Page 645 of 729 FirstFirst ... 145545595635643644645646647655695 ... LastLast
Results 6,441 to 6,450 of 7283

Thread: President Donald Trump

  1. #6441
    Quote Originally Posted by revo View Post
    There is a president who is currently attempting to circumvent Congress on nearly everything and recently wanted to overturn the 14th Amendment, and said he had "legal opinions" that would allow him to do so. Did you forget about that?

    Also, there was already an assault rifle ban in this country during the Bush & Clinton administrations. So I have no idea why you're going into hysterics.
    And yet currently our 14th Amendment is still in tact - there has been no challenge brought to the Supreme Court regarding any actual action he has made. Sure - he got "legal opinions" blah blah blah --- can we get a fact check on that one?? If in fact he attempted to override the 14th - there would certainly be a backlash and a significant SC proceeding.

    Yes there was an "assault rifle ban" during the 90's when Congress passed a 10 year ban yadda yadda yadda.... It expired in 2004 - and the number of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that have been purchased since then makes it nigh impossible to getting rid of the weapons. The genie is out of the bottle and there is just not a way to put it back. As a reminder - I dont own a gun.

    Its just this is such an inane arguement


    Serious Question - what right is he infringing on should he get a wall built?
    It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
    Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


    "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

  2. #6442
    Administrator revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fuggedabboutit
    Posts
    18,854
    Quote Originally Posted by baldgriff View Post
    And yet currently our 14th Amendment is still in tact - there has been no challenge brought to the Supreme Court regarding any actual action he has made. Sure - he got "legal opinions" blah blah blah --- can we get a fact check on that one?? If in fact he attempted to override the 14th - there would certainly be a backlash and a significant SC proceeding.

    Yes there was an "assault rifle ban" during the 90's when Congress passed a 10 year ban yadda yadda yadda.... It expired in 2004 - and the number of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that have been purchased since then makes it nigh impossible to getting rid of the weapons. The genie is out of the bottle and there is just not a way to put it back. As a reminder - I dont own a gun.

    Its just this is such an inane arguement


    Serious Question - what right is he infringing on should he get a wall built?
    I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but the 5th Amendment:
    “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    Two-thirds of the land needed for the wall to be built is currently owned by private owners or the states, and when Bush wanted to build the wall by using Eminent Domain to steal the property, he faced years and years of lawsuits.

    So I'll say property rights protected by The 5th Amendment.


    So now that we're off this stupid back and forth, the point was -- Trump is opening up an enormous can of worms if he uses a National Emergency to circumvent Congress over a half-baked argument. But once he does it, what's to stop the opposing party from doing the same to push through their agenda if there's an unwilling Congress?

  3. #6443
    All Star DMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9,419
    Quote Originally Posted by revo View Post
    I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but the 5th Amendment:
    “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    Two-thirds of the land needed for the wall to be built is currently owned by private owners or the states, and when Bush wanted to build the wall by using Eminent Domain to steal the property, he faced years and years of lawsuits.

    So I'll say property rights protected by The 5th Amendment.


    So now that we're off this stupid back and forth, the point was -- Trump is opening up an enormous can of worms if he uses a National Emergency to circumvent Congress over a half-baked argument. But once he does it, what's to stop the opposing party from doing the same to push through their agenda if there's an unwilling Congress?
    The courts.
    If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
    - Terence McKenna

    Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

    How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

  4. #6444
    All Star heyelander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sactown
    Posts
    6,897
    I saw someone compare declaring a national emergency to build a wall that won't be done for 10 years to realizing your house is on fire and calling the city commissioner to begin discussions and zoning to have a new firehouse built.
    I'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert...

  5. #6445
    Quote Originally Posted by revo View Post
    Two-thirds of the land needed for the wall to be built is currently owned by private owners or the states, and when Bush wanted to build the wall by using Eminent Domain to steal the property, he faced years and years of lawsuits.

    So I'll say property rights protected by The 5th Amendment.
    So wouldnt part of the 5billion budget be part of the legal fees related to due process of law to either purchase or implement Eminent Domain by just compensation? That right says that you get due process or just compensation - you can still lose property rights to the government - its not an uncommon thing....

    Now it would be remiss not to include in the budget process the actual obtaining of the land in which you plan on building. Assuming that each land owner gets due process, just compensation or both - what infringement is there?

    So lets try again. By building the wall what right is he infringing on?

    I agree that he is opening a large can of worms and the continued attempts to work outside the political/governmental red tape is problematic for him from both an optics perspective and from an actual accomplishing anything perspective.
    It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
    Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


    "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

  6. #6446
    Quote Originally Posted by nots View Post
    Maybe they can put their 9B surplus towards their 67B unfunded pension liability.
    looks like a $21B surplus this year, of which the new governor has committed 14B towards building reserves and paying down pension liability

    https://www.sfgate.com/news/educatio...e-13522640.php
    "You know what's wrong with America? If I lovingly tongue a woman's nipple in a movie, it gets an "NC-17" rating, if I chop it off with a machete, it's an "R". That's what's wrong with America, man...."--Dennis Hopper

    "One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real." -- Klaus Kinski

  7. #6447
    Administrator revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fuggedabboutit
    Posts
    18,854
    What if you don’t want to sell? What if the property has been in your family for hundreds of years? What if it’s an Indian Reservation that would need to be uprooted entirely? Doesn’t sound like “due process” to me if you’re getting evicted from your own land that you have zero interest in leaving. There’s a reason why it’s been tied up in courts for over a decade, and infringement of Fifth Amendment rights is the primary reason why. And being how large the territory is, there’s going to be literally THOUSANDS of lawsuits surrounding Fifth Amendment rights, especially considering how partisan this cause is.

    There’s no way to discount that, not sure why you are.

  8. #6448
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Fresno Bob View Post
    looks like a $21B surplus this year, of which the new governor has committed 14B towards building reserves and paying down pension liability

    https://www.sfgate.com/news/educatio...e-13522640.php
    Predicted surplus is very different than actual surplus. Let’s see where we are at the end of the year with this.

  9. #6449
    Quote Originally Posted by revo View Post
    What if you don’t want to sell? What if the property has been in your family for hundreds of years? What if it’s an Indian Reservation that would need to be uprooted entirely? Doesn’t sound like “due process” to me if you’re getting evicted from your own land that you have zero interest in leaving. There’s a reason why it’s been tied up in courts for over a decade, and infringement of Fifth Amendment rights is the primary reason why. And being how large the territory is, there’s going to be literally THOUSANDS of lawsuits surrounding Fifth Amendment rights, especially considering how partisan this cause is.

    There’s no way to discount that, not sure why you are.
    Im not discounting it. I am stating that if the Government follows due process and/or provides just compensation for the land in question - the there is no infringement on the Fifth Amendment. We are not guaranteed property cant be taken - we are guaranteed that we get due process or just compensation.

    Again, if those processes are followed then the government can take any property it wants and they would be enforcing the 5th Amendment - not infringing on it.

    So lets try again. By building the wall what right is he infringing on?
    It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
    Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


    "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

  10. #6450
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,409
    If he declares itís an emergency, the courts will decide the legality of that. Presidents have always been afforded a lot of latitude when defining an emergency, however, he would really be pushing the envelope wi5h this one. Be very interesting to see what happens if he goes that route. I personally think heís bluffing, but he is such a wildcard, who really knows.
    The government takes a lot of land thru eminent domain. There may be thousands of lawsuits and it may drag on for awhile, but I donít believe that the courts would deny the wall based on a property rights issue. Governments rarely lose eminent domain cases, though they are frequently litigated by upset property owners. I think the a judicial denial would come by denying its an emergency.
    My town (and several other shore towns) just fought a few owners for the right to build dunes on their properties to protect other home owners from potential storms (as a reaction to Hurricane Sandy). Lot of angst and court battles, but ultimately the State won and the dunes were built. I donít even believe the owners received financial compensation, but I would have to double check that.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •