testtest

Trump's Gun Pledges Forgotten In First Week On The Job

dadoser said:
Probably not the argument to make, based on the barrage of executive orders that ignore Congress/Constitution all together. Clearly - if willing - he could sign ANY EO on the 2A/firearms he wanted to, and then let the courts settle it. Its what he is doing on a whole lot of other EOs. Just sayin' 😁
Click to expand...

double-facepalm-memes.jpg


EO's only have weight because they have to be tied at the waist to an existing (however old & obscure) "existing" law that's been passed by Congress.

When folks get their panties bunched up because an EO is signed off on that they don't like they need to figure out what law its tied to.

Better get a seat up closer to the black board & turn off your phone next time.
 
Last edited:
BTW - The USAID Dept/Program that DJT did away with, and the Donkey's are going mental over, was created by JFK 65-years ago with an EO that was tied to an existing law.

The USAID Program thought they were independent entities & invulnerable, with 60% of their budget gong to admin & party-time expenses. A plum program to be part of.

But, Musk identified the tremendous waste in it, and DJT had the authority to EO them out of existence returning the intent of the former programs' function back to the State Dept.

Surprise, surprise. :LOL:

DJT V.2.0 plays hard-ball compared to his three predecessors who played nerf-ball, pickle-ball & badminton.
 
Last edited:
Talyn said:
View attachment 74816

EO's only have weight because they have to be tied at the waist to an existing (however old & obscure) "existing" law that's been passed by Congress.

When folks get their panties bunched up because an EO is signed off on that they don't like they need to figure out what law its tied to.

Better get a seat up closer to the black board & turn off your phone next time.
Click to expand...
Brother, he literally signed an EO nullifying the 14th Amendment....that has been challenged and upheld by SCOTUS. What Congressional law was that based on again?? He has signed EOs to not pay for programs that Congress has allocated money for. Like it or not - this administration is not respecting any actions Congress has taken previously or an actual Amendment to the Constitution. On that 14A - its like if Biden wrote an EO nullifying the 2A. I'd be losing my mind if Biden pulled that sh*t.
 
Talyn said:
View attachment 74816

EO's only have weight because they have to be tied at the waist to an existing (however old & obscure) "existing" law that's been passed by Congress.

When folks get their panties bunched up because an EO is signed off on that they don't like they need to figure out what law its tied to.

Better get a seat up closer to the black board & turn off your phone next time.
Click to expand...
Are you arguing that the Pistol Brace ban as an SBR is based on the NFA 1934 - and should stand? If not, why not an EO allowing pistol braces?
 
dadoser said:
Brother, he literally signed an EO nullifying the 14th Amendment....that has been challenged and upheld by SCOTUS. What Congressional law was that based on again?? He has signed EOs to not pay for programs that Congress has allocated money for. Like it or not - this administration is not respecting any actions Congress has taken previously or an actual Amendment to the Constitution. On that 14A - its like if Biden wrote an EO nullifying the 2A. I'd be losing my mind if Biden pulled that sh*t.
Click to expand...
The problem with that theory is the clause “ under the jurisdiction thereof”. That’s much more ambiguous than “ shall not be infringed “.
Constitutional scholars amirite? Whaddya gonna do.
 
Bassbob said:
The problem with that theory is the clause “ under the jurisdiction thereof”. That’s much more ambiguous than “ shall not be infringed “.
Constitutional scholars amirite? Whaddya gonna do.
Click to expand...
Yeah - if you read the anti gun stuff - the claim is the militia language is the unclear part. And unfortunately even ultra conservative Scalia's opinion in DC vs. Heller said the 2A had limits.
 
dadoser said:
Brother, he literally signed an EO nullifying the 14th Amendment....that has been challenged and upheld by SCOTUS. What Congressional law was that based on again?? He has signed EOs to not pay for programs that Congress has allocated money for. Like it or not - this administration is not respecting any actions Congress has taken previously or an actual Amendment to the Constitution. On that 14A - its like if Biden wrote an EO nullifying the 2A. I'd be losing my mind if Biden pulled that sh*t.
Click to expand...

200w (7).gif


17zwol.jpg



#1 - I'm not your brother.

#2 - DJT EO on birth-right citizenship did not nullify the 14th Amendment. Amendments can only be added or deleted by acts of Congress that then have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states.

The 14th's Amendment language on citizenship was done to finally nullify the remnants of the 1857 Dred Scott decision, BTW was supported by the DONKEY Party.

DJT did what he did to eventually elevate the misuse of that language to a new look by a "modern" SCOTUS on the original intent on who the 14th Amendment applies to.

#3 - The status of pistol braces is up to interpretation of the NFA by the BATFE without REAL changes to the NFA by an act of Congress & signed by a POTUS to "formally" remove SBRs, SBSs and suppressors from the NFA. An EO is only a temporary fix just waiting from another Donkey POTUS to put pistol braces back on.

#4 - Lastly, if you don't think there's any misuse and/or outright fraud in how taxpayers $$ is used by politicians and agencies then...

images.png
but it involves this...
giphy (4).gif


I suggest you fill out one of these and send notarized copies to all you local, state & Congressional Reps.

Hurt Feelings Report form.jpeg
 
Hi,

"Anchor babies" and "birth tourism" are abuses that must end. We all know what the 14th Amendment was for, to fix and affirm black citizenship after the Emancipation.

www.foxnews.com

Senate Republicans introduce bill to reform birthright citizenship, following Trump’s controversial order

Following Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, several Republicans introduced a bill that would reform U.S. law to accomplish exactly that.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
dadoser said:
Brother, he literally signed an EO nullifying the 14th Amendment....that has been challenged and upheld by SCOTUS. What Congressional law was that based on again?? He has signed EOs to not pay for programs that Congress has allocated money for. Like it or not - this administration is not respecting any actions Congress has taken previously or an actual Amendment to the Constitution. On that 14A - its like if Biden wrote an EO nullifying the 2A. I'd be losing my mind if Biden pulled that sh*t.
Click to expand...

Here's what you don't understand. The legislative branch appropriates money. The executive spends the money, or not. Just because Congress appropriates money for a program does not automatically mean the money will be spent on the program. The executive branch can't spend it on something else, but they can certainly not spend it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top