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

[edpc]

Completely irrelevant! 


The law is the law until Congress changes it!

The reasons why they changed it are not irrelevant. Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges weren’t law, but the rulings made abortion and gay marriage legal, in the interim.

[LegalAmerican]

Excellent Job to all the patriots on here...and the rest is like talking to BRICKS. BRICKS.

 ILLEGALS INVADE THE COUNTRY...ISLAM IS COMING IN WITH IT...SHARIA LAW WILL BE IN AMERICA.....and they are stuck on SOS.

PATRIOTS AND INFORMED PEOPLE, YOU KNOW who you are.  THANK YOU. 

[Mesaclone]

The reasons why they changed it are not irrelevant. Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges weren’t law, but the rulings made abortion and gay marriage legal, in the interim.

Congress reasons for changing the law do not invalidate a law. The 2/3rds requirement is not like Roe V Wade because the 2/3rds requirement is not an interpretation of a law or a right...it is an explicitly written piece of legislation. This is the requirement as written by congress...it is a statute, not an interpretation.

[edpc]

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 Could they not have simply repealed the law?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.

A wiser Congress would have known better than to give this authority to anyone. They’ve clearly ceded some of their Article 1 authority and are finding out what a mistake that was.

[Bigun]

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.

Absolutely correct across the board!  100% 

[edpc]

Congress reasons for changing the law do not invalidate a law. The 2/3rds requirement is not like Roe V Wade because the 2/3rds requirement is not an interpretation of a law or a right...it is an explicitly written piece of legislation. This is the requirement as written by congress...it is a statute, not an interpretation.

No, the SCOTUS rulings invalidate a law. The two previously mentioned did just that. So did Brown v Kansas. You could have all the ‘separate but equal’ laws you wanted out there. The weren’t worth the paper they were printed on, after that decision.

[Bigun]

No, the SCOTUS rulings invalidate a law. The two previously mentioned did just that. So did Brown v Kansas. You could have all the ‘separate but equal’ laws you wanted out there. The weren’t worth the paper they were printed on, after that decision.

NOT SO!  They render opinions!  Period!

They do not compel the Congress or the President to do anything!
 

[roamer_1]

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.

No, it is abuse.

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.

No, the spirit of the law was to give the Executive branch a nimble means of handling an emergency (like a hurricane or tornado, etc) when Congress was out of session. That is what the bill is for. It is not there to directly defy Congress and upend the House's power of the purse. In fact it has never before been used with that intention, and I do believe he is courting impeachment with this action.

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.

Yes, the argument IS the ends justifying the means - Deliberately abusing the law is not proper, even if it is technically legal. And I think it will bring consequences.

[Mesaclone]

A wiser Congress would have known better than to give this authority to anyone. They’ve clearly ceded some of their Article 1 authority and are finding out what a mistake that was.

I don't disagree as to the wisdom of such a law...but lets fully acknowledge that it IS the law that the President is adhering to. It is deeply unethical and anti-conservative for any GOP Senator to oppose the President when he is defending our southern border BY following the law as written.

[Mesaclone]

No, it is abuse.

How is following the law as written "abuse" of the law.

No, the spirit of the law was to give the Executive branch a nimble means of handling an emergency (like a hurricane or tornado, etc) when Congress was out of session. That is what the bill is for. Determining what a bill is "for" requires knowing the motivation and intent of every congressman who voted for said legislationg...which is not possible. What we can do is read the law and observe its requirements AS WRITTEN in the legislation. It is not there to directly defy Congress and upend the House's power of the purse. On the contrary, the entire purpose of the law is to let the President shift moneys "apart" from the House's power of the purse in response to a National emergency. In fact it has never before been used with that intention, and I do believe he is courting impeachment with this action.If it were true that that the President was acting outside the requirements of the law, the Supreme Court would be empowered to rule on such a violation and nullify the acts of the President. My guess is that the Supreme Court will uphold the President's observation of the law BECAUSE he is following the strictures of that law in great detail and specificity.

Yes, the argument IS the ends justifying the means - Deliberately abusing the law is not proper, even if it is technically legal. And I think it will bring consequences.

Please cite which, specific and literal, part of the 1976 statute the President is violating. And spare me the vague "intentions" and "spirit of" garbage...which specific line and rule is he breaking?

[Bigun]

Please cite which, specific and literal, part of the 1976 statute the President is violating. And spare me the vague "intentions" and "spirit of" garbage...which specific line and rule is he breaking?

Yes please!

[Mesaclone]

Yes please!

Does anyone hear crickets chirping? May take a while to get an answer on this one.

[roamer_1]

Does anyone hear crickets chirping? May take a while to get an answer on this one.

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.

Yes, the argument IS the ends justifying the means - Deliberately abusing the law is not proper, even if it is technically legal. And I think it will bring consequences.

[Bigun]

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Please cite which, specific and literal, part of the 1976 statute the President is violating. And spare me the vague "intentions" and "spirit of" garbage...which specific line and rule is he breaking?

@roamer_1 I don't need further clarification.  I think you made clear and winning points.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1 I don't need further clarification.  I think you made clear and winning points.

Tyranny is never illegal. The tyrant follows the laws that allow him to be a tyrant.

This is no different. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right.

[Jazzhead]

I don't disagree as to the wisdom of such a law...but lets fully acknowledge that it IS the law that the President is adhering to. It is deeply unethical and anti-conservative for any GOP Senator to oppose the President when he is defending our southern border BY following the law as written.

And that is the argument he will make to the Court.   Sen. Toomey expressed the reason for his opposition well -  the NEA is supposed to allow the President to react to emergencies not contemplated by Congress.  But as for the border wall, the Congress specifically addressed its funding mere weeks ago,  and limited such funding to $1.38 billion.   Sen. Toomey:

What was more litigated than this very question [the border wall]?   We had a government shutdown, for crying out loud.  The bill passed and it was signed into law and in my view, the National Emergencies Act is not meant to circumvent duly passed legislation

Mesaclone, what is your reaction to Sen. Toomey's reasoning that the NEA is a delegation of authority in emergency situations,  not a means for explicitly disregarding Congress's will that funds for a border wall not exceed $1.38 billion?     

 

[edpc]

Never mind the fact some of those Obama emergencies are still in effect, because Trump reauthorized them.   

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Never mind the fact some of those Obama emergencies are still in effect, because Trump reauthorized them.   

If Trump gets this past the SCOTUS, and the Congress refuses to reclaim their Constitutional duty, Trump should declare a National Emergency to write the next budget himself, then dissolve the Congress all-together.

[Mesaclone]

And that is the argument he will make to the Court.   Sen. Toomey expressed the reason for his opposition well -  the NEA is supposed to allow the President to react to emergencies not contemplated by Congress.  But as for the border wall, the Congress specifically addressed its funding mere weeks ago,  and limited such funding to $1.38 billion.   Sen. Toomey:

Mesaclone, what is your reaction to Sen. Toomey's reasoning that the NEA is a delegation of authority in emergency situations,  not a means for explicitly disregarding Congress's will that funds for a border wall not exceed $1.38 billion?   

@Jazzhead

Fair question.

My response is rather straightforward. The plain language of the law IS the meaning of the law. Trying to guess the intentions of 535 members of congress...who certainly all had unique and different intentions...is not reasonable. As such, when the language is as clear as it is in this law, must interpret what the law plainly states.

Proof of my point can be seen clearly in Roamer's and Once'ler's non-reply to a request to cite which specific stricture or rule within the Emergency Act has been violated. They, quite clearly, are unable to find such a violation...and are left to imply "intentions" or to express vague concerns about future precedents created by observing the actual law.

Put directly, the law lets the President determine what is an emergency. It authorizes him to use various federal funds to pay for addressing that emergency. Finally, it authorizes one specific means of rebuking the President's declaration...passing a resolution which, in the face of a veto, REQUIRES a 2/3 majority to override the Presidential action.

So I'll ask again, which specific part of the law...which precise line, paragraph and/or rule...has been violated?

[Mesaclone]

If Trump gets this past the SCOTUS, and the Congress refuses to reclaim their Constitutional duty, Trump should declare a National Emergency to write the next budget himself, then dissolve the Congress all-together.

Dissolving congress would violate strictures within the constitution itself. No law can be made that does that, and if it were the Supreme Court would assert itself with a ruling of unconstitutionality. Allocating funds which congress authorizes...as it does in the Emergency Act...adheres to the constitution. The court has, in fact, upheld this kind of allocation and President's have allocated funds in this way repeatedly.

Even in this current declaration, the President's access to funds are limited...he cannot, for example, extract funds from Social Security or welfare programs for Border security. So your silly assertion regarding the scope of fiscal powers under this Act is dishonest.

[catfish1957]

[img]

3 years from now you may be adding a graphic showing a Presidient Biden declaring an Emergency to aid the Climate Change agenda, if you want to open that floodgate.

[Mesaclone]

Never mind the fact some of those Obama emergencies are still in effect, because Trump reauthorized them.   

Look, you seem to be arguing that this is a bad law. It is.

What is not arguable, is that it IS the law. So who authorized or reauthorized emergencies means nothing, because in either case they are/were acting in accordance with the law. But the fact that we don't like a law, or that a law is foolish, does not mean it is not "the law". The court has upheld this law as constitutional, so the simple remedy is to repeal the law and make a new one. If congress and the legislative process do not do so, that is a legitimate...though arguably foolish...choice on their part.

[roamer_1]

Proof of my point can be seen clearly in Roamer's and Once'ler's non-reply to a request to cite which specific stricture or rule within the Emergency Act has been violated. They, quite clearly, are unable to find such a violation...and are left to imply "intentions" or to express vague concerns about future precedents created by observing the actual law.

Strawman.

What non-answer? I never said that what he was doing was illegal, and in fact twice said otherwise directly, and quoted both of those to you. I very clearly said he was abusing the law not breaking it.

[Mesaclone]

3 years from now you may be adding a graphic showing a Presidient Biden declaring an Emergency to aid the Climate Change agenda, if you want to open that floodgate.

That floodgate is already open. But keep in mind, the National Emergency Act does not grant the President access to the entire budget allocation for a given year...nor does it allow a President to create new law or void existing law.

We should change the law, I'd say we nearly all agree on that point. But that argument is unrelated to a discussion about following the law that is currently in place.

Nonetheless, until such a change is made the law is the law...and Presidents will work to achieve their goals within the scope of existing law. That is their right, and that is what congress has authorized through this law.