by Josh Siegel
Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon said Friday he intends to introduce a resolution declaring climate change a national emergency.
Blumenauer, who has endorsed the progressive Green New Deal resolution and is active on environmental and renewable energy issues, circulated a letter to colleagues Friday seeking support for a resolution that would declare the “sense of Congress” that climate change is a national emergency.
Blumenauer’s resolution would swipe President Trump for declaring a national emergency Friday to build a border wall and address what the congressman called a “manufactured crisis.”
“What our country should be doing right now is focusing on addressing a real national emergency and one of the most pressing issues of our time: the climate crisis,” Blumenauer said in his letter. “If Donald Trump wants to start declaring national emergencies for fake crises, Congress should address the real ones, starting with climate change.”
Republicans who oppose Trump’s emergency declaration for the wall have expressed concern that Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Congress cannot declare an emergency. In 1976, they legally provided the Executive with those powers, albeit powers narrowly drawn.
They already intended to, and have done so, wherever possible. Obama wore out his pen with the number of executive orders signed. Blaming Trump or using him as some kind of a “well-you-did-it-first” excuse simply doesn’t wash.
Well, Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer, made the most fundamental error in his call for “a resolution that would declare the ‘sense of Congress’ that climate change is a national emergency.” The, ahem, consensus of 97% of all US citizens is that Congress has no sense whatsoever.
The real emergency is in clear cutting American forests for wood pellets than can only be shipped to the UK to burn in their “greenish” boilers.
Aren’t they already redirecting military funds to deal with global warming?
Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.
___________________________________________________
libdems are known for their fixation on “gun control”.
near pathological fixation. On gun control.
They’re just marginalizing themselves at this point.
Does anyone think McCabe discussed his plans with Mueller?
If so would that be enough to bring down the edifice?
OBAMA DECLARED NATIONAL EMERGENCIES. Not a peep from these morons. Fine, they can go to court, be protested and treated like garbage.
SHUT DOWN ALL FOSSIL FUELS NOW. Give the idiots what they want and give it to them IMMEDIATELY. Do we or do we not want this stopped? (Yes, that’s a rhetorical questions. Humans are stupid and will work against their best interests every time, so we’re toast. Have a nice day.)
Get the vehicle ration cards ready and distribute them and then cut off the fuel supplies.
Those who advocate for shutting down the use of fossil fuels should be called out on this issue.
So what if the Dems declare gun control a National emergency? Would that be OK. A whole lot more people die because of the liberal gun laws in the US, so if Trump can do it for a wall the Dems can for gun control. Them we are in to a spiral. This is gonna come back to haunt the Trumpster, make my words.
“So what if the Dems declare gun control a National emergency? Would that be OK. A whole lot more people die because of the liberal gun laws in the US, so if Trump can do it for a wall the Dems can for gun control. Them we are in to a spiral. This is gonna come back to haunt the Trumpster, make my words.”
If the Democrats declare gun control a national emergency it would not change a thing. Guns would still be legal because of the Second Amendment which says gun rights shall not be infringed. The Democrats would have to change the U.S. Constitution in order to radically change gun control laws.
Liberal gun laws are not the cause of excess deaths. Liberal gun laws save lives. We had a gun incident last week where a disgruntled employee shot and killed five of his fellow workers right after he was fired from his job. The shooter was not legally allowed to have a gun because he was a former felon, yet he had no trouble getting a gun. Criminal don’t obey gun laws. The solution to a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun. The workplace where the shooting took place was a so-called “gun-free zone”. That means that only criminals will have a gun in there.
I’m happy to announce that it looks like Oklahoma is going to pass a “Constitutional Carry” law in the near future which will allow all law-abiding citizens of Oklahoma to carry guns legally. The law passed last legislative session but Governor Fallon vetoed it. The new governor, Stitt, says he will sign it. I believe there are several other States that are also passing similar laws. I would expect this to become a trend in Red States.
The Demorats aren’t going to touch the Second Amendment. If they try, they will get their fingers burned.
“The Demorats aren’t going to touch the Second Amendment. If they try, they will get their fingers burned.”
You mean like Trump is now with his wall announcement? Thank you for endorsing my point.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how it shakes out in the courts. Since Congress gave the president the National Emergencies Act without clearly definition of what a valid national emergency under that act is, coupled with the fact courts tend to defer to the president on national security issues (which is the constitutional purview of the president) there’s a good chance Trump will ultimately prevail by the time the Supreme Court weighs in. Unlike your proposed scrapping of the 2nd amendment “emergency” which the Supreme Court would undoubtably strike down on clear constitutional grounds should it ever make it that far (lower courts would also likely strike it down on the same grounds).
“I’m happy to announce that it looks like Oklahoma is going to pass a “Constitutional Carry” law in the near future which will allow all law-abiding citizens of Oklahoma to carry guns legally.”
To quote myself, and to add to that:
In the near future criminals are going to be under a lot more stress in Oklahoma because, if they are smart, they are going to have to assume that everyone they see in Oklahoma is packing heat (a gun). It’s a good thng when you can put doubt in the minds of the Bad Guys and make them feel vulnerable. They may decide to move on rather than put themselves in possible danger by messing with someone who may be armed.
“They may decide to move on rather than put themselves in possible danger by messing with someone who may be armed.”
Will certainly be interesting to see what the outcome is. Let’s hope it is not more innocent lives.
You realize that a majority of states already have similar laws. And one side (pro-gun) of the debate claims the data shows a decrease in violent crimes such as murder whereas the other side (anti-gun) claims the data shows no discernable difference. If the results had been more innocent lives lost, you can bet that the anti-gun side would be shouting those statistics from the rooftops instead of trying to claim the results are “no discernable difference”. No reason to suspect Oklahoma will be the one time where the results are completely different.
They can try Simon, but there’s this little thing called the constitution that stands in their way. While the president can declare a national emergency, he can’t rewrite the constitution, and any attempt to do so will be slapped down by the Supreme Court (if not sooner by the lower courts).
The pattern of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is the cause of very low temperatures in North America.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/02/19/0900Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-115.49,63.71,340
Thanks for the links, ren.