Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-16-2019, 07:51 AM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,329

If declaring national emergencies becomes a thing, what kinds of NEs could the democrats do


A health care national emergency would be nice, but I don't think the funding is there to do it.

A climate change national emergency would be nice also. But again who knows what it would entail.

What about a democracy emergency? In between gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter purges, American politicians getting money and help from overseas sources, etc. could an emergency to defend democracy be declared? Abolish gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter purges and investigate the role of money in politics (domestic and foreign) as well as which politicians are getting assistance from overseas, especially from America's adversaries?

What about a gun control emergency? What could that entail?

Clean drinking water and lead poisoning?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-16-2019 at 07:54 AM.
  #2  
Old 02-16-2019, 08:19 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,210
AFAIK, all the National Emergencies Act does is allow the President to redirect already-appropriated money to pay for something else instead. It's not an all-encompassing tool with which any law can be changed by decree, so there's no way to use it to abolish gerrymandering. It's useful for small-bore stuff like building a few miles of Potemkin wall, but to do anything big, you still need an actual appropriation.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 02-16-2019 at 08:21 AM.
  #3  
Old 02-16-2019, 09:18 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
...What about a gun control emergency? What could that entail? ...
I have yet to see a plausible argument for being able to do anything on this front. AFAICT Pelosi was just fear-mongering and spouting bullshit when she included it in her list.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-16-2019 at 09:18 AM.
  #4  
Old 02-16-2019, 09:55 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
. . . Pelosi was just fear-mongering . . . when she included it in her list.
"Fear-mongering"? If that's what you want to call it.

Me? I'd say it was more like 'illustrating', or maybe just 'explaining' (well at least to those who needed it explained).
  #5  
Old 02-16-2019, 10:25 AM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,815
I have seen the economics of the wall justified on the basis of a small percentage of the Federal budget.

With the same justification, one could eliminate the direct economic contribution of civilian arms manufacture and sales.
__________________
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
~ Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745)
  #6  
Old 02-16-2019, 11:40 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I have yet to see a plausible argument for being able to do anything on this front. AFAICT Pelosi was just fear-mongering and spouting bullshit when she included it in her list.
I can, AFAIK there are already laws in the books, like the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the problem has been that a lot of it depends on voluntary reporting from states.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...lth-reporting/
Quote:
Since the Virginia Tech shooting, about half of the states have enacted laws authorizing and requiring the submission of mental health records to NICS, as described below. States that have enacted such laws have, in fact, subsequently submitted greater numbers of records. Of the states that had submitted the top 15 highest numbers of records as of May 2013, 14 (93%) had enacted such laws, while only two of the 15 poorest performing states (13%) had enacted such laws.8

Much Left to Do

Despite the huge increase in the number of individuals identified in NICS, records of many individuals prohibited from possessing firearms because of their mental health histories are still missing from the database. The greatest gains in the numbers of state records submitted to NICS largely reflect the efforts of a small minority of states,9 and as of November 2013, 12 states had still submitted fewer than 100 records each.10
This is still an issue now.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...led-with-flaws

So, I could see a new administration declaring an emergency and just by funding things like the NICS better and helping states (or making states that are in practice sabotaging many rules already in place to comply) make better reporting and funding constant checks to see if proper enforcing is going on with this and many other rules already in the books. I do think that there would be more justification to use money from Defense to.. Well, the defense of America proper.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-16-2019 at 11:42 AM.
  #7  
Old 02-16-2019, 11:41 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I have yet to see a plausible argument for being able to do anything on this front.
The effectiveness of the proposed response to the declared emergency is clearly not relevant. Cite: Trump's wall.
  #8  
Old 02-16-2019, 11:57 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
I have seen the economics of the wall justified on the basis of a small percentage of the Federal budget.

With the same justification, one could eliminate the direct economic contribution of civilian arms manufacture and sales.
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, and the closest I can get is that you think that a future Dem president could declare a national emergency and ... shut down all the gun manufacturers and FFL's? Have I understood you correctly?
  #9  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:02 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
AFAICT Pelosi was just fear-mongering and spouting bullshit when she included it in her list.
God, the last thing we want is someone to fear-monger and spout bullshit when it comes to national emergencies. I'm glad you addressed this most important instance of the phenomenon.
  #10  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:03 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, and the closest I can get is that you think that a future Dem president could declare a national emergency and ... shut down all the gun manufacturers and FFL's? Have I understood you correctly?
Please try not to drop your monocle. Regardless of what a hypothetical Democrat president could actually accomplish, if the Trump example is allowed to stand, then any future president will have a means to re-allocate funding despite the wishes of congress to pursue goals of limited value to the nation overall. If you're okay with Trump doing it, please have to courtesy to not feign shock at the idea of a future president doing something similar but for a reason you might not like.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 02-16-2019 at 12:05 PM.
  #11  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:05 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I can, AFAIK there are already laws in the books, like the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the problem has been that a lot of it depends on voluntary reporting from states.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...lth-reporting/


This is still an issue now.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...led-with-flaws

So, I could see a new administration declaring an emergency and just by funding things like the NICS better and helping states (or making states that are in practice sabotaging many rules already in place to comply) make better reporting and funding constant checks to see if proper enforcing is going on with this and many other rules already in the books. I do think that there would be more justification to use money from Defense to.. Well, the defense of America proper.
The emergency power related to defense we've been discussing elsewhere deals specifically with construction:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 USC 2808
Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency

(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

(b) When a decision is made to undertake military construction projects authorized by this section, the Secretary of Defense shall notify the appropriate committees of Congress of the decision and of the estimated cost of the construction projects, including the cost of any real estate action pertaining to those construction projects.

(c) The authority described in subsection (a) shall terminate with respect to any war or national emergency at the end of the war or national emergency.
I'm not aware of an emergency power to "make states ... comply" with NICS reporting. Do you know of something more specifically geared towards what you propose?
  #12  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:06 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Please try not to drop your monocle. Regardless of what a hypothetical Democrat president could actually accomplish, if the Trump example is allowed to stand, then any future president will have a means to re-allocate funding despite the wishes of congress to pursue goals of limited value to the nation overall. If you're okay with Trump doing it, please have to courtesy to not feign shock at the idea of a future president doing something similar but for a reason you might not like.
Presidents had that power prior to President Trump. For example, DACA. There's no shock here, just, it seems, a lot of ignorance about the limits of the powers granted via declarations of national emergencies.
  #13  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:10 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
The section with the passage HurricaneDitka bolded:

Quote:
(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.
The section that should also have been bolded:
Quote:
(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.
Are there army bases on the southern border of the U.S. that are being attacked by refugees and must have their defenses upgraded? By all means, wall their brains out.
  #14  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:13 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Presidents had that power prior to President Trump. For example, DACA. There's no shock here, just, it seems, a lot of ignorance about the limits of the powers granted via declarations of national emergencies.
Well, in that case, let the future Dem ban guns or whatever. It's all nice and legal.
  #15  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:17 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, in that case, let the future Dem ban guns or whatever. It's all nice and legal.


Which emergency power would allow a president to ban guns?
  #16  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:19 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
It's an emergency - he can do whatever Congress is willing to sit on its ass and watch him do.

Apparently, this covers quite a lot a territory.
  #17  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:23 PM
Sicks Ate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: KS, US
Posts: 6,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
The section with the passage HurricaneDitka bolded:







The section that should also have been bolded:





Are there army bases on the southern border of the U.S. that are being attacked by refugees and must have their defenses upgraded? By all means, wall their brains out.
HD is an expert at scanning text for a few words that he likes, while ignoring or discounting the remainder.
  #18  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicks Ate View Post
HD is an expert at scanning text for a few words that he likes, while ignoring or discounting the remainder.
No, but I do okay at sticking to the thread topic. We have a different thread about whether President Trump's national emergency on the border "will hold" or not. This thread is about what hypothetical actions a future Dem president might undertake via a national emergency.
  #19  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:31 PM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post


Which emergency power would allow a president to ban guns?
I think the point is that a President could declare an emergency about anything, and start on it before Congress could stop it. NPR mentioned Friday about some of the emergency actions, one of which is to close bank accounts and take the money.
I can't find a link. Does anyone have a link to the emergency powers?
The NPR article said that this act was created to cut down on use of the emergency powers by allowing Congress to vote on them and by making the emergency proclaimed by the President to expire in one year unless renewed by the President.
I would like to see Congress deal with this, lest a future President attempt some weirdness like confiscating my bank account.
  #20  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:32 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The emergency power related to defense we've been discussing elsewhere deals specifically with construction:
So when Obama used one to respond to the swine flu epidemic in 2009 he needed to raid military construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not aware of an emergency power to "make states ... comply" with NICS reporting. Do you know of something more specifically geared towards what you propose?
Do you think Texans or Texas will not complain being forced to comply with the wall?

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-16-2019 at 12:32 PM.
  #21  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:33 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It's an emergency - he can do whatever Congress is willing to sit on its ass and watch him do.

Apparently, this covers quite a lot a territory.
You realize there's a third branch of government that might have a say about this too, right?
  #22  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:33 PM
betterlifethroughchemistry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 529
In addition to Trump's recent declaration of a national emergency for border security, the following national emergencies are still in effect:

President Jimmy Carter
Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran.

President Bill Clinton
Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process.
March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources.
October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia.
March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba.
November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan.

President George W. Bush
June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans.
Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations.
Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks.
Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism.
March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe.
May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest.
May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria.
June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus.
Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon.
June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea.

President Barack Obama
April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia.
February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya.
July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals.
May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen.
March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine.
April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic.
March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela.
April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities.
Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi.

President Donald Trump
Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption.
Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.
Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list...ry?id=60294693

Last edited by betterlifethroughchemistry; 02-16-2019 at 12:35 PM. Reason: cite
  #23  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:36 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You realize there's a third branch of government that might have a say about this too, right?
Wait, are you talking about activist judges?!


Now I'VE lost my monocle.
  #24  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
So when Obama used one to respond to the swine flu epidemic in 2009 he needed to raid military construction? ...
No, he used a different emergency power, granted under 42 USC §1320b–5:

But I still haven't found the emergency power that lets the president "ban guns" or shut down gun manufacturers and FFLs.
  #25  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:39 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, in that case, let the future Dem ban guns or whatever. It's all nice and legal.
While I do agree with you on the main issue, this bit is not going to work, hence the point about using existing law and funds from related departments to correct the virtual sabotage that states are doing regarding reporting and enforcement of the rules.
  #26  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:40 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, he used a different emergency power, granted under 42 USC §1320b–5:

But I still haven't found the emergency power that lets the president "ban guns" or shut down gun manufacturers and FFLs.
That is nice, a nice straw man, but thank you for playing.

The point stands, there are many ways to fund and get a congress that will not do much against an emergency declaration that enforces compliance about current rules or some tweaks to enhance them.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-16-2019 at 12:42 PM.
  #27  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:42 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Wait, are you talking about activist judges?!


Now I'VE lost my monocle.
I don't generally see it as "activist" for the judiciary to tell the President he doesn't have authority to do something, at least if that something isn't a power granted by the Constitution or delegated to him by Congress.
  #28  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:44 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
... The point stands, there are many ways to fund and get a congress that will not do much by enforcing compliance about current rules or some tweaks to enhance them.
No, there aren't. If you think otherwise, I invite you to cite the relevant section of code. If not, you've got yourself a nice fact-free assertion here, which we can all safely ignore.
  #29  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:44 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, there aren't. If you think otherwise, I invite you to cite the relevant section of code. If not, you've got yourself a nice fact-free assertion here, which we can all safely ignore.
Like the swine flu emergency declaration... Not.




Here is a hint: it is still a straw man from you, funding was found for that emergency, and more came later as congress saw that there was indeed an emergency there.

No such thing in this case.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-16-2019 at 12:48 PM.
  #30  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:47 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That is nice, a nice straw man, but thank you for playing. ...
And it's not a straw man. I'm not the one inventing arguments about banning guns or shutting down manufacturers / FFLs. That was Bryan Ekers and jasg (if I understood him correctly), with perhaps some vague delusional assistance from Nancy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, in that case, let the future Dem ban guns or whatever. It's all nice and legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
... With the same justification, one could eliminate the direct economic contribution of civilian arms manufacture and sales.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-16-2019 at 12:47 PM.
  #31  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:51 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,707
I believe Trump intends to use eminent domain to take control of land needed for the wall. (Potemkin Wall. Heh. I'm stealing that.) I look forward to President Pelosi declaring a climate change emergency next year and seizing control of oil wells and coal fired power plants.
  #32  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:52 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And it's not a straw man. I'm not the one inventing arguments about banning guns or shutting down manufacturers / FFLs. That was Bryan Ekers and jasg (if I understood him correctly), with perhaps some vague delusional assistance from Nancy:
Do you even know how the straw man fallacy works????






A hint: it is not a fallacy only when you do deal with what the opponent is arguing about. What others say can, so reply to them, if you can not deal with what I do post then my points stand.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-16-2019 at 12:53 PM.
  #33  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:53 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
While I do agree with you on the main issue, this bit is not going to work, hence the point about using existing law and funds from related departments to correct the virtual sabotage that states are doing regarding reporting and enforcement of the rules.
Well, it doesn't really matter if there's a "corrective" action or not. A future president could say gun violence constitutes an emergency and do something in response and if the Trumpian example serves as guide, facts won't matter in the least. I have no expectation of an actual gun ban, but I can picture some new federal mandatory licensing requirements that require gun owners to take federally-certified instruction at federally-certified instruction centers, and the president's spouse happens to be on the boards of directors of several such centers. Will this actually reduce gun violence? The fake news says it won't, but fuck those guys.
  #34  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:05 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 4,707
HD is correct Nancy Pelosi is just trying to scare the right wing with the prospect of losing their guns.

The real emergency that could be solved by a parallel use of power is climate change. Either by using the power to seize and demolish coal power plants or by building massive wind and solar farms on taken land. Beach front property in red states could be taken as well to build sea walls.

Last edited by Oredigger77; 02-16-2019 at 01:06 PM.
  #35  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:07 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, it doesn't really matter if there's a "corrective" action or not. A future president could say gun violence constitutes an emergency and do something in response and if the Trumpian example serves as guide, facts won't matter in the least. I have no expectation of an actual gun ban, but I can picture some new federal mandatory licensing requirements that require gun owners to take federally-certified instruction at federally-certified instruction centers, and the president's spouse happens to be on the boards of directors of several such centers. Will this actually reduce gun violence? The fake news says it won't, but fuck those guys.
So, explain to me how you think this would work. Kamala declares an emergency, says she's mandating licensing requirements for gun owners. I'm a gun owner. I say "FKDH, I'm not doing that" and continue to own and use my guns pretty much like I always have. What happens next? The ATF police come and arrest me? And then what? Haul me into federal court and charge me with ... what exactly? Violating a presidential emergency declaration? My lawyer tells the judge there's no federal criminal statute I violated and asks that I be released. If the judge is even vaguely fair, he agrees. I again say "FKDH" and sue her and the ATF police for a §1983 violation.
  #36  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:09 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
Beach front property in red states could be taken as well to build sea walls.
If I was a Democrat and determined to be spiteful, I'd let the red states sink and allocate disaster-relief funds to blue states, i.e. screw the gulf-coast and southeast, but respond promptly to the west coast, northeast, and post-statehood Puerto Rico.
  #37  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
... post-statehood Puerto Rico.
You have a lot of dreams. That's good. I was recently told that I "pine for some impossible fantasy land." I don't consider it a moral failing.
  #38  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:13 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So, explain to me how you think this would work. Kamala declares an emergency, says she's mandating licensing requirements for gun owners. I'm a gun owner. I say "FKDH, I'm not doing that" and continue to own and use my guns pretty much like I always have. What happens next? The ATF police come and arrest me? And then what? Haul me into federal court and charge me with ... what exactly? Violating a presidential emergency declaration? My lawyer tells the judge there's no federal criminal statute I violated and asks that I be released. If the judge is even vaguely fair, he agrees. I again say "FKDH" and sue her and the ATF police for a §1983 violation.
After you've bankrupted yourself in legal fees and lost your job due to all the time you had to spend in jail and in court, I'm sure Kamala will be generous with you.
  #39  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:15 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
After you've bankrupted yourself in legal fees and lost your job due to all the time you had to spend in jail and in court...
That's where the §1983 lawsuit comes into play.
  #40  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:19 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's where the §1983 lawsuit comes into play.
Oh, you're assuming the legal system will side with you in a prompt manner and not after months or years of slow-grinding and expensive proceedings that eat up your savings and a good chunk of your life.

Compared to that, statehood for Puerto Rico seems entirely plausible.
  #41  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Oh, you're assuming the legal system will side with you in a prompt manner and not after months or years of slow-grinding and expensive proceedings that eat up your savings and a good chunk of your life.

Compared to that, statehood for Puerto Rico seems entirely plausible.
Not really. I'm assuming the legal system will put the kibosh on the whole thing before I can even say "FKDH", and probably well before the ATF police get a chance to gear up and kick some doors in.
  #42  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:33 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not really. I'm assuming the legal system will put the kibosh on the whole thing before I can even say "FKDH", and probably well before the ATF police get a chance to gear up and kick some doors in.
Sure, fingers crossed.
  #43  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:46 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
Meantime, as a thought exercise, let's assume some of the right-wing rhetoric is actually true and white Christian Americans really are under siege by Marxist-Cortezan liberals who want to destroy America and guns and capitalism and force everybody into gay marriages, or at least that such liberals are numerous enough to shout cheers of support for a presidential candidate who tells them that white Christians Americans are the source of all their problems, even though this is demonstrably, ridiculously untrue. Then that candidate, against all odds, gets elected and keeps staging rallies for more cheers. Is there cause for concern for what such a president might try to do under the cloak of a declared emergency?
  #44  
Old 02-16-2019, 02:10 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Meantime, as a thought exercise, let's assume some of the right-wing rhetoric is actually true and white Christian Americans really are under siege by Marxist-Cortezan liberals who want to destroy America and guns and capitalism and force everybody into gay marriages, or at least that such liberals are numerous enough to shout cheers of support for a presidential candidate who tells them that white Christians Americans are the source of all their problems, even though this is demonstrably, ridiculously untrue. Then that candidate, against all odds, gets elected and keeps staging rallies for more cheers. Is there cause for concern for what such a president might try to do under the cloak of a declared emergency?
I'm always concerned when liberals are in power. I am not, however, concerned that President Trump is opening up some sort of Pandora's box with this national emergency declaration that's going to result in FKDH mandating everyone over the age of 12 be forced into a gay marriage, or that the ATF police are going to magically be empowered to take away everyone's guns, or whatever Nancy was fantasizing about.
  #45  
Old 02-16-2019, 02:29 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,481
I have indeed gathered that you are concerned about what liberals might do while remaining blind or indifferent to what Trump and Republicans are doing, so I'll invite others to comment on how they might feel if another populist demagogue gets in power who differs from Trump only in favourite scapegoats and who is now armed with extremely vague "emergency" powers.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 02-16-2019 at 02:30 PM.
  #46  
Old 02-16-2019, 02:50 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by betterlifethroughchemistry View Post
In addition to Trump's recent declaration of a national emergency for border security, the following national emergencies are still in effect:

President Jimmy Carter
Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran.

President Bill Clinton
Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process.
March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources.
October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia.
March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba.
November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan.

President George W. Bush
June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans.
Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations.
Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks.
Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism.
March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe.
May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest.
May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria.
June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus.
Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon.
June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea.

President Barack Obama
April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia.
February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya.
July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals.
May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen.
March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine.
April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic.
March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela.
April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities.
Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi.

President Donald Trump
Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption.
Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.
Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list...ry?id=60294693
Thank you for posting that. I didn't know national emergencies were so common.

I also didn't know they sounded like the title to episodes of the big bang theory either.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #47  
Old 02-16-2019, 03:45 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I have indeed gathered that you are concerned about what liberals might do while remaining blind or indifferent to what Trump and Republicans are doing, so I'll invite others to comment on how they might feel if another populist demagogue gets in power who differs from Trump only in favourite scapegoats and who is now armed with extremely vague "emergency" powers.
If they were playing by the republican's playbook, they would come up with some excuse to separate parents from their children, ("he was speeding/jay walking/chewing gum*, and we don't let kids stay with lawbreakers") then they make them read and sign forms in Spanish that takes away their right to have or even own a gun ever again, telling them that they will get their kids back if they sign, but it's too late, they've already lost track of the kids, who will never be seen by their parents again, not that they ever were trying to keep track of them in the first place.

Actually, if I were a sociopath who cared more about winning than people, then that is exactly what I would do, especially if the other side were kind enough to open up the door on precedent for me.


*yes, I know that chewing gum isn't illegal, but then, neither is seeking asylum.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 02-16-2019 at 03:47 PM. Reason: jaw walking was actually more amusing
  #48  
Old 02-16-2019, 04:05 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, and the closest I can get is that you think that a future Dem president could declare a national emergency and ... shut down all the gun manufacturers and FFL's? Have I understood you correctly?
The ultimate resolution of the issue will be what sort of deference the courts give to the President's power under a national emergency declaration. Under the plain text of the law, it seems like a president has absolute discretion to define what an emergency is and to take those steps outlined in the law.

Congress has the power of the purse, but seems to have given it to the President in these circumstances. But this seems a delegation too far. If Congress passed a law that said, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may spend all of the money Congress has allocated in any matter he pleases" then we do not have a separation of powers.

The problem that arises is that no matter what the courts do, it will be bad. If the courts side with Trump, then I can see a future Dem president doing the whole gun control thing or something else just by thinking creatively and pounding a square peg into a round hole.

If the courts rule against Trump, then we have a system where the courts are controlling the President, maybe going so far as to tell him where to deploy troops in the case of a foreign invasion, or order that the makeshift fortifications be built here and not over there.

In my view, the problem lies with these declarations in their entirety. It is the mark of a dictatorship to have "emergency" situations since 1979. The law should require that any emergency situation be approved by Congress within X number of days for ratification. I would be much more comfortable with striking down the law entirely on non-delegation grounds than I would a court deciding whether or not this is a true emergency.
  #49  
Old 02-16-2019, 04:17 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm always concerned when liberals are in power. I am not, however, concerned that President Trump is opening up some sort of Pandora's box with this national emergency declaration that's going to result in FKDH mandating everyone over the age of 12 be forced into a gay marriage, or that the ATF police are going to magically be empowered to take away everyone's guns, or whatever Nancy was fantasizing about.
How about merely reallocating a substantial chunk of money from some other program to greatly expand the ATF's notoriously-underfunded program to inspect gun dealers? Instead of FFLs going a average of a decade or more between inspections, they're getting an inspection at least annually, and if even one "t" isn't crossed in their paperwork at just the right angle, the bureau goes to court immediately to shut them down and strip them of their license (with their entire inventory seized as evidence), instead of slow-walking reprimands and appeals for years.

No "new" law, but it would likely result in a significant reduction in the number of gun dealers (since less than half of dealers are fully compliant), causing the availability of new guns to decline and the prices to increase.
  #50  
Old 02-16-2019, 04:29 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post

If the courts rule against Trump, then we have a system where the courts are controlling the President, maybe going so far as to tell him where to deploy troops in the case of a foreign invasion, or order that the makeshift fortifications be built here and not over there.
No, what you have there is an example of the checks and balances that our FF's were kind enough to set up.
Quote:
The law should require that any emergency situation be approved by Congress within X number of days for ratification.
I actually agree with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
How about merely reallocating a substantial chunk of money from some other program to greatly expand the ATF's notoriously-underfunded program to inspect gun dealers? Instead of FFLs going a average of a decade or more between inspections, they're getting an inspection at least annually, and if even one "t" isn't crossed in their paperwork at just the right angle, the bureau goes to court immediately to shut them down and strip them of their license (with their entire inventory seized as evidence), instead of slow-walking reprimands and appeals for years.

No "new" law, but it would likely result in a significant reduction in the number of gun dealers (since less than half of dealers are fully compliant), causing the availability of new guns to decline and the prices to increase.
Maybe take it from the FBI's budget for doing background checks for FFLs.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017