- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 197
- 106
Pelosi said if Trump used emergency powers to build a wall, "[...] a future Democratic president could use the same tactic to impose gun control", and she is probably right.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6703509/Border-security-brawl-near-serene-resolution.html
If Trump "really" wanted to, he could round up any ethnic group he wanted and send them off to prison camps, just like what FDR did. It was ok when a democrat president uses emergency powers to do various things, GOD forbid a GOP president use those powers to secure the border.
The bad thing, congress has done little to reign in the emergency powers of the president, except in time of war.
Then again, can't the president declare war for 30 days with congress? So to gain those emergency powers for a limited time, all the president has to do is declare war for 30 days?
The supreme court has a long history of granting democrat presidents a wide range of powers. It appears to be a double standard when it comes to the supreme court. At times, such as gay weddings, individual rights should be upheld; but when a prisoner is on death row and asks for an Imam, the court says no.
Then there was Executive Order 6102, which forbid the ownership of gold. FDR stripped people of their gold, and it was upheld by the supreme court.
Difference between the wall and gun control? Gun rights has been upheld by the supreme court in two recent rulings. Then again, FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans and sent them to camps without due process, and the supreme court upheld his decision.
So yea, if a future democrat decides to use emergency powers to impose gun control, the supreme court will probably uphold it. I say that simply because the supreme court has a long history of ignoring individual rights.
If FDR could sign an executive order forcing people to hand over their gold, chances are the supreme court would do the same with guns.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6703509/Border-security-brawl-near-serene-resolution.html
'You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,' Pelosi said, referencing the one-year anniversary of the Parkland, Florida school shooting.
'That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that. [A] Democratic president can declare emergencies as well,' she threatened.
If Trump "really" wanted to, he could round up any ethnic group he wanted and send them off to prison camps, just like what FDR did. It was ok when a democrat president uses emergency powers to do various things, GOD forbid a GOP president use those powers to secure the border.
The bad thing, congress has done little to reign in the emergency powers of the president, except in time of war.
Then again, can't the president declare war for 30 days with congress? So to gain those emergency powers for a limited time, all the president has to do is declare war for 30 days?
The supreme court has a long history of granting democrat presidents a wide range of powers. It appears to be a double standard when it comes to the supreme court. At times, such as gay weddings, individual rights should be upheld; but when a prisoner is on death row and asks for an Imam, the court says no.
Then there was Executive Order 6102, which forbid the ownership of gold. FDR stripped people of their gold, and it was upheld by the supreme court.
Difference between the wall and gun control? Gun rights has been upheld by the supreme court in two recent rulings. Then again, FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans and sent them to camps without due process, and the supreme court upheld his decision.
So yea, if a future democrat decides to use emergency powers to impose gun control, the supreme court will probably uphold it. I say that simply because the supreme court has a long history of ignoring individual rights.
If FDR could sign an executive order forcing people to hand over their gold, chances are the supreme court would do the same with guns.