You realize there’s a third branch of government that might have a say about this too, right?
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.
Wait, are you talking about activist judges?!
Now I’VE lost my monocle.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Do you even know how the straw man fallacy works??? :smack:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.