The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: edpc on March 14, 2019, 07:18:26 pm
-
Washington (CNN) — The Senate delivered a high-profile rebuke to President Donald Trump over his signature agenda issue Thursday when 12 Republicans joined Democrats to overturn the President's national emergency border declaration.
The vote was 59-41, an overwhelming vote against the President's executive action.
Lawmakers don't have enough votes, however, to override a certain veto from the President, but passage of the resolution in the Senate after it passed the House last month is nevertheless an embarrassing blow to Trump delivered by his own party over the President's top campaign pledge of a wall at the US-Mexico border.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/senate-vote-trump-national-emergency-declaration-resolution/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F (https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/senate-vote-trump-national-emergency-declaration-resolution/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F)
These are the 12 GOP votes to terminate the national emergency declaration:
Wicker, Rubio, Portman, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey, Blunt, Alexander, Romney, Paul, Moran, Lee
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/senate-vote-trump-national-emergency/h_6c2757b6d8a94fba05a604f0f0fe4b74 (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/senate-vote-trump-national-emergency/h_6c2757b6d8a94fba05a604f0f0fe4b74)
-
Washington (CNN) — The Senate delivered a high-profile rebuke to President Donald Trump over his signature agenda issue Thursday when 12 Republicans joined Democrats to overturn the President's national emergency border declaration.
The vote was 59-41, an overwhelming vote against the President's executive action.
Lawmakers don't have enough votes, however, to override a certain veto from the President, but passage of the resolution in the Senate after it passed the House last month is nevertheless an embarrassing blow to Trump delivered by his own party over the President's top campaign pledge of a wall at the US-Mexico border.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/senate-vote-trump-national-emergency-declaration-resolution/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F (https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/senate-vote-trump-national-emergency-declaration-resolution/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F)
These are the 12 GOP votes to terminate the national emergency declaration:
Wicker, Rubio, Portman, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey, Blunt, Alexander, Romney, Paul, Moran, Lee
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/senate-vote-trump-national-emergency/h_6c2757b6d8a94fba05a604f0f0fe4b74 (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/senate-vote-trump-national-emergency/h_6c2757b6d8a94fba05a604f0f0fe4b74)
A better headline title would be "Both Houses of Congress Fail to Attain Sufficient Votes to Override the President's Expected Veto of the Emergency Declaration Rebuke"
That's a real mouthful for a headline, but at least it accurately conveys the situation. The 1976 Act lets the President declare an emergency...almost at will...and only a veto proof majority of both Houses can rebuke that declaration.
In other words, Congress is upholding the President's declaration of an emergency as it cannot muster sufficient votes to rebuke it legislatively.
-
A better headline title would be "Both Houses of Congress Fail to Attain Sufficient Votes to Override the President's Expected Veto of the Emergency Declaration Rebuke"
That's a real mouthful for a headline, but at least it accurately conveys the situation. The 1976 Act lets the President declare an emergency...almost at will...and only a veto proof majority of both Houses can rebuke that declaration.
In other words, Congress is upholding the President's declaration of an emergency as it cannot muster sufficient votes to rebuke it legislatively.
At least we have some idea now of how many pro-open borders Pubs there are in the Senate. I wonder how many of the 12 who voted against the national emergency are up for election in 2020.
-
The 1976 Act lets the President declare an emergency...almost at will...and only a veto proof majority of both Houses can rebuke that declaration.
Actually, the original act allowed for repeal with a simple majority, until the 1983 INS v Chadha SCOTUS decision changed it.
-
Ted Cruz and John Cornyn vote against Joaquin Castro’s resolution blocking Trump's emergency order
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/14/ted-cruz-john-cornyn-border-wall-emergency/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/14/ted-cruz-john-cornyn-border-wall-emergency/)
-
At least we have some idea now of how many pro-open borders Pubs there are in the Senate. I wonder how many of the 12 who voted against the national emergency are up for election in 2020.
What it indicates is that these GOP voted along with Joaquin Castro who in my humble opinion is one of the most dangerous DEMS out there and his twin is running for president!!!
-
I guess you can scratch Mike Lee off the SCOTUS list and forget about him potentially replacing Ginsburg.
-
GOP turns on Trump: Senate votes 59-41 to repeal declaration of an emergency at the border with Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney leading 12-strong Republican rebellion
A dozen Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to repeal the declaration of an emergency at the border
The 59-41 defeat is the most serious rebuke of his presidency but Trump immediately tweeted: 'VETO!'
The president also sent out a fundraising email asking if he should veto
Trump warned lawmakers they'll have to go through him to end his border emergency
Nancy Pelosi immediately signed the legislation, sending it to the president's desk where he has ten days to sign it or veto it
Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called it a 'red-letter day in the history of how the United States functions' as he rallied senators to vote the emergency down
By Francesca Chambers, Senior White House Correspondent For Dailymail.com and Geoff Earle, Deputy U.s. Political Editor For Dailymail.com
Published: 09:51 EDT, 14 March 2019 | Updated: 17:16 EDT, 14 March 2019
more
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6808847/Trump-threatens-use-veto-time-border-emergency.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6808847/Trump-threatens-use-veto-time-border-emergency.html)
-
Just one vote shy from being able to override a veto, if he does that.
-
Just one vote shy from being able to override a veto, if he does that.
The Senate won't matter if the House doesn't reach the override threshold.
-
Just one vote shy from being able to override a veto, if he does that.
One? Looks like eight to me.
-
One? Looks like eight to me.
Yep. Takes a 2/3 senate majority.
-
Every GOP Senate member should be challenged in their next primary. JUst a shame the GOP is not on board with this president. They could have done many great things, and yet they do virtually nothing for 2+ years.
-
Sen. Cruz Issues Statement in Support of President Trump’s National Emergency Declaration
‘Make no mistake: an emergency absolutely exists on the border, and it is a national and humanitarian disaster’
March 14, 2019
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today issued the following statement regarding his vote in favor of President Trump’s national emergency declaration:
“Today, the National Emergencies Act required the Senate to answer one question: whether there is an ongoing emergency at our southern border. I voted to support the President’s declaration because, as Texans realize all too well, there is one.
“This was a difficult vote. I understand my colleagues’ real concerns regarding the vast emergency powers that Congress has given the President over the last half-century. I share those concerns.
“The press will spin today’s vote as a rejection of border security, as opposition to a wall, and as a rejection of President Trump’s commitment to building the wall. All of that is false.
“Here’s what I believe: Number one, we have crisis on our border. A heartbreaking emergency, which I’ve seen first-hand in Texas, over and over again. Countless human lives hurt or lost by drug traffickers, human traffickers, and unchecked illegal immigration. For example: In 2018, Customs and Border Protection apprehended 396,579 people at our border. In the first 4 months of 2019, CBP has caught another 201,497. If that rate continues, we’ll apprehend over 600,000 people in 2019. These hundreds of thousands include a record-high number of families, including over 1,700 identified cases of an adult lying about a relationship to a child in order to get into our country. Each of those children are at serious risk of sexual assault or physical abuse – nobody compassionate should want even a single boy or girl in the custody of human traffickers. Between 2012 and 2018, border authorities seized over 7,300 tons—almost 14,700,000 pounds—of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. Of these, fentanyl seizures alone increased by almost 400% from 2016 to 2018. And in just 2014 to 2018, Border Patrol agents captured 1,630 members of MS-13 alone. That’s one member of MS-13 almost every day. This is a crisis and a tragedy, and we must fix it.
“Number two, we need to build a wall. From the first day I ran for Senate, I’ve fought to build a wall. I urged the President and the Senate to take up budget reconciliation and fully fund the wall last year—when we still had majorities in both houses of Congress. I’ve introduced the EL CHAPO Act to build the wall, and pay for it using the billions criminally forfeited from El Chapo and other drug dealers.
“Number three, the Constitution matters. Profoundly. My whole life, I’ve fought for the Constitution. The Constitution protects our fundamental liberties, and every President should be bound by it, whether Republican or Democrat. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I made that promise to the People of Texas. When President Obama violated the Constitution through executive amnesty, I led the fight against that lawless action. Unlike President Obama, here President Trump is acting pursuant to explicit statutory authority. The National Emergencies Act gives the President the authority to activate more than a hundred distinct emergency powers, including those he is exercising here. That statute is, I believe, over-broad. It invites abuse.
“Indeed, it is easy to imagine a future Democratic president using this statute to try to implement a radical, far-left agenda over the will of Congress and the American people. A President Warren could declare climate change a national emergency and try to suspend offshore drilling. A President Sanders could declare a nationational emergency in the Middle East and try to freeze the bank accounts of Americans who do business with Israel. And a President Sanders, or Warren, or some other avowed socialist, could try to reallocate billions of dollars, without the consent of Congress, to advance their socialist policies to address those and other so-called emergencies. That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee’s ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. This bill would end any new national emergency if Congress does not approve it within 30 days. Combined with a thorough review of ongoing emergencies, this proposal would reduce the danger of an abuse of national emergency powers by any of the dozens of far-left candidates seeking the Democratic nomination.
“And I am grateful that the President announced today—at the urging of many of us—that he will support our efforts to reform this law, and guard against potential abuse by a lawless future president, Democrat or Republican.
“Yet while I support reforming the National Emergencies Act, that wasn’t what the Senate voted on today. Current law empowers the President to declare a national emergency and activate statutory emergency powers when he determines there is one, and Congress can then vote to determine whether or not an emergency exists. And make no mistake: an emergency absolutely exists on the border, and it is a national and humanitarian disaster.
“We cannot end this emergency without securing our southern border, and we cannot secure our border without building a wall.
“I support the President’s efforts to build the wall and secure our border. And I will continue to work with the President and my colleagues in Congress to reform our national emergency system and protect Congress’s Article I authority.
“But today’s question was whether there was an emergency at our southern border. There is, and I voted to recognize that tragic fact.â€
###
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4377 (https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4377)
-
Just one vote shy from being able to override a veto, if he does that.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall,
before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve
he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it
shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and
proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree
to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by
which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it
shall become a Law https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf (https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf)
As I understand the process, the House would have to approve the over-ride first, then it goes to the Senate.
Since the House had only a bit over 56% of the Body supporting the bill, it is very unlikely it will get the 2/3 vote, hence it will not even make it to the Senate anyway.
-
Every GOP Senate member should be challenged in their next primary. JUst a shame the GOP is not on board with this president. They could have done many great things, and yet they do virtually nothing for 2+ years.
One thing this administration has done is, intentionally or inadvertently, drive the bottom feeding bureaucrats out of their holes & slug politicians hanging by their feet in congress for years pretending to represent their constituents out into the light.
It's more clear than ever where their loyalties lie.
-
You beat me to the post, but I believe Senator Cruz thought this out thoroughly and I have every bit of faith in him that he made the correct choice for our country.
-
Actually, the original act allowed for repeal with a simple majority, until the 1983 INS v Chadha SCOTUS decision changed it.
Chadha simply prompted congress to modify the 76 act, thus REQUIRING a joint resolution to rebuke a presidential declaration. As president's can veto such resolutions, it imposes a 2/3 requirement to uphold when that veto is enacted. So its not a court decision that requires 2/3 under the law today, its the statute as written and approved by congress in 1985.
In other words, the law gives the President power to declare and emergency and gives the congress power to overturn it IF it can muster the votes to override a veto. Period.
-
Chadha simply prompted congress to modify the 76 act, thus REQUIRING a joint resolution to rebuke a presidential declaration. As president's can veto such resolutions, it imposes a 2/3 requirement to uphold when that veto is enacted. So its not a court decision that requires 2/3 under the law today, its the statute as written and approved by congress in 1985.
In other words, the law gives the President power to declare and emergency and gives the congress power to overturn it IF it can muster the votes to override a veto. Period.
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.
-
One thing this administration has done is, intentionally or inadvertently, drive the bottom feeding bureaucrats out of their holes & slug politicians hanging by their feet in congress for years pretending to represent their constituents out into the light.
It's more clear than ever where their loyalties lie.
Exactly. Those who are loyal to America and those who are loyal to Trump.
-
Exactly. Those who are loyal to America and those who are loyal to Trump.
Bzzzzz! Wrong! Those who insist on the rule of law and those who prefer "by any means necessary"..
-
Bzzzzz! Wrong! Those who insist on the rule of law and those who prefer "by any means necessary"..
You're talking about rule of law and quoting Malcolm X. Bizzaro America :patriot:
-
You're talking about rule of law and quoting Malcolm X. Bizzaro America :patriot:
I was correcting what you said sport. Didn't think I had to include the words "the conflict is between" but considering now the audience, my bad!
-
I was correcting what you said sport. Didn't think I had to include the words "the conflict is between" but considering now the audience, my bad!
I'm Polish. Thank you for correcting me. :beer:
-
Just one vote shy from being able to override a veto, if he does that.
67 votes need to over ride a veto
-
At least we have some idea now of how many pro-open borders Pubs there are in the Senate. I wonder how many of the 12 who voted against the national emergency are up for election in 2020.
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?
-
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 Trump does or doesn't do has no bearing on that. They're going to do that regardless of what Trump does.
-
At least we have some idea now of how many pro-open borders Pubs there are in the Senate. I wonder how many of the 12 who voted against the national emergency are up for election in 2020.
Yes. ALL RINO'S..and all for ILLEGALS OVER legal Americans. Marco Rubio...another RINO and original GANG OF EIGHT
supporting ILLEGALS. 4 DEMOCRATS AND 4 RINO'S. I have the 4 RINO; MEMORIZED. RUBIO being hispanic, they all support other hispanics. MARCO RUBIO, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, FLAKE. I could not remember Flakes first name, this minute. I will try & remember these other traitors to America.
----------------
These are the 12 GOP votes to terminate the national emergency declaration:
Wicker, Rubio, Portman, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey, Blunt, Alexander, Romney, Paul, Moran, Lee
-
What Trump does or doesn't do has no bearing on that. They're going to do that regardless of what Trump does.
They might, but tryng to fight a unilateral sweeping policy like that wil be tougher, if it has already been done by our side.
-
Yes. ALL RINO'S..and all for ILLEGALS OVER legal Americans. Marco Rubio...another RINO and original GANG OF EIGHT
supporting ILLEGALS. 4 DEMOCRATS AND 4 RINO'S. I have the 4 RINO; MEMORIZED. RUBIO being hispanic, they all support other hispanics. MARCO RUBIO, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, FLAKE. I could not remember Flakes first name, this minute. I will try & remember these other traitors to America.
----------------
These are the 12 GOP votes to terminate the national emergency declaration:
Wicker, Rubio, Portman, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey, Blunt, Alexander, Romney, Paul, Moran, Lee
Still calling Lee a RINO? Quoting one my favorites, Mr, White. You just can't fix st-----.
-
Still calling Lee a RINO? Quoting one my favorites, Mr, White. You just can't fix st-----.
That's right.
I agree completely with Lee and Paul, and I understand their principled stand. BRAVO!
-
Not valid below. We've had many NATIONAL EMERGENCIES. About 35 +. Some still in effect. About a DOZEN PUT IN BY OBAMA. WHERE WERE THESE, SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES....THEN? I say a-holes and I call foul, ON ALL THE RINO'S. Do I have to post all the National Emergency's, or can you doubters google, DUCKDUCK GO..OR BING? What is it with all this conservatism talk as if it were religion? HOW about some common sense? Saving our country?
They are NOT conservatives if they are FOR GLOBALISM...NWO...AND AGAINST BORDER SAFETY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Can people not see that?
They are NOT CONSERVATIVE! Do you think Islamists are conservatives? LDS SUPPORT ISLAMISTS. This is why I left the church. Catholics and Lutherans support bringing in Islamists...too.
---------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: catfish1957 on Today at 12:00:39 AM
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.
-
That's right.
I agree completely with Lee and Paul, and I understand their principled stand. BRAVO!
I do too. My understanding is that the purpose of this act was to allow POTUS to react to an emergency quickly when Congress was not in session, not when they were incompetent.
-
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?
Declaring a national emergency has been done numerous times by past presidents. I don't recall the objections that are now coming up. They have emerged because the left threatened to abuse this power to do whatever they want. The left threatens, lies, deceives, overreaches, and the GOP curtsies to them. The GOP needs to wake up smell the coffee and change things...too bad that they didn't do so when they had a full majority.
-
a DOZEN PUT IN BY OBAMA. WHERE WERE THESE, SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES....THEN? I say a-holes and I call foul, ON ALL THE RINO'S. Do I have to post all the National Emergency's, or can you doubters google, DUCKDUCK GO..OR BING? What is it with all this conservatism talk as if it were religion? HOW about some common sense? Saving our country?
They are NOT conservatives if they are FOR GLOBALISM...NWO...AND AGAINST BORDER SAFETY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Can people not see that?
They are NOT CONSERVATIVE! Do you think Islamists are conservatives? LDS SUPPORT ISLAMISTS. This is why I left the church. Catholics and Lutherans support bringing in Islamists...too..
Here's Obummer' listing numb nuts......
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)
So which of these are analagous, and as precedent setting as Trump's? When all fails, I guess you can call Lee a RiNO again. :silly:
-
Not valid below. We've had many NATIONAL EMERGENCIES. About 35 +. Some still in effect. About a DOZEN PUT IN BY OBAMA. WHERE WERE THESE, SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES....THEN? I say a-holes and I call foul, ON ALL THE RINO'S. Do I have to post all the National Emergency's, or can you doubters google, DUCKDUCK GO..OR BING? What is it with all this conservatism talk as if it were religion? HOW about some common sense? Saving our country?
They are NOT conservatives if they are FOR GLOBALISM...NWO...AND AGAINST BORDER SAFETY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Can people not see that?
They are NOT CONSERVATIVE! Do you think Islamists are conservatives? LDS SUPPORT ISLAMISTS. This is why I left the church. Catholics and Lutherans support bringing in Islamists...too.
---------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: catfish1957 on Today at 12:00:39 AM
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.
IT IS ABOUT OPOEN BORDERS. The Rino's are lying to you. It is a ploy. It says we have had 60 National Emergency's, since it was put into law 1976. NOW...it is a issue? I have the whole list, but will only show OBAMA'S LIST OF N.E.S
Where were they with Obama? Or the older senators with other presidents N.A'S. ? FOUL. DUPLICITOUS SENATORS.
-----------------------------------
According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.
And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.
Here's a list of the presidents who declared still ongoing national emergencies;
President Jimmy Carter
President Bill Clinton
President George W. Bush
President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama signs the Every Student Succeeds Act, Dec. 10, 2015, in Washington, DC.more +
April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.
February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).
May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.
March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.
April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.
March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.
April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.
Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.
-
I do too. My understanding is that the purpose of this act was to allow POTUS to react to an emergency quickly when Congress was not in session, not when they were incompetent.
That's right. This is being done ONLY to thwart the House and it's powers. And folks are going to rue the day.
-
...WUSA 9 is the link
Presidents have declared emergencies 60 times since 1976
Jimmy Carter put it into effect. A DEMOCRAT. Now they scream.
-
Presidents have declared emergencies 60 times since 1976
Jimmy Carter put it into effect. A DEMOCRAT. Now they scream.
Show me which ones of those were declared only to thwart the will of Congress, and particularly the House.
-
IT IS ABOUT OPOEN BORDERS. The Rino's are lying to you. It is a ploy. It says we have had 60 National Emergency's, since it was put into law 1976. NOW...it is a issue? I have the whole list, but will only show OBAMA'S LIST OF N.E.S
Where were they with Obama? Or the older senators with other presidents N.A'S. ? FOUL. DUPLICITOUS SENATORS.
You are f'n whacked. Do you even read what you post? Of those Emergency Declerations, which have even remotely the same precedence and impact of Trump's? When the next dim POTUS bans gasoline for Climate Change reasons under an emergency declaration, , what's gonna be your response bubba?
-
...WUSA 9 is the link
Presidents have declared emergencies 60 times since 1976
Jimmy Carter put it into effect. A DEMOCRAT. Now they scream.
I will ask you again.....
Which of the previous Emergency Delcarations are analagous, and as precedent setting as Trump's?
-
Show me which ones of those were declared only to thwart the will of Congress, and particularly the House.
In September, 2001, George W. Bush, Declared a National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks. That declaration is still in effect. I would say that Trumps declaration of a national emergency is very similar; we are being attacked by an invasion at the border! Yes, terrorists included.
-
In September, 2001, George W. Bush, Declared a National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks. That declaration is still in effect. I would say that Trumps declaration of a national emergency is very similar; we are being attacked by an invasion at the border! Yes, terrorists included.
No it is not the same. Bush was not doing so in direct defiance of Congress.
-
Every GOP Senate member should be challenged in their next primary. JUst a shame the GOP is not on board with this president. They could have done many great things, and yet they do virtually nothing for 2+ years.
@jafo2010
I wouldn't say that. They are doing a fine job of protecting their unreported income.
-
No it is not the same. Bush was not doing so in direct defiance of Congress.
It could be looked at the other way as well; Congress is directly defying the President who is trying to defend this country from the crisis at the border --- only thing is he asked for the money before he declared the national emergency.
-
It could be looked at the other way as well; Congress is directly defying the President who is trying to defend this country from the crisis at the border --- only thing is he asked for the money before he declared the national emergency.
It could be looked at that way - But you would be looking wrongly - Congress holds the purse.
-
It could be looked at the other way as well; Congress is directly defying the President who is trying to defend this country from the crisis at the border --- only thing is he asked for the money before he declared the national emergency.
Most of the job of POTUS is to do what Congress directs him to do.
None of the job of Congress is to do what POTUS attempts to tell them to do.
Edit: Make that almost none, since he can call them to session.
-
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?
Lee is a Judas. He spent his entire career preparing for the moment he could fight for our savior and author of the best selling book in the world!
(https://www.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/PATrump-bible.jpg)
Instead he stabs America in the back, and sides with the vermin invading our country.
Just a few years ago Lee was a conservative hero. Now he's a piece of dung. He must have been re-elected. Real conservative heroes don't usually win re-election.
-
It could be looked at the other way as well; Congress is directly defying the President who is trying to defend this country from the crisis at the border --- only thing is he asked for the money before he declared the national emergency.
He had two years of total GOP control of both houses. I'm sure he could have made a deal.
-
Declaring a national emergency has been done numerous times by past presidents. I don't recall the objections that are now coming up. They have emerged because the left threatened to abuse this power to do whatever they want. The left threatens, lies, deceives, overreaches, and the GOP curtsies to them. The GOP needs to wake up smell the coffee and change things...too bad that they didn't do so when they had a full majority.
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. The Senate could have check-mated the House on this.
But how do 12 Republican senators--in the name of the constitution--- render null and void a law on the books without first voting to remove or amend that law? Where is their authority to do *this*? Does the constitution give Congress the power to ignore laws they have passed because they do not like them?
Wouldn't the constitutional route have been to support the executive order --- especially since may of these 12 said there IS an emergency and Americans are at risk --- and then change the law giving the President the power to do what he has done?
Or can Congress just ignore the laws they pass? If so, those 12 may have just given the Democrats the power to ignore voting laws at will.
Isn't conservatism wonderful? How could we ever survive without it.
@libertybele
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ?
-
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.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/ajt_dL86Q.Oy0rkazFu97A--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0zOTA7dz02Njc-/http://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_100p/s3/trump_tweet_3-30-17_resized.png?itok=Dl9WQi66.cf.png)
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 (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Trump-Ends-Insurgency-Against-GOP-Incumbents-468239743.html)
-
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.
-
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?
-
But he said he was great at making deals. Is that right?
@kevindavis
PMS?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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%
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
Yes please!
Does anyone hear crickets chirping? May take a while to get an answer on this one.
-
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.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53835469_2151238801657024_5588259627604115456_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=610e8a9888046d57c0addcce91beb003&oe=5D1B87D2)
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53835469_2151238801657024_5588259627604115456_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=610e8a9888046d57c0addcce91beb003&oe=5D1B87D2)
Never mind the fact some of those Obama emergencies are still in effect, because Trump reauthorized them. :shrug:
-
Never mind the fact some of those Obama emergencies are still in effect, because Trump reauthorized them. :shrug:
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
[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.
-
Never mind the fact some of those Obama emergencies are still in effect, because Trump reauthorized them. :shrug:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Wow, nice job insulting those that hold a different viewpoint calling them unpatriotic.
-
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.
"Abuse of the Law" is a wildly subjective and legally meaningless phrase. If the President is not breaking the law, and is in fact adhering to the letter of the law, what is the argument that you ARE making?
If you simply want the law changed...great...but this discussion is about actions under the CURRENT law. At least, I thought that was what we were discussing.
-
Wow, nice job insulting those that hold a different viewpoint calling them unpatriotic.
@GtHawk
GtHawk, let me say that I do not concur with the post by legalAmerican. In fact, the tone and language make me very uncomfortable to say the least.
-
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.
I have to disagree. If you review the list of Emergency Order's (at least during Obama admin.), none are as comprehensive and policy changing as what Trump has proposed for border security or what a theoretical Presidentt Biden might propose towards climate change.
Again, we have to address this problem, but circumvention of congress can be a two edged sword.
-
Wow, nice job insulting those that hold a different viewpoint calling them unpatriotic.
This bozo (LA) fell on his head as he jumped off the Freeper Mothership. Calling any Briefer here unpatriotic hinges on terminal stupidity.
-
I have to disagree. If you review the list of Emergency Order's (at least during Obama admin.), none are as comprehensive and policy changing as what Trump has proposed for border security or what a theoretical Presidentt Biden might propose towards climate change.
Again, we have to address this problem, but circumvention of congress can be a two edged sword.
He's not circumventing congress. Congress authorized this and set up a system for rebuking Emergencies orders (2/3rds vote). I agree that this law should be changed, but it IS the law.
As for climate change, the Emergency Act does not authorize a President to make new laws...which is what Biden would need to do to enact strict climate change rules. It authorizes the movement of some previously allocated spending to be shifted to meet an emergency...it does not open the full budget to be drawn from to address a climate crisis (or a border crisis for that matter).
-
"Abuse of the Law" is a wildly subjective and legally meaningless phrase. If the President is not breaking the law, and is in fact adhering to the letter of the law, what is the argument that you ARE making?
Whether he is adhering to the letter of the law is beyond my ken, and I don't really think it matters if he is within the letter. As I said before, tyrants are never operating outside the law - What they do is legal even though it is abusive. This is much the same - a legal abuse of power.
Hopefully Congress will become jealous of its power and overcome any veto, and then fix the law to prevent such abuse again - That is the easy fix.
-
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?
That'll be up to the Court to decide. I merely agree with Sen. Toomey that he was right to vote to rescind the emergency declaration, as the NEA permits. Congress has delegated its authority to the executive, but retains the ability to vote to invalidate the President's emergency declaration. The President can then veto, and if the veto is sustained, the parties can proceed to court to argue whether the President exceeded his authority.
I suspect the President believes, as you do, that the NEA grants him broad authority to determine what an emergency is. He may well be right. But conservatives should be careful what they wish for. In their zeal to get more funds for a border wall, they may well end up with a SCOTUS ruling confirming the President's authority to declare an emergency can be broadly exercised, even in the face of explicit Congressional opposition. After all, as you say, there's no precise line or paragraph in the NEA that's been violated. So they'll win the battle, but lose the war - because the next Democratic President can declare an emergency under the NEA to address climate change.
-
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.
I fully expect the SCOTUS to rule this National Emergency unconstitutional. That is why I said "if Trump can get this past the SCOTUS..." he can do it all.
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.
I'm sorry you don't see a difference between declaring a National Emergency for a devastating natural disaster or recent destruction of war, and a decades festering problem that the Congress legislated but the President countermanded. I do.
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.
So it's ok because Trump is only ignoring the last budget a little bit. If the Congress and the courts refuse to stop Trump now, they set a precedence.
I believe leaders rule with the consent of the people, even despots. A despot may use force to get that consent, but if the people stand up and say no the leader can either accept it or be replaced. Trump will get away with everything the Congress and courts let him get away with but if the people lose faith in Trump eventually there will be 2/3rds to override a VETO.
Thank you for your reply.
-
I fully expect the SCOTUS to rule this National Emergency unconstitutional. That is why I said "if Trump can get this past the SCOTUS..." he can do it all.
@Once-Ler , my fear is that he WILL get this past the SCOTUS on the basis of the plain language of the NEA - therefore confirming a Democratic President's authority to defy Congress, in a couple of years, and declare an emergency addressing climate change. The fix, of course, would be to amend or repeal the NEA. But that's easier said than done, especially in this age where Congressional comity has broken down.
-
I fully expect the SCOTUS to rule this National Emergency unconstitutional. That is why I said "if Trump can get this past the SCOTUS..." he can do it all.On what grounds would they rule it unconstitutional? They've already accepted that a president can allocate funds in an emergency even without funding coming via a new funding allocation from congress. And they've already allowed President's to determine what is and is not an "emergency". Seems to me they've already ruled.
I'm sorry you don't see a difference between declaring a National Emergency for a devastating natural disaster or recent destruction of war, and a decades festering problem that the Congress legislated but the President countermanded. I do. I see a difference, as they are two different kinds of emergencies...but let's be clear, the word emergency has a broadly subjective meaning and it has already been used in a broadly definitive way by past presidents.
So it's ok because Trump is only ignoring the last budget a little bit. If the Congress and the courts refuse to stop Trump now, they set a precedence.Trump is not ignoring the last budget, he is acting under a statute...with funds already assigned to the current budget...authorizing him to use certain funds to address what he defines as an emergency.
I believe leaders rule with the consent of the people, even despots. A despot may use force to get that consent, but if the people stand up and say no the leader can either accept it or be replaced. That's a principle I assume every American supports, but as we have no current despot here its rather irrelevant to this discussion. Trump will get away with everything the Congress and courts let him get away with but if the people lose faith in Trump eventually there will be 2/3rds to override a VETO. If by "get away with" you mean the President acts within the law...then yes, you are correct. As for the people losing faith in a President, that is the very design of our Republic and why we have elections.
Thank you for your reply.
And thanks to you for a civil discussion.
-
That'll be up to the Court to decide. I merely agree with Sen. Toomey that he was right to vote to rescind the emergency declaration, as the NEA permits. Congress has delegated its authority to the executive, but retains the ability to vote to invalidate the President's emergency declaration. The President can then veto, and if the veto is sustained, the parties can proceed to court to argue whether the President exceeded his authority.
I suspect the President believes, as you do, that the NEA grants him broad authority to determine what an emergency is. He may well be right. But conservatives should be careful what they wish for. In their zeal to get more funds for a border wall, they may well end up with a SCOTUS ruling confirming the President's authority to declare an emergency can be broadly exercised, even in the face of explicit Congressional opposition. After all, as you say, there's no precise line or paragraph in the NEA that's been violated. So they'll win the battle, but lose the war - because the next Democratic President can declare an emergency under the NEA to address climate change.
Jazz, whatever President Trump may or may not do, a Democratic President can "declare an emergency under the NEA to address climate change". Though even that would be a very limited impact act because it could not generate new law to restrict either production or use of fossil fuels...or the mining thereof. It can only allocate a small amount of funds to combat Warming. That said, if you are arguing that this is not good law I agree completely. But as I keep repeating, it remains nonetheless, the law. Repeal it and rewrite it would be my suggestion.
-
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.
@catfish1957
I say "Cool! A new American Revolution is long past due anyhow,so let's get it on while the Americans here outnumber the non-Americans here."
-
Trump is not ignoring the last budget, he is acting under a statute...with funds already assigned to the current budget...authorizing him to use certain funds to address what he defines as an emergency.
I expect the rats will gut emergency funds next budget.
-
@GtHawk
GtHawk, let me say that I do not concur with the post by legalAmerican. In fact, the tone and language make me very uncomfortable to say the least.
@Mesaclone
I understand that and know you do not insult others, you aim for reasoned discourse and don't disrespect. Most everyone on the site does, though occasionally we all get a little heated, there are some however that simply can't help themselves and keep a civil tone.
-
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.
They have the right to nullify the declaration, not the law under which the declaration was made. The Republican/Conservative senators affirmed their agreement with the declaration, but they voted to override the law itself.
They acted outside their authority by nullifying a law without benefit of a congressional vote to amend or end that law. No amount of spin will change this fact.
@roamer_1
-
Declaring a national emergency has been done numerous times by past presidents. I don't recall the objections that are now coming up. They have emerged because the left threatened to abuse this power to do whatever they want. The left threatens, lies, deceives, overreaches, and the GOP curtsies to them. The GOP needs to wake up smell the coffee and change things...too bad that they didn't do so when they had a full majority.
Worse, some of the GOP who are against this are either for, or will not fight DACA. That's hypocrisy you can slice and use to make a sandwich.
You can't threaten to use it as a precedent when you've already set the precedent, as Obama did. So the Dems can stuff it too.
As long as Trump stays within the Law and Constitution, then I don't care what Congress has to say. The Executive is a separate and co-equal branch.
Don't like what Trump is doing, pass a law or take it to court - pontificating histronics about slippery slopes already slid down have zero worth. Only laws and judicial verdicts confine the Executive.
-
Worse, some of the GOP who are against this are either for, or will not fight DACA. That's hypocrisy you can slice and use to make a sandwich.
You can't threaten to use it as a precedent when you've already set the precedent, as Obama did. So the Dems can stuff it too.
As long as Trump stays within the Law and Constitution, then I don't care what Congress has to say. The Executive is a separate and co-equal branch.
Don't like what Trump is doing, pass a law or take it to court - pontificating histronics about slippery slopes already slid down have zero worth. Only laws and judicial verdicts confine the Executive.
Well said my friend! And 100% true.
-
Well said my friend! And 100% true.
@Bigun
All I know for sure is at this point I can't say there is even a 50/50 chance that I will vote for anyone with an "R" behind his name come the next election,unless his name is Trump. I damn sure won't be voting for anyone who opposes building the wall,or that votes against Trump on this.
I am done supporting politicians that don't support me.
-
Worse, some of the GOP who are against this are either for, or will not fight DACA. That's hypocrisy you can slice and use to make a sandwich.
You can't threaten to use it as a precedent when you've already set the precedent, as Obama did. So the Dems can stuff it too.
As long as Trump stays within the Law and Constitution, then I don't care what Congress has to say. The Executive is a separate and co-equal branch.
Don't like what Trump is doing, pass a law or take it to court - pontificating histronics about slippery slopes already slid down have zero worth. Only laws and judicial verdicts confine the Executive.
Nothing 'Co-equal' about it.
Was never intended to be.
Instead, they are considered 'separate with checks and balances on each other'.
That is a big difference.
-
I expect the rats will gut emergency funds next budget.
Cannot do that unless 2/3 agree as Trump will over-ride.
-
That'll be up to the Court to decide. I merely agree with Sen. Toomey that he was right to vote to rescind the emergency declaration, as the NEA permits. Congress has delegated its authority to the executive, but retains the ability to vote to invalidate the President's emergency declaration. The President can then veto, and if the veto is sustained, the parties can proceed to court to argue whether the President exceeded his authority.
I suspect the President believes, as you do, that the NEA grants him broad authority to determine what an emergency is. He may well be right. But conservatives should be careful what they wish for. In their zeal to get more funds for a border wall, they may well end up with a SCOTUS ruling confirming the President's authority to declare an emergency can be broadly exercised, even in the face of explicit Congressional opposition. After all, as you say, there's no precise line or paragraph in the NEA that's been violated. So they'll win the battle, but lose the war - because the next Democratic President can declare an emergency under the NEA to address climate change.
The answer some always place out there as the ultimate decision-making authority.
No it is not, as to do so is to place the entire country beneath the robes of 5 unelected people.
I choose representation instead to govern this country.
-
They have the right to nullify the declaration, not the law under which the declaration was made. The Republican/Conservative senators affirmed their agreement with the declaration, but they voted to override the law itself.
They acted outside their authority by nullifying a law without benefit of a congressional vote to amend or end that law. No amount of spin will change this fact.
@roamer_1
What they did is precisely what they were supposed to do @Right_in_Virginia - They voted their displeasure of the action. He vetoed that. Now we see if they care enough to override the veto. If not, it will go to court.
-
Nothing 'Co-equal' about it.
Was never intended to be.
Instead, they are considered 'separate with checks and balances on each other'.
That is a big difference.
That's right.
-
Cannot do that unless 2/3 agree as Trump will over-ride.
NOW he's going to VETO a budget? sure.
-
@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.
THANK YOU! That is it exactly. And as if, there was no resistance or obstruction those first 2 years! It was only ONE vote, that made that difference with, traitor NO NAME..RINO saying 'NO", to total Obamacare removal! I wish the "left' would stop with that "he had 2 years"..blah.blah baloney. So, McCain is gone and we have a NEW McCain; Mitt Romney.
Paul Ryan..stopping presidents plans. Do we have to keep talking about the" LEFT TALKING POINT ABOUT THE FIRST TWO YEARS?" Not talking about your post, the one above. I've seen that more than once on here. We had RINO'S MCCAIN, FLAKE, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, COLLINS, LEE, MURKOWSKI, etc. Just because they have R behind their name does not mean they support our country or president! Look at Brett issue. Same issue now as 2 years ago!
Only now, 12 HAVE COME FORWARD and exposed themselves to us. Rand Paul...same thing RINO.
I loathe having to remember for people.
-
Wow, nice job insulting those that hold a different viewpoint calling them unpatriotic.
Well, list the names of those I called out. NOT A DIFFERENT VIEW POINT. Either you support America our constitution and duly elected president or you are ANTI-American. No other way to say it. If you feel offended...YOU VOLUNTEERED to do that.
-
@catfish1957
I say "Cool! A new American Revolution is long past due anyhow,so let's get it on while the Americans here outnumber the non-Americans here."
................past due. :thumbsup:
-
@GtHawk
GtHawk, let me say that I do not concur with the post by legalAmerican. In fact, the tone and language make me very uncomfortable to say the least.
You know I did not say.... UNPATRIOTIC. GrHawk did. Not my word. I did NOT call anyone out; so some of you must feel 'convicted". Not on me. If you "feel" offended, again not on me. I did not mention anyones' name. My tone? You can hear tone on here? My language? STRAIGHT TO THE POINT. TRUTH. NO P.C. MASSAGING. That is k!lling the country.
Be nice, be sweet, don't make waves, go along to get along..don't ruffle feathers...what did I miss? Some people on here understand my posts. They, just are tired of trying to get through to people and give up.
-
You know I did not say.... UNPATRIOTIC. GrHawk did. Not my word. I did NOT call anyone out; so some of you must feel 'convicted". Not on me. If you "feel" offended, again not on me. I did not mention anyones' name. My tone? You can hear tone on here? My language? STRAIGHT TO THE POINT. TRUTH. NO P.C. MASSAGING. That is k!lling the country.
Be nice, be sweet, don't make waves, go along to get along..don't ruffle feathers...what did I miss? Some people on here understand my posts. They, just are tired of trying to get through to people and give up.
OK..where did I list names and call anyone UNPATRIOTIC? I never said that. I read all the posts BEFORE my comment. I understood them from good posters. Yes, I got frustrated after reading the posts that gave information & explanations, yet people still came back with the same questions. etc. That was a day ago. I would need to go back and re-read all the posts that lead UP to my frustration, when I LEFT THIS SITE!
------
Quote from: LegalAmerican on March 15, 2019, 11:51:35 AM
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.
GHAWK POST;
Wow, nice job insulting those that hold a different viewpoint calling them unpatriotic.
-
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 ?
Yes. President TRUMP..did NOT have house & senate for two years. RINO'S. Why don't people get that?
I personally dislike that talking point by media. It is a LIE. Paul Ryan & Mitch McConnell...yes. Loathe them both. During Obama's years, Mitch allowed all kind of debauchery by Obama and Harry Reid & Pelosi. Mitch speaks with forked tongue.
-
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.
Bingo. "Deeply unethical & anti-conservative."...see, I am neither so I take no offense. You are talking about GOP senator's, but I am sure some think you called THEM, UNETHICAL & ANTI-CONSERVATIVE.
Leaving this site now. Good night.