Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Each chamber refers to both Congress ANDIt seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!
Each chamber does not refer only to Congress, but Congress AND the Senate....and the Senate is majority.....REPUBLICAN. I'm for the wall and it's not a racist thing, for it wouldn't matter if what was flowing "illegally" over the border were a herd of Norwegians, or British. There are proper procedures to enter the nation and tens of thousands do it on a regular basis.It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!
The drugs come in through legal ports and the other comes in from the many underground tunnels. Remember the huge shipment that came into Philadelphia on a boat? A freighter I think.BTW, a quick Google says the golf course in Long Bien is only 7 miles from Hanoi. Also others within 25 miles.
I would imagine, no one would be begrudging him flying even 250 miles to have some golfing - provided it helps making some progress with NK. Just to make President Spectacle's spectacle more spectacular, not so much.
Just as (next to) no one would deny that even $57bn would be wisely invested if it actually stopped human trafficking, or drugs. But…
Another one this weekend-There is no way to know how much drugs come across the southern border between the ports of entry, all the stats we have today are based on confiscations and busts which are mostly at the ports cuz that's where the drug puppies are. Whose to say how much is coming into the US via all-terrain vehicles or walked across that wouldn't be here if there was a good strong barrier? My guess is that Trump is overstating the case, but that doesn't mean the barrier isn't worth doing.
They funded a wall to the tune of 1.3 billion so the nation would not have to endure another Trump shutdown.the thing you have to ask yourself is, if it isn't an emergency, why did congress fund a wall?What, each emergency isn’t unique?Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.
Do we have to pretend this is the same as all other emergency declarations?
You just answered this question: "Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not."
Well, they couldn't stop it when Obama committed a worse power grab, what makes you think they can do it now?It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!
If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.
Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.
Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.
Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.
Someone needed to subvert the filth.If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed, support of military actions against a foreign power outside of normal presidential powers, applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump's national emergency seems to be the first.Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.
Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.
Apparently the writers of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that there're would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.
As I explained previously it takes a 2/3 vote to overturn a veto of any bill including a joint resolution to end a national emergency with the exception of a joint resolution containing a constitution amendment which requires only a simple majority vote.Each chamber refers to both Congress ANDIt seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!
Each chamber does not refer only to Congress, but Congress AND the Senate....and the Senate is majority.....REPUBLICAN. I'm for the wall and it's not a racist thing, for it wouldn't matter if what was flowing "illegally" over the border were a herd of Norwegians, or British. There are proper procedures to enter the nation and tens of thousands do it on a regular basis.It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!
You mean like the 4 "stupid" wall structures that have come down Illegal crossings 90% in the areas where they are used?You can't justify a stupid wall. Trump can't justify a stupid wall. Accept that.
Democrats are against reducing human trafficking of child sex slaves because they're afraid Trump will get credit for it. Are you proud of yourself?
He can still veto the legislation. You vote get 60 votes to override.It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!
We'll take it to SCOTUS and laugh at your butt hurt on the decision.Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.
Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.
We'll take it to SCOTUS and laugh at your butt hurt on the decision.Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.
Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.
Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.
Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.
Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.
Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.
They were used as such.
Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.
Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.
They were used as such.
Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.
Go cry some place that caresIt seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!
He can still veto the legislation. You vote get 60 votes to override.It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!
Much if what is caught does come through ports.A wall will free up agents to catch more.The drugs come in through legal ports and the other comes in from the many underground tunnels. Remember the huge shipment that came into Philadelphia on a boat? A freighter I think.BTW, a quick Google says the golf course in Long Bien is only 7 miles from Hanoi. Also others within 25 miles.
I would imagine, no one would be begrudging him flying even 250 miles to have some golfing - provided it helps making some progress with NK. Just to make President Spectacle's spectacle more spectacular, not so much.
Just as (next to) no one would deny that even $57bn would be wisely invested if it actually stopped human trafficking, or drugs. But…
