Border Crisis/Government Shutdown

[CDDP]

Only way to stop the invasion of illegals under Biden.

 

[CDDP]

 

[Edgehollow]

Why not shut down both?

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Why not shut down both?

You support not paying the troops?

 

[Jayhacker]

Only way to stop the invasion of illegals under Biden.

You gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[CDDP]

 

[CDDP]

 

[Joe King]

You support not paying the troops?

C'mon, you know as well as I do that the military is not the part of gov that actually gets shutdown in a gov "shutdown". The military won't miss a beat

In fact, even the parts that do shutdown will get full back pay. That's how it has always worked before.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

C'mon, you know as well as I do that the military is not the part of gov that actually gets shutdown in a gov "shutdown". The military won't miss a beat

In fact, even the parts that do shutdown will get full back pay. That's how it has always worked before.

Full back pay doesn’t make up for tumult of the delay. These are real people with real lives.

That doesn’t even touch on the them being the best of us.

The people of The US deserve a government that works for them & their best interests. Thats impossible to have if the government isn’t working.

 

[Joe King]

The people of The US deserve a government that works for them

We haven't truly had that for over 90 years now.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

We haven't truly had that for over 90 years now.

If this is how you truly feel then it says a lot about you.

I couldn’t imagine choosing to live in a country that I didn't love and feel like was working for my best interest.

 

[Joe King]

If this is how you truly feel then it says a lot about you.

I'm just stating the truth. The gov started operating outside Constitutional limits almost 91 years ago.

Not opinion, but fact. The gov has admitted as much in writing.

I couldn’t imagine choosing to live in a country that I didn't love and feel like was working for my best interest.

I do love my country. What I dislike is the illegal actions of the people who control my country's government.

Again, it's all in writing in the gov's own documents.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

I'm just stating the truth. The gov started operating outside Constitutional limits almost 91 years ago.

Not opinion, but fact. The gov has admitted as much in writing.



I do love my country. What I dislike is the illegal actions of the people who control my country's government.

Again, it's all in writing in the gov's own documents.

Fake & false but you know that. You should really try to come up with more believable trolls.

 

[Joe King]

Fake & false but you know that. You should really try to come up with more believable trolls.

It's not false. The gov issued a Report (93-549) in '73 that openly admitted that the gov was exceeding its Constitutional limits.
....and three years later Congress passed a law (Nat Emergencies Act) that they said made it all legal. They ended the emergency in name only, and kept in place all the illegal shit that the gov had already done.

When an emergency is over, you're supposed to go back to how you operated prior to the emergency. The government absolutely did not do that. It continued operating outside Constitutional limits.

What it amounted to, was an Amending of the Constitution via a simple majority vote of Congress.

There's no argument about it. It's all in writing, as to what was done.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

It's not false. The gov issued a Report (93-549) in '73 that openly admitted that the gov was exceeding its Constitutional limits.
....and three years later Congress passed a law (Nat Emergencies Act) that they said made it all legal. They ended the emergency in name only, and kept in place all the illegal shit that the gov had already done.

When an emergency is over, you're supposed to go back to how you operated prior to the emergency. The government absolutely did not do that. It continued operating outside Constitutional limits.

What it amounted to, was an Amending of the Constitution via a simple majority vote of Congress.

There's no argument about it. It's all in writing, as to what was done.

Literally all of that is false. Again, the troll attempt is obvious.

Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Joe King]

Literally all of that is false. Again, the troll attempt is obvious.

It's not false at all. 93-549 clearly states that laws were Enacted that would in non-emergency times, be un-Constitutional. Those laws were never repealed as they should have been once the emergency was over.

From the Report:
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraor-dinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes."

During the "emergency", hundreds of laws were Enacted that would not have been possible without the "emergency" because they would have been un-Constitutional.

Had the authority existed prior to the "emergency", they could have been Enacted without first having to declare an "emergency".

The fact that they had to declare an emergency in order to Enact those laws, implies that they knew they did not have the authority to Enact those "laws" without there being an "emergency".

Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That glosses over quite a lot.

Like the fact that the law ending the emergency did so in name only, and left in place all the un-Constitutional "laws" that had been Enacted during the "emergency".

SEC. 101. (a) All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 14, 1976] are terminated two years from the date of such enactment.

Such termination shall not affect—
(1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
(2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date;

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-pg1119.pdf

See? Right there it says that anything they did prior, is still in effect.

The only way to properly end an emergency is to also repeal any laws or actions taken during the emergency, as without the emergency they would instantly become un-Constitutional.

Only other way would be to Amend the Constitution to allow what they had done during the emergency, and we all know they did not do that.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

It's not false at all. 93-549 clearly states that laws were Enacted that would in non-emergency times, be un-Constitutional. Those laws were never repealed as they should have been once the emergency was over.

From the Report:
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraor-dinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes."

During the "emergency", hundreds of laws were Enacted that would not have been possible without the "emergency" because they would have been un-Constitutional.

Had the authority existed prior to the "emergency", they could have been Enacted without first having to declare an "emergency".

The fact that they had to declare an emergency in order to Enact those laws, implies that they knew they did not have the authority to Enact those "laws" without there being an "emergency".


That glosses over quite a lot.

Like the fact that the law ending the emergency did so in name only left in place all the un-Constitutional "laws" that had been Enacted during the "emergency".

SEC. 101. (a) All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 14, 1976] are terminated two years from the date of such enactment.

Such termination shall not affect—
(1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
(2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date;

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-pg1119.pdf

See? Right there it says that anything they did prior, is still in effect.

The only way to properly end an emergency is to also repeal any laws or actions taken during the emergency, as without the emergency they would instantly become un-Constitutional.

Only other way would be to Amend the Constitution to allow what they had done during the emergency, and we all know they did not do that.

lol

The report, just like the above, doesn’t say what you’re claiming which is why what you are claiming is false. Also your understanding of constitutional law is abhorrent.

 

[Joe King]

lol

The report, just like the above, doesn’t say what you’re claiming which is why what you are claiming is false. Also your understanding of constitutional law is abhorrent.

It clearly states that any actions taken prior to the date of two years after the declaration, stay in effect. 93-549 also clearly states that there were 100's of laws Enacted during the emergency that would not have otherwise been legal.

To properly end the emergency, those laws must be repealed. Otherwise it is ended in name only. As in, we're just not calling it an emergency now, but we're still doing the thing that only an emergency would allow.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

It clearly states that any actions taken prior to the date of two years after the declaration, stay in effect. 93-549 also clearly states that there were 100's of laws Enacted during the emergency that would not have otherwise been legal.

To properly end the emergency, those laws must be repealed.

Again, these troll attempts might as well come with flashing lights and a siren.

 

[Joe King]

Again, these troll attempts might as well come with flashing lights and a siren.

Why would laws requiring an emergency to have been Enacted in the first place, not need to go away when the emergency is over?

An emergency allows for actions that would, in normal times, not be permissible. Would you not agree with that?

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Why would laws requiring an emergency to have been Enacted in the first place, not need to go away when the emergency is over?

An emergency allows for actions that would, in normal times, not be permissible. Would you not agree with that?

No

Nice attempt a spin with that bush league framing though.

 

[Joe King]

No

How no? You really don't think that an emergency situation does not allow someone (or a gov) to take actions that would not normally be permissible absent the emergency?

I'm pretty sure it does. If a burglar breaks into your house and attacks you, that would constitute an emergency, would it not?

During said emergency you would be legally permitted to use force against said burglar that would not be legal absent the emergency created by the burglar's actions. Would you not agree? Ie: you could beat the guy with a baseball bat, or even shoot him and not be charged with a crime.

After the emergency is over, are you allowed to keep using the force that you gained a Right to use during the emergency? No, you would not.

Why should the gov not be held to that same standard?

Why can the gov keep wielding un-Constitutional power that was only allowed during an emergency situation?

Nice attempt a spin with that bush league framing though.

It's not spinning anything. I'm reading and quoting the Report and Law as it is is written.

If you say it is not right, please explain in detail why the gov should be able to continue using the laws that the gov itself clearly stated were un-Constitutional.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

How no? You really don't think that an emergency situation does not allow someone (or a gov) to take actions that would not normally be permissible absent the emergency?

I'm pretty sure it does. If a burglar breaks into your house and attacks you, that would constitute an emergency, would it not?

During said emergency you would be legally permitted to use force against said burglar that would not be legal absent the emergency created by the burglar's actions. Would you not agree? Ie: you could beat the guy with a baseball bat, or even shoot him and not be charged with a crime.

After the emergency is over, are you allowed to keep using the force that you gained a Right to use during the emergency? No, you would not.

Why should the gov not be held to that same standard?

Why can the gov keep wielding un-Constitutional power that was only allowed during an emergency situation?



It's not spinning anything. I'm reading and quoting the Report and Law as it is is written.

If you say it is not right, please explain in detail why the gov should be able to continue using the laws that the gov itself clearly stated were un-Constitutional.

They government didn’t say that regardless of how many terrible analogies / times you falsely claim it.

 

[CDDP]

 

[Joe King]

They government didn’t say that regardless of how many terrible analogies / times you falsely claim it.

Under the powers delegated by these 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 plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.


None of that would have been permisable absent the "emergency".

With the "emergency" and Acts taken because of it, the gov can now control our lives.

 

[Joe King]

Shut the gov down. It doesn't do anything it should be doing anyways.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Under the powers delegated by these 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 plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.


None of that would have been permisable absent the "emergency".

With the "emergency" and Acts taken because of it, the gov can now control our lives.

False. All of those powers lie beneath the presidency under normal circumstances. An emergency just gives more excuse to use them.

 

[Joe King]

False. All of those powers lie beneath the presidency under normal circumstances. An emergency just gives more excuse to use them.

Bullshit. Those powers absolutely did not exist prior to March 9th 1933.

If you think they did, quote the law allowing it dated prior to March 9th 1933.

If those powers previously existed, there would have been no need to declare the emergency.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Bullshit. Those powers absolutely did not exist prior to March 9th 1933.

If you think they did, quote the law allowing it dated prior to March 9th 1933.

If those powers previously existed, there would have been no need to declare the emergency.

It’s under Article II section 1:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Meaning anything that can be done is authorized AND EXPECTED.

 

[Joe King]

It’s under Article II section 1:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Meaning anything that can be done is authorized AND EXPECTED.

In no way does that mean, do anything you want. Our gov is one of limited powers. Only that which is authorized by the Constitution is permissible for the gov to do. Ie: if the Constitution doesn't say that something can be done, it would be illegal for the gov to do that thing.

In no way shape or form does the Constitution say that the gov can control the Peoples lives.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

In no way does that mean, do anything you want. Our gov is one of limited powers. Only that which is authorized by the Constitution is permissible for the gov to do. Ie: if the Constitution doesn't say that something can be done, it would be illegal for the gov to do that thing.

In no way shape or form does the Constitution say that the gov can control the Peoples lives.

I didn’t say “do anything you want”.

Even when I answer your questions you try to spin.

 

[Joe King]

I didn’t say “do anything you want”.

Even when I answer your questions you try to spin.

Yes, you did.

Meaning anything that can be done is authorized AND EXPECTED.

If "anything" can be done, then it stands to reason that there would be no actual limits in such a case, and no need to declare an emergency in order to do that "anything".

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Yes, you did.


If "anything" can be done, then it stands to reason that there would be no actual limits in such a case, and no need to declare an emergency in order to do that "anything".

False. Acknowledging an emergency allows for better allocation resources and personnel.

I can tell you have never worked with people before either besides not being educated in law.

“Anything you want” is very different from “anything that can be done”.

Your statement denotes an authoritarian.

My statement denotes a chief executive of a free nation like we have here in The United States.

 

[Rebarcock.]

You support not paying the troops?

You think they'll starve?

 

[Rebarcock.]

Man or woman they'll be OK in America

 

[Joe King]

“Anything you want” is very different from “anything that can be done”.

Your statement denotes an authoritarian.

Because that's what we have when the potus can....
"Under the powers delegated by these 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 plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

Prior to March 9th 1933, the potus could NOT do that.

Having the potus be able to do all that is what is authoritarian.

As I posted in the other thread, they changed this:
(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.

To say this:

Second line from the bottom. It clearly states, "by any person". Are you within the definition of "any person"? I think you are. Same as everyone else is.

Originally it only applied to, officers, officials and agents of foreign governments we are at war with. Not US citizens.

That's why they (Congress) had to change it in order to give the potus the powers of war to be used against American citizens.

Those powers continue to this day.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Because that's what we have when the potus can....
"Under the powers delegated by these 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 plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

Prior to March 9th 1933, the potus could NOT do that.

Having the potus be able to do all that is what is authoritarian.

As I posted in the other thread, they changed this:
(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.

To say this:View attachment 210776

Second line from the bottom. It clearly states, "by any person". Are you within the definition of "any person"? I think you are. Same as everyone else is.

Originally it only applied to, officers, officials and agents of foreign governments we are at war with. Not US citizens.

That's why they (Congress) had to change it in order to give the potus the powers of war to be used against American citizens.

Those powers continue to this day.

The president can always restrict the lives of Americans. That’s the whole reason we have a president / government of any kind.

Otherwise you anarchy, murder, terrorism, and the destruction of humanity.

I am much more concerned with what my fellow citizens might do to me and our country than the government. Look no further than the BLM riots or J6 riot.

Also you’re flat wrong to say the president couldn’t do that before that date. Lincoln did much of that during The Civil War. Its always been legal and always will be.

 

[Joe King]

Further, that law was Amended on March 9th 1933 in order to provide cover for FDR's Executive Order 6102 on March 4th 1933.

However, that makes the Act of March 9th an ex-poste facto law. Which makes it un-Constitutional on it's face.

They enacted a law in order to "legalize" something that happened 5 days earlier. If that's not an ex-poste facto law, nothing is.

 

[Joe King]

The president can always restrict the lives of Americans. That’s the whole reason we have a president / government of any kind.

The very fact that they had to amend the law in order to allow the potus to do all that stuff, is proof that you are wrong.

Had the potus already had that power, there would have been no need to include US citizens in the Trading with the enemies act.

Everything the potus did, (close the banks and steal the People's money) is based on the trading with the enemies act.

Otherwise you anarchy, murder, terrorism, and the destruction of humanity.

Bullshit. We did not have any of that before the potus had war powers over US citizens.

I am much more concerned with what my fellow citizens might do to me and our country than the government. Look no further than the BLM riots or J6 riot.

Your gov had a big role in causing that.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

The very fact that they had to amend the law in order to allow the potus to do all that stuff, is proof that you are wrong.

Had the potus already had that power, there would have been no need to include US citizens in the Trading with the enemies act.

Everything the potus did, (close the banks and steal the People's money) is based on the trading with the enemies act.


Bullshit. We did not have any of that before the potus had war powers over US citizens.



Your gov had a big role in causing that.

They didn’t amend the law. They more clearly defined the president’s authorities. In some cases Congress transferred some of their authority to the executive branch which is also completely constitutional.