Senate Appears To Have Votes to Overturn Emergency Declaration

[toomuchtime_]

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.

Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.

The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.

This isn't a military operation.

Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.

That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....

Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.

The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.

The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.

 

[toomuchtime_]

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

33 U.S. Code § 2293, says: "Reprogramming during national emergencies," permits the president to "apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."

It really can't be anymore clearcut than that.

Mark

Congress allocates the funds. Declaring an emergency probably isn't going to render Article I null and void.

It'll be decided by the courts.

I doubt the court wants to get into the argument on whether this or that or the other is a "national emergency". I think the court will want to weigh in on whether the President can loot the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise.

How will they rule? I don't know.

You are going to so much trouble to try to justify these bullshit moves by the morally and intellectually bereft Democrats in Congress when we all know every move the make is for partisan political purposes with no thought of what is best for the country.

A trump supporter calling someone else intellectually and morally bereft is humorous.

It only seems that way to you because you are so morally and intellectually bereft. We both know that if the Democratic leadership were no to propose building the fence you would passionately support that move because you so morally and intellectually bereft.

 

[candycorn]

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.

Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.

The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.

This isn't a military operation.

Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.

That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....

Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.

The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.

The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.

Correct. The debate will be decided by the courts. In my view, the Congress (regardless of Party) should be opposing this looting of the treasury.

 

[candycorn]

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

33 U.S. Code § 2293, says: "Reprogramming during national emergencies," permits the president to "apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."

It really can't be anymore clearcut than that.

Mark

Congress allocates the funds. Declaring an emergency probably isn't going to render Article I null and void.

It'll be decided by the courts.

I doubt the court wants to get into the argument on whether this or that or the other is a "national emergency". I think the court will want to weigh in on whether the President can loot the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise.

How will they rule? I don't know.

You are going to so much trouble to try to justify these bullshit moves by the morally and intellectually bereft Democrats in Congress when we all know every move the make is for partisan political purposes with no thought of what is best for the country.

A trump supporter calling someone else intellectually and morally bereft is humorous.

It only seems that way to you because you are so morally and intellectually bereft. We both know that if the Democratic leadership were no to propose building the fence you would passionately support that move because you so morally and intellectually bereft.

A trump supporter calling someone else intellectually and morally bereft is humorous

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.

Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.

The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.

This isn't a military operation.

Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.

That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....

Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.

The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.

The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.

Correct. The debate will be decided by the courts. In my view, the Congress (regardless of Party) should be opposing this looting of the treasury.

It’s also possible that the debate will be decided at the polls through the political process, November 2020.

 

[candycorn]

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.

Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.

The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.

This isn't a military operation.

Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.

That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....

Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.

The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.

The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.

Correct. The debate will be decided by the courts. In my view, the Congress (regardless of Party) should be opposing this looting of the treasury.

It’s also possible that the debate will be decided at the polls through the political process, November 2020.

Sure. I certainly hope the Democrats re-take the Oval in 2020. We can get back to having a serious government once more.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Good.
I love rand pauls consistency.
But im glad trump did this anyways. It made Democrats ACTUALLY support the constitution. This is his biggest accomplishment.

I completely agree. Consistency and forcing the Democrats to be constitutionalists at the same time.

That is a win for America.

.

At the same time, that obese orange fool was wiping his butt on the constitution. You call that a good thing?

----------------------------------- In yer OPINION Bulldog !!

Standing up for the constitution means opposing Trump's effort to steal money for his wall.

That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.

Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.

The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.

This isn't a military operation.

Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.

That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....

Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.

The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.

The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.

Correct. The debate will be decided by the courts. In my view, the Congress (regardless of Party) should be opposing this looting of the treasury.

It’s also possible that the debate will be decided at the polls through the political process, November 2020.

Sure. I certainly hope the Democrats re-take the Oval in 2020. We can get back to having a serious government once more.

Serious about what? The Constitution?

 

[Marion Morrison]

DHS has discretion over wall building..

1 main reason U.S. border wall hasn't been built - WND - WND

'Where's the fence?' activist asks Congress - WND - WND

Not bad reading if one wants to learn something. The site definitely skews right, but info is where one finds it.

I'm going to make this prediction: Being asshats about getting a wall built is going to cost Democrats dearly in 2020.

 

[justoffal]

Why do Dimms give a shit if there is a physical barrier on the US southern border? Specifically?

The money part is a lie. So list real problems.

The cartels pour a huge infusion of cash
Into DC via shadow organizations like La Raza and Centros los Americas. Keeping the Border pourous is important to them as the free flow of purchase money estimated to be between 65 and 100 billion annually moves back and forth on the backs of human mules. Members of both parties have been financially coopted.

Jo

 

[Norman]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

No obstructions for Obama's emergency declaration that I am aware of. But now that someone is finally standing for the American people, of course it has to be overturned.

You are probably wrong that someone like Ron Paul would take that route.

 

[theHawk]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

Lovely OP. There “appears” to be enough votes to override a veto, yet there isn’t.

 

[candycorn]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

No obstructions for Obama's emergency declaration that I am aware of. But now that someone is finally standing for the American people, of course it has to be overturned.

You are probably wrong that someone like Ron Paul would take that route.

Yeah...those were actual emergencies. In retrospect, he probably should have declared a national emergency for the 10-15% who are not insured, looted already allocated funds and provided universal healthcare. After all, that is what Trump is doing; looting the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise

 

[candycorn]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

Lovely OP. There “appears” to be enough votes to override a veto, yet there isn’t.

?

 

[Norman]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

No obstructions for Obama's emergency declaration that I am aware of. But now that someone is finally standing for the American people, of course it has to be overturned.

You are probably wrong that someone like Ron Paul would take that route.

Yeah...those were actual emergencies. In retrospect, he probably should have declared a national emergency for the 10-15% who are not insured, looted already allocated funds and provided universal healthcare. After all, that is what Trump is doing; looting the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise

If those are actual emergencies, the country getting invaded is not only a national emergency, but a planetary, perhaps galactic emergency.

If you could get everyone's health care needs provided for 5 billion dollars, go for it. I am waiting for the plan.

 

[candycorn]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

No obstructions for Obama's emergency declaration that I am aware of. But now that someone is finally standing for the American people, of course it has to be overturned.

You are probably wrong that someone like Ron Paul would take that route.

Yeah...those were actual emergencies. In retrospect, he probably should have declared a national emergency for the 10-15% who are not insured, looted already allocated funds and provided universal healthcare. After all, that is what Trump is doing; looting the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise

If those are actual emergencies, the country getting invaded is not only a national emergency, but a planetary, perhaps galactic emergency.

Invaded? Yeah...whatever. Make me laugh harder

If you could get everyone's health care needs provided for 5 billion dollars, go for it. I am waiting for the plan.

Why stop at $5B? Future Presidents can take whatever they want for anything they want if we allow Trump to loot the treasury.

 

[Faun]

Why do Dimms give a shit if there is a physical barrier on the US southern border? Specifically?

The money part is a lie. So list real problemse.

Because there’s already a physical barrier there.

 

[justoffal]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

No obstructions for Obama's emergency declaration that I am aware of. But now that someone is finally standing for the American people, of course it has to be overturned.

You are probably wrong that someone like Ron Paul would take that route.

Yes...as I noted in a post a few days ago we are watching the incubation of a rival nation on our own soil. It is not America....nor does it have American interests.

Jo

 

[Norman]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

No obstructions for Obama's emergency declaration that I am aware of. But now that someone is finally standing for the American people, of course it has to be overturned.

You are probably wrong that someone like Ron Paul would take that route.

Yeah...those were actual emergencies. In retrospect, he probably should have declared a national emergency for the 10-15% who are not insured, looted already allocated funds and provided universal healthcare. After all, that is what Trump is doing; looting the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise

If those are actual emergencies, the country getting invaded is not only a national emergency, but a planetary, perhaps galactic emergency.

Invaded? Yeah...whatever. Make me laugh harder

If you could get everyone's health care needs provided for 5 billion dollars, go for it. I am waiting for the plan.

Why stop at $5B? Future Presidents can take whatever they want for anything they want if we allow Trump to loot the treasury.

Why stop at 5 billion? CandyCorn, this may be the first legitimate questions I have seen you present here. Indeed, there is no reason to stop at 5 billion. It's the bare minimum to stop the country from being invaded. But, we should spend much more, and do a lot more to eliminate perhaps the biggest security issue in the entire planet / galaxy.

 

[candycorn]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

No obstructions for Obama's emergency declaration that I am aware of. But now that someone is finally standing for the American people, of course it has to be overturned.

You are probably wrong that someone like Ron Paul would take that route.

Yeah...those were actual emergencies. In retrospect, he probably should have declared a national emergency for the 10-15% who are not insured, looted already allocated funds and provided universal healthcare. After all, that is what Trump is doing; looting the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise

If those are actual emergencies, the country getting invaded is not only a national emergency, but a planetary, perhaps galactic emergency.

Invaded? Yeah...whatever. Make me laugh harder

If you could get everyone's health care needs provided for 5 billion dollars, go for it. I am waiting for the plan.

Why stop at $5B? Future Presidents can take whatever they want for anything they want if we allow Trump to loot the treasury.

Why stop at 5 billion? CandyCorn, this may be the first legitimate questions I have seen you present here. Indeed, there is no reason to stop at 5 billion. It's the bare minimum to stop the country from being invaded. But, we should spend much more, and do a lot more to eliminate perhaps the biggest security issue in the entire planet / galaxy.

Yeah, those nannies and gardeners face a real threat. Ridiculous.

But to your point, if the President can loot the treasury, we no longer have a system of checks and balances. So why stop at $5B or even $50B?

It just underscores that we've elected a complete fucking clown as our President--Donald Trump. We shouldn't be surprised by the circus that follows.

 

[Norman]

No obstructions for Obama's emergency declaration that I am aware of. But now that someone is finally standing for the American people, of course it has to be overturned.

You are probably wrong that someone like Ron Paul would take that route.

Yeah...those were actual emergencies. In retrospect, he probably should have declared a national emergency for the 10-15% who are not insured, looted already allocated funds and provided universal healthcare. After all, that is what Trump is doing; looting the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise

If those are actual emergencies, the country getting invaded is not only a national emergency, but a planetary, perhaps galactic emergency.

Invaded? Yeah...whatever. Make me laugh harder

If you could get everyone's health care needs provided for 5 billion dollars, go for it. I am waiting for the plan.

Why stop at $5B? Future Presidents can take whatever they want for anything they want if we allow Trump to loot the treasury.

Why stop at 5 billion? CandyCorn, this may be the first legitimate questions I have seen you present here. Indeed, there is no reason to stop at 5 billion. It's the bare minimum to stop the country from being invaded. But, we should spend much more, and do a lot more to eliminate perhaps the biggest security issue in the entire planet / galaxy.

Yeah, those nannies and gardeners face a real threat. Ridiculous.

But to your point, if the President can loot the treasury, we no longer have a system of checks and balances. So why stop at $5B or even $50B?

It just underscores that we've elected a complete fucking clown as our President--Donald Trump. We shouldn't be surprised by the circus that follows.

Are you criticizing Trump for... doing what he was elected to do?

Now that is ridiculous. Indeed, he should use all and every measures necessary to guarantee that the border gets shut down and the invasion is stopped on its tracks.