Pelosi, gun emergency..

[SHIVAN]

An EO can not execute a law, and it certainly can not bypass a Constitutional right.

Building a border around federal property, like around a Post Office, is clearly handled under Executive oversight. Just happens that the wall he wants is around a big piece of federal land.

DACA was done by EO because Obama could say stop prosecuting these cases. Let them languish. If you prosecute you will be terminated from gov't service.

Climate Change stuff could be done under an EO, no issues there.

[jsbhike]

In retrospect though, to them, they have a lot more to lose then we do. Once that line is crossed, there is no going back and life as we know it ceases to exist for everyone. Suck level = 100. They don't want it anymore than we do, because in that environment, politicians fall to the bottom of the totem pole.

They have a long line of employees to defend them.

[morbidbattlecry]

My understanding of a National emergency is that the president can do what he likes. There are some things that declaring a NE can't do but the list is small. And none of them say he can't stop a constitutional right. I can't remember the circumstances but Habeas Corpus can be suspended.

[SomeOtherGuy]

NVM, I'll just leave it at this: A formal legal system only works if all parties involved respect it and believe in it, even when they don't like the results.

[glocktogo]

In retrospect though, to them, they have a lot more to lose then we do. Once that line is crossed, there is no going back and life as we know it ceases to exist for everyone. Suck level = 100. They don't want it anymore than we do, because in that environment, politicians fall to the bottom of the totem pole.

And yet history is littered with examples with revolutions that were foreseeable and preventable, yet those in power ignored the possibility and/or the ramifications. Hell in France it's a running joke!

[Norseman]

Did I miss something? All I am seeing in this is a politician made a comment that was a dig at another politician and their base. Isn't that kinda what they do up in their ivory towers?

I guess maybe I am just an idgit and don't get the "why" behind all this hoopla over what a well documented moron on a podium said about something that just can not be done with out destroying everything that this country was founded on. It's called grandstanding for a reason, but I fail to see how it can really be more than that.

Personally, I think the state level game should be more cause for concern, as that seems to be the new, and to a degree, more effective tactic.

But, like glocktogo mentioned earlier, could be interesting to see what happens when people simply say "no" if they do actually go there.

[Adrenaline_6]

They have a long line of employees to defend them.

I don't think you are thinking this through to the big picture. That long line will disappear quickly in this scenario. The "long line" will have families/friends to defend and take care of, not to mention the guaranteed discord that will accompany the situation. Becoming the bottom of the totem pole in importance also alienates any ties or loyalties that were purely professional. Support will fade quickly, especially when people start actually dying, regardless of what side it is.

[Adrenaline_6]

And yet history is littered with examples with revolutions that were foreseeable and preventable, yet those in power ignored the possibility and/or the ramifications. Hell in France it's a running joke!

I totally agree, but the French population isn't armed like we are. That statistic alone is enough to make them realize it wouldn't end well. This is why the push for gun control is essential to their agenda. Without it, it is dead in the water.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

We need to stop guessing what the gun grabbers would do, and make they say what they are planning on doing. Put up or shut up.

I do agree that a National Emergency on global warming is far more likely. The EPA could shut down power plants a lot of different ways.

[jsbhike]

I don't think you are thinking this through to the big picture. That long line will disappear quickly in this scenario. The "long line" will have families/friends to defend and take care of, not to mention the guaranteed discord that will accompany the situation. Becoming the bottom of the totem pole in importance also alienates any ties or loyalties that were purely professional. Support will fade quickly, especially when people start actually dying, regardless of what side it is.

Just looking at history and how it has rarely gone that way. The intended victims always have the cards severely stacked against them by the point they get pissed off enough to retaliate.