Senate Appears To Have Votes to Overturn Emergency Declaration

[BULLDOG]

The money can be better spent other ways. We both know the only reason the right is pushing for that silly wall is because of Trump's dumb campaign promise. That promise is already broken anyway. Mexico isn't going to pay for any wall.

Its better than amnesty and shit.
I don't support the wall, i want to actually fix the system. Nevertheless, the arguments against the wall are stupid.

The arguments for the wall are stupid.

No, your arguments against it are stupid.

The majority of the country disagrees with you.

Is that what some idiotic poll told you? Shut up fool.

Did fox or Alex Jones tell you different?

 

[DOTR]

I see this and my reaction is "so what?"

Other than a veto override, what's the mechanism that says that congress can order the executive around?

Winner. I don’t think they can stop America’s efforts here.
But it’s a lesson in the swamp. Even trump finds it hard to drain.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/-----/ No emergency at the border? What do you Libtards call it - Wednesday?
RECORD SURGE AT BORDER...
Illegal immigration at worst rate in decade...
Invasion intensifies...
Busloads...
Will 'surpass Obama Era'...
200 Cases of Mumps in Texas Detention Centers...
ICE giving pregnancy tests to all girls over nine...

 

[ColonelAngus]

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.

/-----/ No emergency at the border? What do you Libtards call it - Wednesday?
RECORD SURGE AT BORDER...
Illegal immigration at worst rate in decade...
Invasion intensifies...
Busloads...
Will 'surpass Obama Era'...
200 Cases of Mumps in Texas Detention Centers...
ICE giving pregnancy tests to all girls over nine...

They are really dumb,....so used to lying.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The Wall Street Journal

U.S. Arrests Record Number of Families at Southern Border

 

[ColonelAngus]

Not an invasion!

Trump is racist!

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Defending the borders is always a national security issue, and you no idea who is crossing the border illegally because they have never been vetted. The Border Patrol said 90% of the drugs seized were at ports of entry, and that is because at ports of entry there are barriers that force people to stop and be cleared for entry. It is idiotic to claim you know what is entering the country illegally on the rest of the border because there is no barrier to force people to stop as there is at ports of entry. All the evidence is that the fence will stop almost all illegal immigration across our southern border. In 2013 when Schumer sponsored Senate bill S. 744, it claimed the barrier it proposed would stop at least 90% on illegal immigration across the southern border, clear proof that there is not a single honest Democrat in Congress today.

 

[ColonelAngus]

POTUS should immediately suspend all immigration from the South. Straight up close th border to immigrants.

 

[pismoe]

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

No we haven't A comprehensive immigration program would help more than anything.Walls might have worked in the 14th century, but not today.

------------------------------------ WALL will work fine to Stop the invasion of third worlder . My plan of STOPPING ALL Importation or immigration would work even better Bulldog .

 

[pismoe]

VETTING is BS , as its done by some Government official for money and many official gov workers have agenda and they can't be trusted . [see brennan , clapper , comey , hilary , jebito bush , oldman bush , gwb , bulldawg , rytwinger and many others like GGator , juan McCain , jeff flake and other young naïve dummies that are on the board and in this thread .]

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Of course the Democrats proposed the same border fence in 2013 (Senate bill S. 744) and in her book, Hard Choices, Hillary said she wished it had passed, and then in typical Democratic hypocrisy, claimed she opposed the fence in the election campaign. So by your reasoning Schumer and Clinton and every Democrat in the Senate who voted for Senate bill S. 744 are unAmerican.

Often it is difficult to tell whether you are lying or if you really are as stupid and ignorant as you appear to be. Here is the quote from President Trump's 2018 SOTU speech:

Here are the four pillars of our plan:

The first pillar of our framework generously offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age — that covers almost three times more people than the previous administration. Under our plan, those who meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be able to become full citizens of the United States.

The second pillar fully secures the border. That means building a wall on the Southern border, and it means hiring more heroes like CJ to keep our communities safe. Crucially, our plan closes the terrible loopholes exploited by criminals and terrorists to enter our country — and it finally ends the dangerous practice of “catch and release.”

The third pillar ends the visa lottery — a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of our people. It is time to begin moving towards a merit-based immigration system — one that admits people who are skilled, who want to work, who will contribute to our society, and who will love and respect our country.

The fourth and final pillar protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration. Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives. Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children. This vital reform is necessary, not just for our economy, but for our security, and our future.

President Donald J. Trump's State of the Union Address | The White House

President Trump's plan is virtually identical to the plan laid out in Schumer's 2013 bill. Still more evidence that there is not a single honest Democrat in Congress today.

 

[pismoe]

Walls will slow them down. Kind of like a door lock at your house.
Idiot.

The money can be better spent other ways. We both know the only reason the right is pushing for that silly wall is because of Trump's dumb campaign promise. That promise is already broken anyway. Mexico isn't going to pay for any wall.

Its better than amnesty and shit.
I don't support the wall, i want to actually fix the system. Nevertheless, the arguments against the wall are stupid.

The arguments for the wall are stupid.

No, your arguments against it are stupid.

The majority of the country disagrees with you.

---------------------------------- even if that were true , the USA is not a mob ruled democracy yet Bulldog .

 

[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.

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.

You are wrong on both counts. ICE is cracking down on employers who hire illegals.

ICE cracking down on employers hiring undocumented workers

The smart fence will stop nearly all illegals from crossing our southern border. Israel build the kind of smart fence the President wants to build along its border with Sinai. Before Israel replace the old fence along the border, tens of thousands of African crossed that border, but since Israel's smart fence was completed in Dec. 2013, there has not been a single successful illegal crossing of that border. In 2013, when Schumer proposed the same kind of fence Trump wants, he claimed it would stop at least 90% of illegals from entering the US. There is simply no factual evidence that the fence will not be as effective here as it has been in Israel.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

There simply is no question of whether the President has legal authority under the National Emergency Act and other acts to do what he is doing. The only way a judge can legitimately stop him is to declare these laws unConstitutional.

 

[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.

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.

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.

but Chuck Schumer said it would in his 2013 bill, S. 744, and all the Democrats in the Senate voted for it. Were all the Democrats lying? Or are you guys lying today?

 

[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

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

It really can't be more clear cut than that since the Constitution has priority over a law.

The drug interdiction money is held by the Treasury but it is not part of the Treasury funds that were collected through taxes, so Congress has no jurisdiction over it. Why even argue this? It's a done deal that this money will be used to build the border fence.

Untrue. Congress has authority over all spending. Mick Mulvaney said that if Mexico gave a check to the US to pay for a wall, that money would go to the Treasury until Congress authorizes the money to be spent. The principle is the same. There is no slush fund for the Executive Branch to use.

The Constitution merely states all appropriation bills must originate in the House but does not give the House authority over how those appropriations are spent unless it is specifically allocated for a purpose in the bill. The money the President will spend building the fence was not specifically allocated to any project so the President can prioritize the military construction money to build the fence and spent the drug interdiction money that was not appropriated by Congress also.

 

[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

No we haven't A comprehensive immigration program would help more than anything.Walls might have worked in the 14th century, but not today.

Bullshit, we had one in 1986, it failed miserably and as many of us believe on purpose. Walls do work, people still use them, because they are effective, same reason water or mountains are still an effective barrier.......stop denying reality, to push this stupid idea

 

[Godboy]

Its better than amnesty and shit.
I don't support the wall, i want to actually fix the system. Nevertheless, the arguments against the wall are stupid.

The arguments for the wall are stupid.

No, your arguments against it are stupid.

The majority of the country disagrees with you.

Is that what some idiotic poll told you? Shut up fool.

Did fox or Alex Jones tell you different?

I want you to stop and think about how much you hate Alex Jones, then i want you to multiply that feeling by 10. Thats how i feel about him, so you can save that shit for someone else.

 

[candycorn]

Something that happens that requires an immediate response.

If I told you that more migrant families were arrested at the border in the past 5 months then in any previous full year, would you believe that to be an emergency?

Mark

No. Around the year 2000 we had over a million arrests. There was no national emergency then.

In the ensuing 18 years...

*GDP has doubled in this nation.

*The Stock Market has doubled a great many times.

*Family wealth has increased on the average which is remarkable considering that the power of labor has gone from being on life support to being legally dead

*Violent crime continues to decrease

*Standards of living continue to increase

*The drug problem has gotten worse but as we have seen with prisons, walls and guards do little to stop drugs from getting in to those places so it's foolish to think it will stop a measurable quantity from getting over a 2,000 mile barrier.

My turn: Please justify declaring a "national emergency" in 02/19? Why wasn't it a national emergency in 01/17 when the President took office?
I understand not getting funding through Congress was frustrating but Congress is not there to be a rubber stamp for the President.

Doesn't this open the door to funding any campaign promise through declaration of a National Emergency?

Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?

The emergency is real.

Mathematically you don't have a leg to stand on. Nor is there any evidence of a national emergency due to illegal immigration.

And Trump tried to get funding from day 1. Pelosi and the Democrats understand that giving Trump his wall will ensure his re-election. They would rather burn the country down than allow that.

Mark

Your opinion is irrelevant; as is mine.

As for "trying" to get funding...so? Lots of Presidents try to get funding for lots of things. None have declared a national emergency when they failed.

Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?

Doesn't a declaration open the door to funding any campaign promise through the declaration of a National Emergency if Trump's actions stands?

Of the other emergency declarations by presidents, how were they funded?

Mark

How many were done to fulfill a failed 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.

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

Um, I posted this before. These are the parameters used to permit a national emergency.

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."

Now, if you can figure out just how Trump was supposed to use this program to fund universal health care, let me know.

Mark

If you can figure out how the above code moves money to the DHS budget, let me know.