Senate Appears To Have Votes to Overturn Emergency Declaration

[busybee01]

everything can change , who ever thought that we would see Sanctuary Cities in the USA BBee ??

All a sanctuary city is is one that refuses to assist the federal government in enforcing immigration law. Little wonder since ICE is becoming a lawless agency.

 

[busybee01]

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.

The debate is just getting started. Trump does not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to spend it without Congressional authorization. The Constitution is crystal clear on this.

The fact is that Trump never offered any immigration deal nor ewould his base of far right extremists who have taken over the Republican Party allow it.

The fact is you have no idea what the facts are. In his 2018 SOTU address, the first item he dealt with was an offer to provide a path to citizenship for 1,800,000 illegals who had special circumstances, including all the so called "dreamers" and 1,000,000 more in return for funds to build the border fence. Clearly, to the Democrats, the dreamers were never anything but a political prop.

The fact is that you are clueless. He never made any such offer as the only offer he made was to delay enforcement for a couple of years. The Democrats were right to stand up to this idiocy as a wall is unAmerican and unnecessary.

 

[peach174]

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.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

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.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

Human trafficking and drugs are a national security issue.

 

[miketx]

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.

Senate seems to be going to impeach Trump.Senates seems to be supporting Americans.

 

[busybee01]

ac

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.

Congress in this case was very specific in how the money is to be spent. There are numerous restrictions which overrides that discretion.

Just like it cost Republicans the House. 2020 will see further erosion of Republican power. The question is whether they will lose the White House or Senate or both.

After people seeing 2 years of Democrat lies, tantrums and bullshit? Unlikely.

People have seen 2 years of Trump's lies, tantrum, insults and bullshit. They already gave control of the House to Democrats.

 

[miketx]

ac

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.

Congress in this case was very specific in how the money is to be spent. There are numerous restrictions which overrides that discretion.

Just like it cost Republicans the House. 2020 will see further erosion of Republican power. The question is whether they will lose the White House or Senate or both.

After people seeing 2 years of Democrat lies, tantrums and bullshit? Unlikely.

People have seen 2 years of Trump's lies, tantrum, insults and bullshit. They already gave control of the House to Democrats.

Stupid is as stupid does. Lots of morons believe everything the liars in the media say. Must be sad to be that stupid, but I liken it to being back in 1800's when people had no idea what was going on. Same conditions exist today.

 

[busybee01]

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.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

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.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

Human trafficking and drugs are a national security issue.

Those problems are largely at POEs. Not the actual border.

 

[peach174]

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

Human trafficking and drugs are a national security issue.

Those problems are largely at POEs. Not the actual border.

POE's are the border.

 

[OldLady]

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.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

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.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

Human trafficking and drugs are a national security issue.

As I already pointed out, drugs are smuggled through customs, not walked across the border. Border Patrol will tell you that.
Human trafficking is not going to be stopped with a fence, either. Employers willing to hire them and men willing to give these prostitutes trade are the reason human trafficking flourishes.

 

[busybee01]

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.

There is nothing for the courts to decide. The Democrats are just making noise to cover up the fact they screwed up an opportunity to use funding for the border fence as leverage to get a deal for the "dreamers" and others they claim to care about but clearly don't.

Yes there is. Trump's own people are telling him it will be blocked by the courts. Alan Dershowitz who is pro-Trump says the only question is whether a court will issue a restraining order. Judge Napolitano also agrees the courts will block this.

If a corrupt Obama judge tries to block it in a lower court, he will be overturned.

In this case, the corrupt judge will be the one who overturns it. The Obama judge will be following the Constitution.

Nonsense, the only way to overturn it is to declare the National Emergency Act unConstitutional. Short of that, any judge who tries to stop the fence is acting on political biases, corrupt.

That is false. The judge will rule on whether the application of a national emergency is constitutional. Whether a law can directly contradict Constitution which it cannot in regards to the Congress' power of the purse. You are a typical Trump liar. Any judge who supports Trump and ignores the Constitution is politically biased and corrupt.

 

[busybee01]

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

Human trafficking and drugs are a national security issue.

Those problems are largely at POEs. Not the actual border.

POE's are the border.

A wall won't help there.

 

[busybee01]

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.

The debate is just getting started. Trump does not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to spend it without Congressional authorization. The Constitution is crystal clear on this.

The fact is that Trump never offered any immigration deal nor ewould his base of far right extremists who have taken over the Republican Party allow it.

The President has legal authority to use the funds from the military construction fund and from drug interdiction money held by the Treasury under existing law, so if the court wants to stop him, it must declare the National Emergency Act and other laws allowing the President emergency powers unConstitutional. That's the only way the courts can stop the President from defending our borders.

He does not have the power to spend money without authorization from Congress which has the power of the purse. The courts will decide whether a LAW can override the Constitution. No one is stopping anyone from defending the border but they have to follow the Constitution.

 

[peach174]

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

Human trafficking and drugs are a national security issue.

As I already pointed out, drugs are smuggled through customs, not walked across the border. Border Patrol will tell you that.
Human trafficking is not going to be stopped with a fence, either. Employers willing to hire them and men willing to give these prostitutes trade are the reason human trafficking flourishes.

Perhaps this will help you understand more what our Az. Border patrol has been dealing with for years.

 

[busybee01]

ac

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.

Congress in this case was very specific in how the money is to be spent. There are numerous restrictions which overrides that discretion.

Just like it cost Republicans the House. 2020 will see further erosion of Republican power. The question is whether they will lose the White House or Senate or both.

After people seeing 2 years of Democrat lies, tantrums and bullshit? Unlikely.

People have seen 2 years of Trump's lies, tantrum, insults and bullshit. They already gave control of the House to Democrats.

Stupid is as stupid does. Lots of morons believe everything the liars in the media say. Must be sad to be that stupid, but I liken it to being back in 1800's when people had no idea what was going on. Same conditions exist today.

Stupid is as stupid does. Trump supporters are the stupid morons. Voters know that Trump is a liar extraordinaire. A new Quinnipiac poll shows this.

American voters believe Cohen more than Trump 50 - 35 percent. Cohen told the truth, 44 percent of voters say, while 36 percent say he did not tell the truth.

Voters say 65 - 30 percent that Trump is not honest, his worst grade ever on that character trait. He gets negative grades on other traits:

• 39 - 58 percent that he has good leadership skills;
• 39 - 58 percent that he cares about average Americans;
• 22 - 71 percent that he is a good role model for children.

Trump gets mixed or negative grades for handling key issues:

• 49 percent approve his handling of the economy and 45 percent disapprove;
• Negative 38 - 56 percent for handling foreign policy;
• Negative 40 - 58 percent for handling immigration issues.

QU Poll Release Detail

 

[busybee01]

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

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?

Doubtful you voted for him to loot the treasury. But then again, who knows?

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.

There is no invasion....but don't let the facts stand in the way of hysterical reasoning.

There are more illegals in the country than people enlisted in the US military.

Keep telling yourself that, keep telling yourself that.

People voted for Trump to take the money from the treasury and deal with the problem. Pull your head out of the sand.

Voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump's use of a national emergency to build a wall. Voters in 2016 opposed building a wall. You are the ostrich with ghis head in the sand.

 

[OldLady]

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

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.

It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.

Human trafficking and drugs are a national security issue.

As I already pointed out, drugs are smuggled through customs, not walked across the border. Border Patrol will tell you that.
Human trafficking is not going to be stopped with a fence, either. Employers willing to hire them and men willing to give these prostitutes trade are the reason human trafficking flourishes.

Perhaps this will help you understand more what our Az. Border patrol has been dealing with for years.

Peach, I don't watch vids here, but I do know you guys on the border see some stuff. I know people are still slipping over, despite all the Border Patrol can do. I have no problem with a fence in areas where there is a lot of foot traffic (I'm not a Dem being miserable for the sheer hell of it). But it cannot be "solved" the way Trump is trying to solve it. He is undermining the Constitution's checks and balances and he is relying too heavily on a physical barrier instead of digging to the heart of the problem, which is somehow developing zero tolerance for employers hiring illegals and severe penalties for those making fake documents for these folks. That is all it will take.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

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

The "it will work" part is a proven lie. So list real reasons.

I suspect they just support Trump's whims no matter how goofy those whims are.

Easy, we want illegal aliens stopped. We've tried everything but an actual wall, which has worked forever

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

Doubtful you voted for him to loot the treasury. But then again, who knows?

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.

There is no invasion....but don't let the facts stand in the way of hysterical reasoning.

There are more illegals in the country than people enlisted in the US military.

Keep telling yourself that, keep telling yourself that.

People voted for Trump to take the money from the treasury and deal with the problem. Pull your head out of the sand.

Voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump's use of a national emergency to build a wall. Voters in 2016 opposed building a wall. You are the ostrich with ghis head in the sand.

Who is the President? I'm just asking.

 

[ColonelAngus]

ac

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.

Congress in this case was very specific in how the money is to be spent. There are numerous restrictions which overrides that discretion.

Just like it cost Republicans the House. 2020 will see further erosion of Republican power. The question is whether they will lose the White House or Senate or both.

After people seeing 2 years of Democrat lies, tantrums and bullshit? Unlikely.

People have seen 2 years of Trump's lies, tantrum, insults and bullshit. They already gave control of the House to Democrats.

Stupid is as stupid does. Lots of morons believe everything the liars in the media say. Must be sad to be that stupid, but I liken it to being back in 1800's when people had no idea what was going on. Same conditions exist today.

Stupid is as stupid does. Trump supporters are the stupid morons. Voters know that Trump is a liar extraordinaire. A new Quinnipiac poll shows this.

American voters believe Cohen more than Trump 50 - 35 percent. Cohen told the truth, 44 percent of voters say, while 36 percent say he did not tell the truth.

Voters say 65 - 30 percent that Trump is not honest, his worst grade ever on that character trait. He gets negative grades on other traits:

• 39 - 58 percent that he has good leadership skills;
• 39 - 58 percent that he cares about average Americans;
• 22 - 71 percent that he is a good role model for children.

Trump gets mixed or negative grades for handling key issues:

• 49 percent approve his handling of the economy and 45 percent disapprove;
• Negative 38 - 56 percent for handling foreign policy;
• Negative 40 - 58 percent for handling immigration issues.

QU Poll Release Detail

You are the stupid one if you think illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than US citizens. Willfully ignorant, but you will keep saying it and ignoring the facts.

Cohen is going to jail for lying to Congress.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The entire OP is based on fake news.

"It seems"

Then deeper in: "It’s unclear when the Senate will vote on the resolution."


Hopeful fluff is all it is. I bet it was released on a Friday.