Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
Castle would easily be better than Trump!
So the order is signed. And I'll sign the final papers as soon as I get into the Oval Office. And we will have a national emergency," Trump said.
Trump is nuts.When you look and when you listen to politicians, in particular certain Democrats, they say it all through the port of entry. It's wrong. It's just a lie. It's all a lie. They say walls don't work. Walls work 100%," Trump said.
Declaring a National Emergency. It isn't. Redirecting Military funds to a wall. Congress decides where money goes, not the wannabe dictator.
It violates Article I of the Constitution, congress, not the president, controls the pursestrings. If they let him do this they will regret it by and by when another president decide that he can just circumvent congress and the constitution on say something like national health car, climate change or anything else.
tmac wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 10:16 am They ALL openly disregard the Constitution, all according to their respective agendas. Mitt Romney is no greater friend or defender of the Constitution than Trump. Ron Paul has been one the few candidates to gain any significant stature who has displayed any legitimate respect for the Constitution.
Between the respective sides, it would be a true contest to see who bends, breaks and disregards the constitution any more than the other. They all cite it selectively, if they think it will support their cause and agenda, and then completely disregard it when it doesn't. Just a bunch of pots, calling kettles black.
You say that like it's a good thing.
Previous presidents have been doing this on a regular basis. We currently have 31 active national emergencies dating all the way back to the Clinton years.gkearney wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 10:18 amIt violates Article I of the Constitution, congress, not the president, controls the pursestrings. If they let him do this they will regret it by and by when another president decide that he can just circumvent congress and the constitution on say something like national health car, climate change or anything else.
Coming from the guy who advocates infringing on my right to bare arms....and claims that those who fight gun control are sacrificing children.
It was my way of acknowledging that America had the chance to elect a decent, moral, man and decided not to. I agreed with most of his stances, not all. But I think most people misjudged his intentions. I don't think Mitt was or is as selfishly motivated as people think he is. But I don't expect to convince anyone. I have my reasons for believing what I do.Original_Intent wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 12:21 pmYou say that like it's a good thing.
And to lundbaek, yes I did. I agree that Trump declaring a national emergency to force his way is the wrong approach. However, the last several presidents have done similar declarations about a dozen times each. Not saying that makes it right, it isn't. But this is hardly "precedent setting" as Pelosi would like to characterize it.
I understand how you feel and that Mitt was not a purist like Ron Paul for example. But we could make the same arguments about how President Nelson and the other prophets were not purists in implementing the Kingdom of God as it was designed to be originally, and be like the fundamentalists who accuse the brethren of being anti-Kingdom of God, like we accuse people of being anti-constitution. Like Nephi said, he did for his people according to what was in his power.lundbaek wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 1:07 pm There are numerous posts on LDSFF that detail the unconstitutional things that Mitt Romney has suggested and supported.
While we Latter-day Saints have a doctrinal imperative to preserve liberty, it seems to me that most have little understanding of or interest in what liberty is. Consequently, most are quite content for government to take wealth away from one person to give to another. They fail to recognize the distinction between true charity and government programs that take wealth away from one person to give to another. Many will vote for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints just because a candidate is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. So relatively few realize that the Book of Mormon reveals the design and will of Heavenly Father concerning the political liberty of His children, and that many latter-day prophets and apostles have emphasized the will of Heavenly Father concerning the political liberty of His children.
Nice deflection.lundbaek wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 1:54 pm In my mind the most egregious things that Mitt Romney has advocated or supported that were "unconstitutional":
He has made clear his support of preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)
He has made clear his support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, in violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.)
He has made clear his support of denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, which would undermine the US Constitution. (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.)
He has made clear his support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which are not permitted under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Section 1, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")
He has mad clear his support of and national health care program, which is not allowed under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)
That is not intended as a deflection. It is a statement of what I consider the most egregious things that Mitt Romney has advocated or supported that were "unconstitutional":lundbaek wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 1:54 pm In my mind the most egregious things that Mitt Romney has advocated or supported that were "unconstitutional":
He has made clear his support of preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)
He has made clear his support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, in violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.)
He has made clear his support of denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, which would undermine the US Constitution. (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.)
He has made clear his support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which are not permitted under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Section 1, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")
He has mad clear his support of and national health care program, which is not allowed under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)
Serragon wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 12:35 pmPrevious presidents have been doing this on a regular basis. We currently have 31 active national emergencies dating all the way back to the Clinton years.gkearney wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 10:18 amIt violates Article I of the Constitution, congress, not the president, controls the pursestrings. If they let him do this they will regret it by and by when another president decide that he can just circumvent congress and the constitution on say something like national health car, climate change or anything else.
It seems rather disengenuous of Arenera to start a thread accusing Trump of shredding the constitution when he has been the least abusive of this power of any modern president.
Perhaps there are threads by Arenera accusing Obama and Clinton of shredding the constitution as well? But it is clear from previous threads that Arenera is anti Trump and not pro-constitution. This is just a convenient stool for him on which to grandstand.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics ... index.html
As a Constitution hawk, you should focus on this real situation.lundbaek wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 2:14 pmThat is not intended as a deflection. It is a statement of what I consider the most egregious things that Mitt Romney has advocated or supported that were "unconstitutional":lundbaek wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 1:54 pm In my mind the most egregious things that Mitt Romney has advocated or supported that were "unconstitutional":
He has made clear his support of preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)
He has made clear his support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, in violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.)
He has made clear his support of denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, which would undermine the US Constitution. (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.)
He has made clear his support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which are not permitted under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Section 1, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")
He has mad clear his support of and national health care program, which is not allowed under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)
Some of these things are concerning, although who knows what Mitt would have done in each particular situation. I know he didn't support Nationalized Healthcare like Hilary was proposing. He was for the states solving that problem.lundbaek wrote: ↑February 15th, 2019, 1:54 pm In my mind the most egregious things that Mitt Romney has advocated or supported that were "unconstitutional":
He has made clear his support of preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)
He has made clear his support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, in violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.)
He has made clear his support of denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, which would undermine the US Constitution. (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.)
He has made clear his support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which are not permitted under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Section 1, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")
He has mad clear his support of and national health care program, which is not allowed under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)
