that is now a fence, that Mexico was meant to pay for, literally.

These are the facts.  Trump has failed in the most spectacular of ways.

And now he, and the mouth breathers who only trust what he says and don't bother to fact check (present company included), now chant "Finish the Wall" as if constructions has started.

Panther, Trump could not have failed more completely than he has on this topic, the cornerstone of his campaign and Presidency.  And now because of said failure, he's had to take the nuclear option of declaring a National Emergency where none exists, when this is one of the few examples where there is clear and freely available evidence that disproves that claim of an emergency in the most complete and unquestionable way.

He sucks at politics almost as much as he sucks at negotiation and running businesses and now there are no legal battles he can mount to silence people who know the truth, because WE ALL KNOW!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SadKangaroo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


#FightStupid

Posts: 16853
Mianjin (Brisbane)
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #47 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:03pm
 
Panther wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 3:23pm:
SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 2:57pm:
Panther wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 1:49pm:
The moment a demon-rat President, or any suicidal President for that matter, tries to enforce firearm confiscation, or "infringes" upon all individual American's Constitutional Rights to Keep & Bear Arms for Self-Defense, there will be government blood flowing in the streets of America, & it won't stop until the government is completely wrested from their Anti-Second Amendment hands, & put back in the hands of a Pro-Second Amendment government.


But they would have bypassed the constitution with a National Emergency like Trump has, so it's ok.

You can't only pretend to care about the constitution when it matters to you...


@
SadKangaroo 
And you can't pretend you know the US Constitution as well as you might think you do (The Constitution was written for the People, not the Government), & what you posted, in any way manner or form, answers the question(s) I put forth.

Just because Nancy Rotten Krotch says that's what a President might attempt, the Supreme Court would immediately step in before the ink has dried, & declare his actions are 100% unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has done before to other proclamations.

Sad........Funny that the SCOTUS hasn't interceded here with President Trump's 'Southern Border Emergency'.......that's because what the President has done is obviously Constitutional for one, & secondly, the powers by which the President is procuring the funds to build THE WALL was also derived directly from Congress when they wrote the original law. Constitutionality is not an issue there......Congress abdicated it's own powers to be consulted.........abdicated it's Right to the President, in times when he, & he alone, can exercise the Power this Law gives him.......JFYI....... Emergency Powers Act of 1976 isn't written anywhere in the US Constitution, but it was written in Legislation passed by an earlier Congress, & signed into Law by an earlier  Presidents Signature, as the Constitution requires, & much to the chagrin of today's 2019 Congress.  Wink

Just because no other President used the powers Congress itself bestowed upon the President this way, doesn't mean he can't, just that that was another Congress, & no subsequent Congresses felt it worth repairing the law as written........

So until Congress can get a 2/3rds majority vote in each of BOTH houses to bypass the President's sure veto, the President is on SOLID Grounds, & until Congress defines exactly what does & does not constitute an National Emergency via a Veto proof vote, how it is defined is solely up to the President. Wink


American Law......doncha love it!!

I do!!  Grin Grin Grin Grin


I'm not pretending to be an expert in the constitution, my aim, which I have succeeded in, was pointing out your hypocrisy in your selective application of when the constitution is important (issues you support) and when it ok to bypass (again when it's an issue you support).

You have no real conviction or care for the constitution, you only use it as a tool when it suits you, most recently to help you support Trump and attack those who don't support him.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #48 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:41pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 2:49pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 2:44pm:
Panther wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 2:42pm:
@
SadKangaroo 


Panther wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 2:19pm:
@
SadKangaroo 


Quote:
........It is a 100% politically motivated proposal to help Trump in the 2020 election that is exploiting laws, bypassing the constitution and disrespecting the country and their people...........




Specifically regarding THE WALL.......How is President Trump:

1. Exploiting laws?
2. Bypassing the US Constitution?
3. Disrespecting the People & for that matter, the Country?





so you cant answer it, cowardly-panther?

no surprise


What sort of person puts members of a forum on ignore?

He has some serious problems, that boy.




Panther is just a coward. Not that anyone is surprised.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
SadKangaroo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


#FightStupid

Posts: 16853
Mianjin (Brisbane)
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #49 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:56pm
 
And for the record, it was Congress that said No to the wall, not the Dems...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11346
Gender: male
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #50 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:59pm
 
SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:03pm:
.......I'm not pretending to be an expert in the constitution, my aim, which I have succeeded in, was pointing out your hypocrisy in your selective application of when the constitution is important (issues you support) and when it ok to bypass (again when it's an issue you support).

You have no real conviction or care for the constitution, you only use it as a tool when it suits you, most recently to help you support Trump and attack those who don't support him.


@
SadKangeroo   
You wallow in generalities, & when you do, your answers bring up more questions than they answer.


Specifically
.....WTF are you on about???.....I hopefully helped by highlighting. I don't care if anyone wants to know, I'd like to understand your precise reasoning behind your conclusions.   Thanks.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 21st, 2019 at 5:06pm by Panther »  

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'
 
IP Logged
 
SadKangaroo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


#FightStupid

Posts: 16853
Mianjin (Brisbane)
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #51 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 5:10pm
 
Panther wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:59pm:
SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:03pm:
.......I'm not pretending to be an expert in the constitution, my aim, which I have succeeded in, was pointing out your hypocrisy in your selective application of when the constitution is important (issues you support) and when it ok to bypass (again when it's an issue you support).

You have no real conviction or care for the constitution, you only use it as a tool when it suits you, most recently to help you support Trump and attack those who don't support him.


@
SadKangeroo   
You wallow in generalities, & when you do, your answers bring up more questions than they answer.


Specifically
.....WTF are you on about???.....I hopefully helped by highlighting. I don't care if anyone wants to know, I'd like to understand your precise reasoning behind your conclusions.   Thanks.




I explained each conclusion, stop playing dumb.

I suggest you re-read,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1550310151/46#46

It boils down to, you refuse to budge on the constitution when it comes to matters of the 2nd Amendment where you take a literal interpretation, but when it comes to things like who has the authority when it comes to spending money, well the constitution doesn't matter then, so long as the person spending it, and what they're spending it on, is something you support.

In that case, you've convinces yourself, or at the least, you're trying to convince others that in this example, Trump isn't bypassing the constitution, even if this is exactly what he accused Obama of doing in the same situation.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11346
Gender: male
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #52 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 5:48pm
 
SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 5:10pm:
Panther wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:59pm:
SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:03pm:
.......I'm not pretending to be an expert in the constitution, my aim, which I have succeeded in, was pointing out your hypocrisy in your selective application of when the constitution is important (issues you support) and when it ok to bypass (again when it's an issue you support).

You have no real conviction or care for the constitution, you only use it as a tool when it suits you, most recently to help you support Trump and attack those who don't support him.


@
SadKangeroo   
You wallow in generalities, & when you do, your answers bring up more questions than they answer.


Specifically
.....WTF are you on about???.....I hopefully helped by highlighting. I don't care if anyone wants to know, I'd like to understand your precise reasoning behind your conclusions.   Thanks.




I explained each conclusion, stop playing dumb.

I suggest you re-read,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1550310151/46#46

It boils down to, you refuse to budge on the constitution when it comes to matters of the 2nd Amendment where you take a literal interpretation,

but when it comes to things like who has the authority when it comes to spending money, well the constitution doesn't matter then, so long as the person spending it, and what they're spending it on, is something you support.

In that case, you've convinces yourself, or at the least, you're trying to convince others that in this example, Trump isn't bypassing the constitution, even if this is exactly what he accused Obama of doing in the same situation.



When dealing with the Constitution, you have to also take into account what the Supreme Court has ruled the Constitution means/says. They have the final word, as opposed to the text.

Example, nowhere in the Constitution does it say woman have the right to terminate a pregnancy....for any reason, but the Supreme Court decided otherwise, & even though the Constitution speaks not one word about it, the Roe v. Wade decision became Constitutional Law.

As pertaining to the 2nd Amendment, the issue gets muddied because of modern interpretations on a 18th Century Text, & what the composers of the Constitution actually meant by the words they used......contained in the many documents published at the time, & by the writings of the people who actually deliberated the Amendment at the Constitutional Convention. The most recent clarification came in District of Columbia v. Heller, & it's "Originalist" point of view.

Now:

Quote:
The National Emergencies Act (NEA) (Pub.L. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601–1651) is a United States federal law passed to end all previous national emergencies and to formalize the emergency powers of the President.

The Act empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis but imposes certain procedural formalities when invoking such powers.........


In this act, as I said earlier, the US Congress abdicated it's Constitution Powers regarding Emergencies declared by the President, & gave them solely to the President of the United States. The Congress also failed to specifically define what would be considered an Emergency or a Crisis, just that the President can declare them without Congressional consultation, & needing the Congress to approve funds to support resolving the declared emergencies & crisis. All this, absent Congressional definition, leaves defining the Emergency & Crisis, along with it's resolution, to how the President defines it, as well as how he can fund resolving the Emergency & Crisis, without prior consultation with the Congress......The only restrictions placed on the President in the Act is how he must notify Congress regarding his decisions........procedural formalities........not if they agree or disagree.

I'd be more than happy to detail on how Congress might  fix this 1976 Act, but as it is, Congress can't turn back the clock, the President is, & was, always acting within the Law, utilizing Powers the Congress themselves abdicated/gave to all future Presidents in 1976.

⮞⮞⮞ If you had a way to eliminate the NEA of 1976, as if it never existed, then all your points would be absolutely valid, & furthermore the President could never have done what he did, & is proceeding to do.

Unfortunately, much to the chagrin of you & the American democ-rats, there is a NEA of 1976, & it says what it says, & gives the President the Powers he has courtesy of the US Congress & US President of times past.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 21st, 2019 at 6:11pm by Panther »  

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'
 
IP Logged
 
SadKangaroo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


#FightStupid

Posts: 16853
Mianjin (Brisbane)
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #53 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 6:19pm
 
You asked which Law Trump was exploiting and I told you and let you know why he isn't just utilising it but exploiting it.

You got your answer, I can't help if you don't like it.

Bottom line is, whatever excuse you try to think up, ask yourself this, would you be making that excuse for Clinton if she were President, or if this happened under the Ex-<your favourite racial slur here> Obama?

If the answer is Yes then I'll entertain your reply, but we all know you wouldn't tie yourself, the constitution or US Federal Laws to defend Obama or Clinton, attack maybe, but not defend.

You've been allowed to apply a different set of rules for Trump as you do everyone else.

This stops now.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95193
Gender: male
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #54 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 6:58pm
 
Oh, Panther, you can't possibly overcome Sad on this topic. He's smarter than you, more articulate and persuasive than you, and he doesn't need to use italics to make a point.

Mr Trump has already set the standard in his Tweet about Obama, not to mention acknowledging he never wanted to go down this route. He held the government to ransom for a month to avoid just this.

If I was you, I'd agree. No reservations, no conditions, nothing. That's what you do when someone is right.

The only response to Sad's posts here is a standing ovation.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Richdude
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8457
NC
Gender: male
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #55 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 12:59am
 
Karnal wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 6:58pm:
Oh, Panther, you can't possibly overcome Sad on this topic. He's smarter than you, more articulate and persuasive than you, and he doesn't need to use italics to make a point.

Mr Trump has already set the standard in his Tweet about Obama, not to mention acknowledging he never wanted to go down this route. He held the government to ransom for a month to avoid just this.

If I was you, I'd agree. No reservations, no conditions, nothing. That's what you do when someone is right.

The only response to Sad's posts here is a standing ovation.



LOL!

Sad's posts are long rambling ravings that only he - perhaps, understands.

Karnal aspires to his level of incoherence.


This is another reason for a wall.



Back to top
 

The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”
 
IP Logged
 
SadKangaroo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


#FightStupid

Posts: 16853
Mianjin (Brisbane)
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #56 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 5:57am
 
Richdude wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 12:59am:
Karnal wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 6:58pm:
Oh, Panther, you can't possibly overcome Sad on this topic. He's smarter than you, more articulate and persuasive than you, and he doesn't need to use italics to make a point.

Mr Trump has already set the standard in his Tweet about Obama, not to mention acknowledging he never wanted to go down this route. He held the government to ransom for a month to avoid just this.

If I was you, I'd agree. No reservations, no conditions, nothing. That's what you do when someone is right.

The only response to Sad's posts here is a standing ovation.



LOL!

Sad's posts are long rambling ravings that only he - perhaps, understands.

Karnal aspires to his level of incoherence.


This is another reason for a wall.





Thanks for the glowing review Smiley

I wouldn't expect some like who posts lies and fake news as much you to be able to comprehend posts longer than your average tweet anyway Smiley

But it's nice to know that I'm right over the target with my posts, so much so that it leaves you no right of reply other than to pretend they don't make sense.

It actually is a glowing review, thanks!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Democrats say "No!" to Wall
Reply #57 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 7:53am
 
Richdude wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 12:59am:
Karnal wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 6:58pm:
Oh, Panther, you can't possibly overcome Sad on this topic. He's smarter than you, more articulate and persuasive than you, and he doesn't need to use italics to make a point.

Mr Trump has already set the standard in his Tweet about Obama, not to mention acknowledging he never wanted to go down this route. He held the government to ransom for a month to avoid just this.

If I was you, I'd agree. No reservations, no conditions, nothing. That's what you do when someone is right.

The only response to Sad's posts here is a standing ovation.



LOL!

Sad's posts are long rambling ravings that only he - perhaps, understands.

Karnal aspires to his level of incoherence.


This is another reason for a wall.






we ALL understand it, ie all but the STUPID people like yourself, fake-phd.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print