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?