Think about it. The law would have had to have gone through the House and passed, then the Senate and passed and then go to POTUS for his signature and then if he vetos it, it would go back to them for a veto override. It didn’t happen! Why do you think they are still panicking right now?
“Today, if the president of the United States chooses to use military force abroad the president would have to consult with Congress,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), the sponsor of the amendment. “Yet that same consultation is not required for use of military force on American soil.”
Lots and lots of reports on this one, good job. Leaving up to encourage further discussion. Would like to see solid evidence of either this having been actually signed into law or a sourced debunking.
Can a congress hold congressional power if they previously violated a bunch of constitutional and congressional laws?
I believe in that case, their intrinsic power is moot. Their ability to mandate constitutional amendments are negated by the above action.
Much in the same way as Gov Newsom violating CA constitution, yet mandating laws beyond his power. On contest, the violation of those laws will not be able to stand.
Here is the NDAA for FY 2021 on congress.gov : link
The house did amend it with H.Amdt.833 of their version of the bill H.R 6395 on 2020/7/21. (The Insurrection Act limitation is in this amendment)
The final bill text is still not available. But the enrolled bill text is. And it has no such term "insurrection" in it. Nor does it have any of the other amendments that I can tell. According to govinfo.com in regards to congress speak, enrolled means,
final official copy of the bill or joint resolution which both the House and the Senate have passed in identical form. After it is certified by the chief officer of the house in which it originated (the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate), then signed by the House Speaker and the Senate President Pro Tempore, the measure is sent to the President for signature.
In the "Actions" tab for the NDAA it shows that on the 3rd a "conference report" was filed. And then on the 8th and 11th the house and senate respectively agreed to that report. That report had the amendments in them which did mention the Insurrection Act. Further, in the history for this bill on the 11th it was submitted to the President. The PDF version of the Enrolled Bill is digitally signed the 15th and mentions no "Insurrection" term. Nor does it have any of the other amendments that I can tell.
So ... did they forget to put it in there in the heat of the election show ? Or is there just some administrative thing I missed. Maybe this is where the confusion is coming from as people seem to be back and forth on whether or not it was in there and signed into law. As far as I know the final version of the bills' text has not been released to the public. At least not on congress.gov.
I don't know where my comment went but :
A few things at play -
Can a congress hold congressional power if they previously violated a bunch of constitutional and congressional laws?
Congress has potentially been in violation of constitutional and congressional laws. Their power is moot if that's the case. Law is rolled back.
1a. The amendment they pushed through was also unconstitutional in regards to tampering the IA.
2. Failing that, I believe that there was a 45 day stay put in regards to an EO Trump enacted. It would potentially apply to congress.
3.He doesn't need the IA if he enacts the 14th. https://greatawakening.win/p/11Rhd2kGKC/trump-card-14th-amendment--no-in/
4. AN EO was already in place regarding the state of emergency prior to the election, no?
I believe in that case, their intrinsic power is moot. Their ability to mandate constitutional amendments are negated by the above action.
Much in the same way as Gov Newsom violating CA constitution, yet mandating laws beyond his power. On contest, the violation of those laws will not be able to stand.
Jokes on you...Trump never signed this into Law
Pocket veto.
It’s not a law until signed by the POTUS
The shills try so hard don't they
Executive powers via the Constitution are not able to be overriden by another branch.
This ^^^.
You get paid to do this shit, and that's the best you've got?
Go back to herding sheep dumb motherfucker.
Pretty sure they never fulfilled that bill.
DC isn't a state.
Illegitimate congress that shall be arrested for treason.
?
Think about it. The law would have had to have gone through the House and passed, then the Senate and passed and then go to POTUS for his signature and then if he vetos it, it would go back to them for a veto override. It didn’t happen! Why do you think they are still panicking right now?
Lol!???!
Thank you for the clarification! I knew they tried to tie POTUS’s hands but it failed.
Did Trump sign? If not then it’s still a bill.
Lol
hi liar!
Congress can get fucked, they can't override a Presidential power in some rinky dink "defense" bill.
“Today, if the president of the United States chooses to use military force abroad the president would have to consult with Congress,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), the sponsor of the amendment. “Yet that same consultation is not required for use of military force on American soil.”
Lots and lots of reports on this one, good job. Leaving up to encourage further discussion. Would like to see solid evidence of either this having been actually signed into law or a sourced debunking.
Can a congress hold congressional power if they previously violated a bunch of constitutional and congressional laws?
I believe in that case, their intrinsic power is moot. Their ability to mandate constitutional amendments are negated by the above action.
Much in the same way as Gov Newsom violating CA constitution, yet mandating laws beyond his power. On contest, the violation of those laws will not be able to stand.
It hasn't been signed into law.
To all the naysayers - wasn't this in the bill that Trump veto'ed. And that veto was overturned by both houses of Congress? So it's a LAW ?
Did both houses of Congress approve? Senate?
Emphasis on "would"
Here is the NDAA for FY 2021 on congress.gov : link
The house did amend it with H.Amdt.833 of their version of the bill H.R 6395 on 2020/7/21. (The Insurrection Act limitation is in this amendment)
The final bill text is still not available. But the enrolled bill text is. And it has no such term "insurrection" in it. Nor does it have any of the other amendments that I can tell. According to govinfo.com in regards to congress speak, enrolled means,
In the "Actions" tab for the NDAA it shows that on the 3rd a "conference report" was filed. And then on the 8th and 11th the house and senate respectively agreed to that report. That report had the amendments in them which did mention the Insurrection Act. Further, in the history for this bill on the 11th it was submitted to the President. The PDF version of the Enrolled Bill is digitally signed the 15th and mentions no "Insurrection" term. Nor does it have any of the other amendments that I can tell.
So ... did they forget to put it in there in the heat of the election show ? Or is there just some administrative thing I missed. Maybe this is where the confusion is coming from as people seem to be back and forth on whether or not it was in there and signed into law. As far as I know the final version of the bills' text has not been released to the public. At least not on congress.gov.
I don't know where my comment went but : A few things at play -
Can a congress hold congressional power if they previously violated a bunch of constitutional and congressional laws? Congress has potentially been in violation of constitutional and congressional laws. Their power is moot if that's the case. Law is rolled back. 1a. The amendment they pushed through was also unconstitutional in regards to tampering the IA. 2. Failing that, I believe that there was a 45 day stay put in regards to an EO Trump enacted. It would potentially apply to congress. 3.He doesn't need the IA if he enacts the 14th. https://greatawakening.win/p/11Rhd2kGKC/trump-card-14th-amendment--no-in/ 4. AN EO was already in place regarding the state of emergency prior to the election, no?
I believe in that case, their intrinsic power is moot. Their ability to mandate constitutional amendments are negated by the above action.
Much in the same way as Gov Newsom violating CA constitution, yet mandating laws beyond his power. On contest, the violation of those laws will not be able to stand.