Pelosi Claims Future President Could Use “National Emergency” to Target Guns

[Fl0und3rz]

Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard, is back from a two-week deployment flying surveillance missions over the Arizona border, and the experience shored up his support for President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.

“I went down there kind of undecided,” Kinzinger said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday.

“I think if this was just an issue of immigration it wouldn’t constitute a national emergency, but what I saw was really disturbing,” he said, adding that he would not vote to try to block the president’s national emergency declaration.

Some lawmakers have called the president’s move unconstitutional, as it bypasses Congress’ power of the purse. Kinzinger, though, does not agree with that assessment.

“Look, I wish this would have happened a different way,” he said. “I voted for comprehensive immigration reform. I think Republicans, the Democrat, both have good ideas on immigration.”

Kinzinger, who pilots the RC-26 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, said he tackled the mission from an apolitical point of view when he traded his flag pin for his flight cap.

Kinzinger said he flew missions in which he helped interdict 70 pounds of methamphetamines on a border crosser, as well as helped identify a woman who had been abandoned in the desert by human traffickers, also known as “coyotes.”

“Had she actually not been found by us, I don’t know if she’d been able to find her way home,” he said. “So yeah, she got picked up by Border Patrol, she’s going to be deported, but that was a way better option than being one of the 200, at least, bodies they end up finding in the desert every year.”

This was Kinzinger’s first time flying missions out of Arizona, but he said this was his fourth time flying on the southern border.

“Texas by the way, I was there under President Obama,” he added. “So the Guard’s mission on the border is nothing new.”

During the interview, Kinzinger acknowledged that border apprehensions are near a 50-year low, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data sheets. He also recognized that some border state governors have pushed back against the need for active-duty deployments.

However, he added that those numbers may be skewed by the inability of Border Patrol agents to catch illegal crossers.

“From my experience there were many, many groups that we would see on technology with camera radar or something like that that we could not go address because there were not enough Border Patrol agents,” Kinzinger said.

https://www.weaselzippers.us/412028-congressman-an-officer-back-from-an-air-guard-mission-on-the-border-now-backs-trumps-emergency-declaration/

[bearpaw]

additional perspective that must be considered...

During the interview, Kinzinger acknowledged that border apprehensions are near a 50-year low, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data sheets. He also recognized that some border state governors have pushed back against the need for active-duty deployments.

However, he added that those numbers may be skewed by the inability of Border Patrol agents to catch illegal crossers.

“From my experience there were many, many groups that we would see on technology with camera radar or something like that that we could not go address because there were not enough Border Patrol agents,” Kinzinger said.

[pianoman9701]

Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard, is back from a two-week deployment flying surveillance missions over the Arizona border, and the experience shored up his support for President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.

“I went down there kind of undecided,” Kinzinger said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday.

“I think if this was just an issue of immigration it wouldn’t constitute a national emergency, but what I saw was really disturbing,” he said, adding that he would not vote to try to block the president’s national emergency declaration.

Some lawmakers have called the president’s move unconstitutional, as it bypasses Congress’ power of the purse. Kinzinger, though, does not agree with that assessment.

“Look, I wish this would have happened a different way,” he said. “I voted for comprehensive immigration reform. I think Republicans, the Democrat, both have good ideas on immigration.”

Kinzinger, who pilots the RC-26 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, said he tackled the mission from an apolitical point of view when he traded his flag pin for his flight cap.

Kinzinger said he flew missions in which he helped interdict 70 pounds of methamphetamines on a border crosser, as well as helped identify a woman who had been abandoned in the desert by human traffickers, also known as “coyotes.”

“Had she actually not been found by us, I don’t know if she’d been able to find her way home,” he said. “So yeah, she got picked up by Border Patrol, she’s going to be deported, but that was a way better option than being one of the 200, at least, bodies they end up finding in the desert every year.”

This was Kinzinger’s first time flying missions out of Arizona, but he said this was his fourth time flying on the southern border.

“Texas by the way, I was there under President Obama,” he added. “So the Guard’s mission on the border is nothing new.”

During the interview, Kinzinger acknowledged that border apprehensions are near a 50-year low, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data sheets. He also recognized that some border state governors have pushed back against the need for active-duty deployments.

However, he added that those numbers may be skewed by the inability of Border Patrol agents to catch illegal crossers.

“From my experience there were many, many groups that we would see on technology with camera radar or something like that that we could not go address because there were not enough Border Patrol agents,” Kinzinger said.

https://www.weaselzippers.us/412028-congressman-an-officer-back-from-an-air-guard-mission-on-the-border-now-backs-trumps-emergency-declaration/

Then the correct method of accomplishing the end is to bring this evidence to Congress and convince them to vote in the funds. The executive branch isn't supposed to approve the allocation of taxpayer dollars and the Founders never intended to give him that power. The Congress passes the budget and the Executive branch executes it as a law of the land. If the executive branch is unable to convince Congress of the import of such funds, then the expenditure is superfluous. If we're dissatisfied and want a Congress to vote for such funds, we elect new representatives. We are a Constitutional republic, not a monarchy with one person deciding what he wants to spend and how we're going to pay for it. This is indeed a dangerous precedent.

[Fl0und3rz]

The authority of the Executive under the National Emergency Act has been upheld by SCOTUS.  I will take their word on the Constitutionality of that power.  If Congress is so concerned, they have granted themselves review of the Executive authority, such as by a joint resolution declaring the National Emergency terminated. 

Of course, such would have to withstand a presidential veto.


You and I both know that Congress, specifically, the Ds, refuse to appropriate the money necessary for border security including a wall.


I don't buy for a second that this is somehow a dangerous precedent.  Read the CRS report.  Never once has Congress exercised its power and voted to terminate a National Emergency, and some have been an "emergency" for decades. 


If the POTUS is exercising legitimately granted executive authority, granted to him or prior presidents by Congress - which appears to be the case, unless and until it is shown to be otherwise - how is it a dangerous precedent to exercise such authority?


What is, however, a dangerous precedent is a Congress holding political considerations above national security interests of America and Americans.

[pianoman9701]

Well, Harry Reid didn't think that ending the filibuster for SCOTUS candidates would be an issue either. My personal opinion is that Trump has been sitting on his ass on this for two years and all of a sudden, it's an emergency. He'd have gotten the funding a year ago or the year before. But he didn't. He and the Republicans blew this and now they're going to set a precedent that's going to come back and bite us lowly citizens when the Ds have their ax to grind on guns.

[bearpaw]

The other big difference is that illegals coming into the country are violating the law. A president who would use executive power to circumvent the constitution would be doing exactly that and probably would not hold up in the SCOTUS.

[Fl0und3rz]

You got 70K + dead from opiods, and many more from illegal murders, drunk driving, etc.  Gun deaths are around 40K, or excluding suicides, 15K.  That's 2017 numbers.  And the wet dream of banning all guns including those lawful uses by lawful citizens bears no relation to the ultimate desire, which is to repeal the 2A.  Compare to a wall and the dangers of unchecked illegal immigration and open borders.


I wish that they had addressed it before the midterms, but it is hard to argue that Ryan would have supported spending on a wall, whereas the frequency of the illegal invader caravans has increased only recently.


Will dems use this same power and precedent that they already had to go after guns?  Time will tell.  But it will not be Trump's fault for using the same power and precedent to address the national security issue of border security and illegal immigration.

[bearpaw]

The republicans in 17/18 were the biggest failure ever....

[pianoman9701]

You got 70K + dead from opiods, and many more from illegal murders, drunk driving, etc.  Gun deaths are around 40K, or excluding suicides, 15K.  That's 2017 numbers.  And the wet dream of banning all guns including those lawful uses by lawful citizens bears no relation to the ultimate desire, which is to repeal the 2A.  Compare to a wall and the dangers of unchecked illegal immigration and open borders.


I wish that they had addressed it before the midterms, but it is hard to argue that Ryan would have supported spending on a wall, whereas the frequency of the illegal invader caravans has increased only recently.


Will dems use this same power and precedent that they already had to go after guns?  Time will tell.  But it will not be Trump's fault for using the same power and precedent to address the national security issue of border security and illegal immigration.

It was his main campaign promise. He should've dealt with it first. He didn't and it was a failure for him to neglect it.

[Fl0und3rz]

You got 70K + dead from opiods, and many more from illegal murders, drunk driving, etc.  Gun deaths are around 40K, or excluding suicides, 15K.  That's 2017 numbers.  And the wet dream of banning all guns including those lawful uses by lawful citizens bears no relation to the ultimate desire, which is to repeal the 2A.  Compare to a wall and the dangers of unchecked illegal immigration and open borders.


I wish that they had addressed it before the midterms, but it is hard to argue that Ryan would have supported spending on a wall, whereas the frequency of the illegal invader caravans has increased only recently.


Will dems use this same power and precedent that they already had to go after guns?  Time will tell.  But it will not be Trump's fault for using the same power and precedent to address the national security issue of border security and illegal immigration.

It was his main campaign promise. He should've dealt with it first. He didn't and it was a failure for him to neglect it.

Perhaps.  But that does not make it an unprecedented move to secure the border as a national security emergency measure heralding the demise of the 2A.

[pianoman9701]

Look, I support no one blindly. I'm not a zombie and I'm, not a supporter no matter what. When my President does something wrong, I call him out. He screwed the pooch on this.

[Odell]

Its not about if he can or can't do it constitutionally, obviously the best way to do it is through Congress. That is why he tried to do it there first. Its a serious problem to have Presidents push their agenda outside of checks and balances and proper legislation.

You might like it now if you like the wall. I promise you will hate it later.

[Special T]

Wouldnt it be wild if he closed all the national emergencies at the end of 2024 so that any new emergencies had to be debated after he was gone? 

[Fl0und3rz]

Look, I support no one blindly. I'm not a zombie and I'm, not a supporter no matter what. When my President does something wrong, I call him out. He screwed the pooch on this.

I was probably the first one to note that Trump is an imperfect human and will make mistakes.  Don't confuse rational argument in support of a policy choice as blind zombie following. 


The point was made that this is unprecedented.  It is hardly so.  That there are unique questions is unsurprising as every "national emergency" is different, else no new declaration would be necessary.  The point was made that it will bring about the doom of the 2A at the whims of a dem president. 

If dems are serious about this, they control the house, they can attempt to terminate the National Emergency per the National Emergency Act, or they can seek to work with opposition as you note and reign in future dem and rep presidential authority under the National Emergency Act. I won't hold my breath for the latter.

This is much ado about nothing and dems carping after they failed to prevent the POTUS from attempting to deliver on a campaign promise, as you also note.


Let's not let them blithely rewrite history and paint the situation as something that it is not.  That's all I am saying.  In recognition of actual statutory authority and presidential precedent, their argument reduces to they wish he wouldn't do what they are considering doing in terms of the 2A.

That they would consider taking action on the 2A is an admission against interests and it would matter not if Trump built the wall pursuant to a National Emergency Act National Emergency declaration or not.  Let them.  They sow the wind, let them reap the whirlwind.

[Fl0und3rz]

We have long since lost the notion of what constitutes a National Emergency under the National Emergency Act.  I am all for Congress revisiting the National Emergency Act if it seriously deems the case for a declaration of a National Emergency on the Southern Border warrants it.


31 Existing National Emergencies

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693


Including:

October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.

November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.

June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia.

Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.

March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.

June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.

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 was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.

Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.

July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).

May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.

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 was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.

Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.