Seldom Used Law Will Force Mitch To Take Disaster Vote

[skews13]

I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.

The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.

The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.

Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.

 

[DJT for Life]

And it will pass the Senate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

McConnell needs to stop being a Trump apologist and blind partisan hack and start to do the job the Framers intended the Congress to do: act as a check on the Executive.

 

[BULLDOG]

And it will pass the Senate.

Yes, a binding "resolution of disapproval" would pass the Senate. Especially on a simple majority vote.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.

The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.

The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.

Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.

Maybe it is time that the US citizens just arm up and go after those that dont want to keep US secure. That is what concerned citizens do to TRAITORS to the country.. So we add a few names to the famous traitors....
List Of Executed Traitors Guilty Of Treason

Execution of famous traitors: Here is a list of every traitor, guilty of treason against their sovereign, executed by law. For these traitors, death penalty put an end to their shameful life.

 

[occupied]

Interesting. Don't underestimate the republican ability to make the government work in less than constitutional ways.

 

[kyzr]

A "resolution of disapproval" would not pass the Senate.
Just look at the "national emergencies" that Obama declared:

Here are the 28 active national emergencies - CNNPolitics
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)

The migrant and opioid crisis on the southern border requires firm action, and not with drones. Any GOP senators who vote against it will be primaried. This vote will be like for Kavanaugh.

 

[OKTexas]

I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.

The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.

The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.

Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.

LMOA, the CRA is to give congress a path to nullify executive agency regulations, not address a Presidential Emergency Declaration. Do you folks just make shit up as you go along?

.

 

[busybee01]

A "resolution of disapproval" would not pass the Senate.
Just look at the "national emergencies" that Obama declared:

Here are the 28 active national emergencies - CNNPolitics
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)

The migrant and opioid crisis on the southern border requires firm action, and not with drones. Any GOP senators who vote against it will be primaried. This vote will be like for Kavanaugh.

All of the national emergencies involve foreign policy. They do not directly contradict the Constitution. Using a national emergency to build a wall directly contradicts the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Congress which is the power of the purse.

 

[OKTexas]

A "resolution of disapproval" would not pass the Senate.
Just look at the "national emergencies" that Obama declared:

Here are the 28 active national emergencies - CNNPolitics
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)

The migrant and opioid crisis on the southern border requires firm action, and not with drones. Any GOP senators who vote against it will be primaried. This vote will be like for Kavanaugh.

All of the national emergencies involve foreign policy. They do not directly contradict the Constitution. Using a national emergency to build a wall directly contradicts the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Congress which is the power of the purse.

Congress intentionally delegated that authority to the president to address emergencies. He is authorized by law to move appropriated money around within the executive branch. Congress can only remove that authority by a joint resolution as prescribed by the National Emergency Act. Not the CRA.

.

 

[Moonglow]

They could have done this at any time during the last two years but just now pull it out? Seems suspect..

 

[DJT for Life]

A "resolution of disapproval" would not pass the Senate.
Just look at the "national emergencies" that Obama declared:

Here are the 28 active national emergencies - CNNPolitics
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)

The migrant and opioid crisis on the southern border requires firm action, and not with drones. Any GOP senators who vote against it will be primaried. This vote will be like for Kavanaugh.

All of the national emergencies involve foreign policy. They do not directly contradict the Constitution. Using a national emergency to build a wall directly contradicts the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Congress which is the power of the purse.

You are incorrect. It is not a National Emergency to build a border wall.
It is a National Emergency, to secure our entire southern border and stop
the mass invasion of illegal s-p-I-c-s into the country.

 

[Preacher]

I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.

The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.

The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.

Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.

No one cares. Least of all President Trump. The only thing these CLOWNS in congress can agree on is to continue getting our military members killed in Syria and Afghanistan,sorry I don't take anything they say or do seriously or even to be legitimate.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.

The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.

The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.

Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.

DEMs don't have a majority in the Senate dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.

The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.

The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.

Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.

No one cares. Least of all President Trump. The only thing these CLOWNS in congress can agree on is to continue getting our military members killed in Syria and Afghanistan,sorry I don't take anything they say or do seriously or even to be legitimate.

More cops are being killed on the streets in this country per week than have died in Afghanistan, Syria, or any other hot spot we're are deployed.

My daughter's unit (a regiment) is just now completing a completing a deployment to Iraq that started last summer. Casualties? Zero.

 

[The Professor]

I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.

The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.

The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.

Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.

The author of the cited article doesn't know much about the law he was discussing. First of all, the “resolution of disapproval” does not apply to Presidential executive action; instead, it applies only to actions taken by administrative agencies. Further, if Trump vetoes the resolution, the veto can be overridden only by two-thirds of the members of each house. This is what was printed in the Washington Examiner:

“The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding “resolution of disapproval” on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional powers to unilaterally build a border wall. The president is threatening action if Congress refuses his demand for $5.7 billion in border wall funding. Friday, Trump expressed skepticism that a bipartisan commission seeking a deal on the wall to avoid another government shutdown would succeed, saying there was a "good chance" he would declare an emergency.”

Unfortunately, the unenlightened, intellectually lazy author never researched the law to determine to whom the law applied and how it operates. The following describes what the “joint resolution of disapproval” is all about:

“A joint resolution of disapproval is a measure, introduced and considered by Congress under the terms of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, that overturns a new federal agency rule and blocks the issuing agency from creating similar rules in the future without specific authorization. As with all bills and joint resolutions, a joint resolution of disapproval must be passed by both houses of Congress in identical form and sent to the president for approval or passed over a presidential veto by two-thirds of the members of each house.”

https://ballotpedia.org/Joint_resolution_of_disapproval_(administrative_state)

CONCLUSION:. The author of the article was wrong, proving it is always dangerous to rely on a single news source. If you want to get to the truth, you will almost always have to do some research.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

andaronjim, post: 21742159

Maybe it is time that the US citizens just arm up and go after those that dont want to keep US secure.

The U.S. Is secure. The Intel Chiefs report no national security threat at the Mexican land border. Your call for an armed revolt against the United States government and its lawful citizens based upon a lie is duly noted.

Isn't that standard procedure for militant fascists?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Professor, post: 21743429

The author of the cited article doesn't know much about the law he was discussing. First of all, the “resolution of disapproval” does not apply to Presidential executive action; instead, it applies only to actions taken by administrative agencies. Further, if Trump vetoes the resolution, the veto can be overridden only by two-thirds of the members of each house. This is what was printed in the Washington Examiner:

Unfortunately, the unenlightened, intellectually lazy author never researched the law to determine to whom the law applied and how it operates. The following describes what the “joint resolution of disapproval” is all about:

CONCLUSION:. The author of the article was wrong, proving it is always dangerous to rely on a single news source. If you want to get to the truth, you will almost always have to do some research.

Why didn't you get to the truth? All you had to do was read the link provided to the Washington Examiner column and you would have been able to comprehend the point of the OP and the author at Salon.

The truth is the column's author acknowledged the fact that Trumpo can veto the Joint Resolution if it passes. That means your ignorance based rebuke of that writer is wrong and absurd. David M Drucker is a Senior Political Correspondent for the conservative pro Trumpo Washington Examiner and it appears to me that he knows what he is talking about.

I have done your research for you:

Mitch McConnell privately cautioned Trump about emergency declaration on border wall

"McConnell, R-Ky., told Trump that Congress might end up passing a resolution disapproving the emergency declaration, the people said - which would force the president to contemplate issuing his first veto ever, in face of opposition from his own party."

It is clear that Pelosi can use this procedure and McConnell will have no choice but to force his caucus to vote for idiot Trumpo or against idiot Trumpo.

That spells disaster for Trumpo weary Republicans in the Senate.

McConnell would prefer to never have to bring something to a vote that the President intends to veto.

Pelosi has outfoxed idiot Trumpo once again already.

You owe the OP and the cited authors an apology, professor.

Will we see one?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.

The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.

The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.

Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.

LMOA, the CRA is to give congress a path to nullify executive agency regulations, not address a Presidential Emergency Declaration. Do you folks just make shit up as you go along?

.

Mitch has warned idiot Trumpo that the vote of disapproval could happen if idiot Trumpo declares a fake emergency.

Explain how you know more about this than the Senate Majority leader.

 

[22lcidw]

I’ll let the right-wing Washington Examiner explain why this would be such a disaster—for both Mitch and the rest of the GOP.

The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding "resolution of disapproval" on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional power to unilaterally build a border wall.

The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law - the Congressional Review Act - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.

Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.

LMOA, the CRA is to give congress a path to nullify executive agency regulations, not address a Presidential Emergency Declaration. Do you folks just make shit up as you go along?

.

Mitch has warned idiot Trumpo that the vote of disapproval could happen if idiot Trumpo declares a fake emergency.

Explain how you know more about this than the Senate Majority leader.

Forgive me. But you want to legalize people to lick and ph uk the azzes of toddlers. Idiots to one issue is an agenda to another.