Senate votes 59-41 to repeal Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the border with Marco Ru

[sneakypete]

He had two years of total GOP control of both houses. I'm sure he could have made a deal.

@kevindavis

Yeah,causen the GOP is so conservative and they love him to death because the fresh blood of an outsider is EXACTLY what they needed to make their dreams come true,huh?

Not that any of this really matters. The Dims ARE going to use the illegal alien vote to regain power,and then THEY will put this up for vote and have it passed so THEY can do what you NT's are dumping on Trump for proposing . That will be just peachy-keen with most of you because you will use it as a rally point to get RINO's back into power.

THAT is what is killing America even more than the foreign invasion. There are too many people from both branches of the ruling party that put obtaining personal power above protecting our way of life.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Show me which ones of those were declared only to thwart the will of Congress, and particularly the House.

Show me where the Congress has the authority to render null and void the bills they pass without voting to end or amend the law.

Then tell me why Congress won't do this again --- wherever they choose.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Before we start blasting good conservatives like Lee, we also need to understand that some of these votes were not a pro-open borders position, but a statement that this action could be precedent setting for the next left wing dim POTUS.  What everyone's opinion  when a National Emergency Declaration for Climate Change is issued? 

The precedent the good conservatives have set is the laws the esteemed congress passes can be rendered moot at will by the congress itself.

The law on the books gives the President the power to do what he has done.  The majority of the conservatives voting against the declaration have stated they agree there is an emergency --- but they don't like the law.  So rather than change the law, they voted to ignore it.

Let's see how the democrats use this.


@catfish1957

[Right_in_Virginia]

He had two years of total GOP control of both houses. I'm sure he could have made a deal.

Why diss the only one in Washington fighting for you?  The President didn't have control of both houses, Ryan and McConnell did.

Do we really need to rehash the priorities of these two @kevindavis ?

[edpc]

Why diss the only one in Washington fighting for you?  The President didn't have control of both houses, Ryan and McConnell did.

Do we really need to rehash the priorities of these two @kevindavis ?

Yeah, we really do, since Trump was all for it. Despite the obvious resistance he got from establishment types, during the election, he went full in with them, upon taking office. One of his first targets was the Freedom Caucus.





After little to no legislative progress in 2017, he meets with the same establishment types in January 2018, at Camp David. He goes all in with a group funded by the Kochs, who had also openly opposed him from the start. So is the president an establishment tool or the biggest dupe of all time?


Trump Washes His Hands Of Insurgency Against GOP Incumbents

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Trump-Ends-Insurgency-Against-GOP-Incumbents-468239743.html

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yeah, we really do, since Trump was all for it. Despite the obvious resistance he got from establishment types, during the election, he went full in with them, upon taking office. One of his first targets was the Freedom Caucus.

After little to no legislative progress in 2017, he meets with the same establishment types in January 2018, at Camp David. He goes all in with a group funded by the Kochs, who had also openly opposed him from the start. So is the president an establishment tool or the biggest dupe of all time?

What the hell does this babble have to do with people elected to Congress swearing to uphold the law simply ignoring a law it passed because they don't like the man using it?  The esteemed senators said "we have an emergency and I support the wall, but I don't agree with the law the President is using".  Who the hell gave them THIS authority.

[kevindavis007]

Why diss the only one in Washington fighting for you?  The President didn't have control of both houses, Ryan and McConnell did.

Do we really need to rehash the priorities of these two @kevindavis ?

But he said he was great at making deals. Is that right?

[sneakypete]

But he said he was great at making deals. Is that right?

@kevindavis

PMS?

[Bigun]

Before we start blasting good conservatives like Lee, we also need to understand that some of these votes were not a pro-open borders position, but a statement that this action could be precedent setting for the next left wing dim POTUS.  What everyone's opinion  when a National Emergency Declaration for Climate Change is issued?

Totally irrelevant!  If the law is flawed it is the job of Congress to either fix it or repeal it outright but it definitely is NOT their job to cry about a president using it as it currently exists!

[roamer_1]

Show me where the Congress has the authority to render null and void the bills they pass without voting to end or amend the law.

Then tell me why Congress won't do this again --- wherever they choose.

Nullification is built into the law - it used to be a simple override, and now it is a 2/3 vote. So IN FACT @Right_in_Virginia , Congress has every authority to do just that.

[catfish1957]

Totally irrelevant!  If the law is flawed it is the job of Congress to either fix it or repeal it outright but it definitely is NOT their job to cry about a president using it as it currently exists!

Not irrelevant.  You failed to address the issue of how and when the dims use the same tactics to force issues like climate change down our throat.  Yes, fix the laws.....  but don't create a system that allows convienent and ar reaching circumvention of legistative due process.

[edpc]

What the hell does this babble have to do with people elected to Congress swearing to uphold the law simply ignoring a law it passed because they don't like the man using it?  The esteemed senators said "we have an emergency and I support the wall, but I don't agree with the law the President is using".  Who the hell gave them THIS authority.

They did, when they wrote the law and gave themselves the ability to rescind it. If a declaration can be made at the president’s prerogative, the legislature can revoke it at theirs. Besides, it’s not the person they oppose - it’s the terrible precedent. That’s confirmed by this barn door closing effort to change the law, now that this stunt was pulled.

[Bigun]

Not irrelevant.  You failed to address the issue of how and when the dims use the same tactics to force issues like climate change down our throat.  Yes, fix the laws.....  but don't create a system that allows convienent and ar reaching circumvention of legistative due process.

NO!  I did not fail to address that!  I clearly said, "If the law is flawed, it is the Congress job to fix or repeal it"!

[Formerly Once-Ler]

McConnell (and others in the Senate) said they would support the emergency declaration if the President signed the spending bill.  Looks like they lied, again, and supported, again, Pelosi. 

I saw McConnell promise to support Trump's national emergency, and in fact, McConnell voted against overturning Trump's national emergency declaration.  I'm not sure how that is a lie.  I'll need specific names of the "others" you claim lied to dispute it.

[edpc]

Show me where the Congress has the authority to render null and void the bills they pass without voting to end or amend the law.

Then tell me why Congress won't do this again --- wherever they choose.

You might want to try the Congressional Review Act. Want to know how the Obama era regulations are being nullified? That’s how. If it’s not signed by the president, they can still be killed with a 2/3 vote. I bet you like having the authority, when the ‘right’ people are in office.

[Mesaclone]

Except that’s not what you had originally said. The ‘76 law only required majority resolution by each house to overturn it. They made it that way on purpose, since they were handing such sweeping powers to the executive. It was to prevent overreach....and now, here we are.

You are simply playing semantic games. Congress DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY modified the 76' statute...which remains the 76' statute...to REQUIRE a resolution if it wished to override the President's declaration of emergency. Thus, the 76 statute requires a 2/3 vote to override...and that requirement is defined and enacted at the will and through the express legislation of congress in that statute.

It really doesn't get any clearer than that...as in...the 76 statue (and yes it has been legislatively amended at some points in the intervening 43 years) put in place by the legislature itself requires a 2/3 vote to rebuke a presidential emergency declaration.

[Mesaclone]

No it is not the same. Bush was not doing so in direct defiance of Congress.

Defiance?

Congress granted this power to the president...and it includes granting him the right to determine what is and is not an emergency. If that law is a bad idea...and I would argue that it is...then congress must repeal its own law. Until such time, however, it IS the law and the president is simply following congress own legislative directive. So this is not defiance of law, it is obedience to the 1976 National Emergency Powers Act.

As for what a Dem president may do...well...have you not learned by now that the Dems will do whatever they wish and could care less about precedent, custom or even the actual law. The fact that President Trump is FOLLOWING the law...down to the last iota...does not relate to a Democrat violating that same law.

Nor would his NOT following this law do anything to keep the Dems from using it as they will to do idiotic things like banning guns...which of course WOULD be unconstitutional as it violates an amendment of the constitution.

[edpc]

You are simply playing semantic games. Congress DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY modified the 76' statute...which remains the 76' statute...to REQUIRE a resolution if it wished to override the President's declaration of emergency. Thus, the 76 statute requires a 2/3 vote to override...and that requirement is defined and enacted at the will and through the express legislation of congress in that statute.

It really doesn't get any clearer than that...as in...the 76 statue (and yes it has been legislatively amended at some points in the intervening 43 years) put in place by the legislature itself requires a 2/3 vote to rebuke a presidential emergency declaration.

It’s not semantics. They only made the adjustment to conform to the SCOTUS ruling. Otherwise, they would have needed to throw out the entire law as unconstitutional. The original language was a tighter control on the executive. There was a point to that. It’s obvious there’s some buyer’s remorse, due to the current realization of what’s coming and efforts around changing the law yet again. Looks like all those who said this was a terrible precedent were correct, after all.

[Mesaclone]

They did, when they wrote the law and gave themselves the ability to rescind it. If a declaration can be made at the president’s prerogative, the legislature can revoke it at theirs. Besides, it’s not the person they oppose - it’s the terrible precedent. That’s confirmed by this barn door closing effort to change the law, now that this stunt was pulled.

Wrong on all points. They themselves changed the law so that it now requires a 2/3rds vote to override a veto if they wish to rebuke a Declaration of Emergency. That is not a court ruling, it is legislation put in place within the 1976 Act by congress itself. So the only "precedent" at stake is that of following the law as written by congress. If the law is bad, you change the law...until you do so...you adhere to the law.

[roamer_1]

Defiance?

ABSOLUTELY defiance... He threatened this emergency declaration move if they did not give him the money he wanted. That is defiance.

Congress granted this power to the president...and it includes granting him the right to determine what is and is not an emergency. If that law is a bad idea...and I would argue that it is...then congress must repeal its own law. Until such time, however, it IS the law and the president is simply following congress own legislative directive. So this is not defiance of law, it is obedience to the 1976 National Emergency Powers Act.

NOTE: I did not say it was in defiance of the law - I said it was in defiance of Congress. It is an abuse of the law however, as the national emergency law was not designed for the executive to end-run the House's power of the purse.

As for what a Dem president may do...well...have you not learned by now that the Dems will do whatever they wish and could care less about precedent, custom or even the actual law. The fact that President Trump is FOLLOWING the law...down to the last iota...does not relate to a Democrat violating that same law.

Nor would his NOT following this law do anything to keep the Dems from using it as they will to do idiotic things like banning guns...which of course WOULD be unconstitutional as it violates an amendment of the constitution.

The ends justifying the means is a poor argument to use with a Conservative. The ends never justify the means. And saying this precedent will not matter is nothing but whistling past the graveyard.

[Mesaclone]

It’s not semantics. They only made the adjustment to conform to the SCOTUS ruling. Otherwise, they would have needed to throw out the entire law as unconstitutional. The original language was a tighter control on the executive. There was a point to that. It’s obvious there’s some buyer’s remorse, due to the current realization of what’s coming and efforts around changing the law yet again. Looks like all those who said this was a terrible precedent were correct, after all.

The original language means nothing once congress itself amends it...that BECOMES the law. Whether a court ruling motivated them or a bad case of indigestion...they changed the law and required a 2/3rds vote for an override. Thus, congress made this law and it has been fully in place with that amendment for 34 years...so we're not talking about a court "interpretation", we are dealing with congressional legislation as written. As such, it IS the law and as the rule of law matters...it is incumbent on the President and upon the legislators themselves to observe and follow the rule of law.

[edpc]

They themselves changed the law so that it now requires a 2/3rds vote to override a veto if they wish to rebuke a Declaration of Emergency. That is not a court ruling, it is legislation put in place within the 1976 Act by congress itself.

Because of a court ruling, not on their own. I know you know that.

[Bigun]

Because of a court ruling, not on their own. I know you know that.

Completely irrelevant! 


The law is the law until Congress changes it!

[Mesaclone]

ABSOLUTELY defiance... He threatened this emergency declaration move if they did not give him the money he wanted. That is defiance.

As long as he adheres to the rule of law, why is it not a VERY good thing for a President to defy a corrupt and incompetent congress? Were he to violate the law in doing so, you would have a point, but when he does so by adhering to the law...that is called an act of courage and integrity.

NOTE: I did not say it was in defiance of the law - I said it was in defiance of Congress. It is an abuse of the law however, as the national emergency law was not designed for the executive to end-run the House's power of the purse.

It was designed exactly for that, and in its own guidelines it built in a 2/3rds vote requirement that explicitly allows the President to define and enact a National Emergency, and to move funding in accordance with that declaration. So it EXPLICITLY grants the Executive power to end run the House's power of the purse.

The ends justifying the means is a poor argument to use with a Conservative. The ends never justify the means. And saying this precedent will not matter is nothing but whistling past the graveyard.
No one is arguing that the end justifies the means. The argument is that the President is strictly following the law as written by congress. In doing so, his "means" IS the rule of law.

[Mesaclone]

Because of a court ruling, not on their own. I know you know that.

Not on their own? Did a chief justice hold a gun to their heads? Could they not have simply repealed the law? Could they not have written an entirely new statute? Were they not an inexhaustible number of potential remedies for a bad piece of legislation?

The court interpreted the 76 Act in a way that disqualified one mechanism. Congress chose, and created legislation, to amend the Act in the way it felt was proper. Congress in its 85 legislation CHOSE to require 2/3rds vote to rebuke a Presidential Emergency Declaration...it was not required to make such a law by the court, nor was it directed or ordered to do so.

A wiser congress might have rewritten the whole thing...but the rule of law is absolute. Once legislation is passed into law as was the 1985 amendment, unless it be deemed unconstitutional, its strictures and requirements ARE the law. And the President is obligated to follow that law...and that is precisely what he is doing. Congress, as well, is obligated to follow existing law.

12 GOP Senators, cowards all, just voted against the rule of current law simply because they are either RINO's, personally dislike the President, or have calculated their vote to be politically advantageous...none of them should be credited with taking a position on principle. Because, principle dictates that everyone follow the tenets of the law in question...amendments included.