Free: Contests & Raffles.
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.
Monday’s vote marked the first time the House or Senate has tried to terminate a presidential declaration of a national emergency, using the provisions of the National Emergencies Act of 1976.
Maybe I'm wrong but didn't he try to congress to act?
There are a few major things the Republicans can accomplish on their own without Democratic support, including dismantling many of the key elements of the Affordable Care Act using a byzantine budget process called reconciliation.But Republicans will ultimately discover that it will be impossible for them to pass many other measures without Democratic support, because of the constant threat of a filibuster in the Senate that would require at least 60 votes to overcome.
The White House previously signaled it was backing down from Trump’s demand for $5 billion in wall funding and aides had privately offered assurances that the president plans to sign the bill.Trump on Thursday morning also signaled he was poised to accept a funding measure without wall funding, tweeting that “with so much talk about the Wall, people are losing sight of the great job being done on our Southern Border by Border Patrol, ICE and our great Military.”But the president’s frustration appears to have built as conservative commentators like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham accused him of caving on his demands for $5 billion in wall money.The scenario resembles the fight in March over a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending package.Trump begrudgingly signed the measure just hours after threatening to veto it, and vowed to never again sign similar legislation."I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again,” Trump said during a press conference. “I'm not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It's only hours old. Some people don't even know what’s in it.”
Trump signs the $1.3 trillion spending bill after threatening vetoMarch 23, 2018. . . On Friday, President Trump confirmed that he signed the omnibus spending bill. Hours before, Trump considered vetoing the bill, citing a lack of support for his DACA deal and proposed border wall funding. "I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again," he said during a press conference.
Don’t be surprised but Madame Speaker is being disingenuous. If Trump hadn’t declared a national emergency, it wouldn’t have reduced the likelihood of a future Democrat president declaring one for whatever he thought to be an emergency. As Barack Obama’s weaponizing of the IRS, the FBI, and other federal agencies demonstrated, power placed in Democrat hands is used whether doing so is in keeping with statesmanly tradition, is ethical, or is even legal. So, we can confidently predict, that like the sun rising tomorrow or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying something nutty, a Democrat president will do whatever it takes to advance the Democrat agenda. But will a presidential declaration of a national emergency (hereafter, PDNE) by a Dem prez work for the causes Lefties find delightful?Pelosi explicitly mentioned increasing gun control using a PDNE. Extending and improving border barriers that already exist and destroying a fundamental right enumerated in the U.S. Constitution aren’t, however, the same thing. Such an effort would bring a quick trip to the Supreme Court, where it would be unlikely to prevail. Additionally, over 326 million firearms are in private hands and it will be difficult to gather them up. A 2014 effort in California to confiscate 21,249 guns owned by convicted felons and domestic violence offenders collected just 3,770 guns. The guns were registered so the collecting officers had the names of the owners, their addresses, and the number of weapons they owned. They spent nearly $10 million of a $25 million appropriation or about $2500 per gun and left 17,479 of the targeted weapons uncollected. Imagine a similar effort to collect all American guns. The cost would be enormous and we haven’t mentioned the costs of hunting down guns less readily found nor of imprisoning those who resisted confiscation nor of diverting law enforcement from their normal duties nor of the costs of crimes that would otherwise be prevented by those officers and gun owners lawfully using their guns. The needed police intrusion into millions of lives would be an incredible imposition on America. While anti-gun voices might protest that no guns would mean no gun deaths and that confiscation would thereby be justified, it’s hard to imagine a gun confiscation effort that would collect all guns and keep criminals from obtaining a firearm. At best, it would make guns a highly valuable black market item to smuggle into America or to make in an ordinary machine shop.
So how many here are old enough to remember the Berlin wall? That one was ineffective and we will never have one here as well armed. I know he say walls work, but they don't. There are far more effective was to secure the wall these days using technology. What bothers me is that conservatives used to believe in fiscal responsibility, that seems to have gone by the wayside. I miss the Grand old party of the 70's and 80's.
Don't know what all the uproar is!!!Ever since I've been able to VOTE the DSPA aka:DNC, they've been Anti-2A and now endorse murder of children born alive, HAVE been bringing anti-gun bills before the American people!!Where have you been? Nancy is just being Nancy!!YOU own a firearm, YOU vote for any "D" YOU ARE dumber then a box of rocks!!!
