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

[GtHawk]

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.

[Mesaclone]

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.

[Mesaclone]

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.

[catfish1957]

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.

[catfish1957]

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.

[Mesaclone]

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).

[roamer_1]

"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.

[Jazzhead]

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.    

[Formerly Once-Ler]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Mesaclone]

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.

[Mesaclone]

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.

[sneakypete]

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."

[Formerly Once-Ler]

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
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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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

[Free Vulcan]

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.

[Bigun]

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.

[sneakypete]

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I expect the rats will gut emergency funds next budget.

Cannot do that unless 2/3 agree as Trump will over-ride.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Cannot do that unless 2/3 agree as Trump will over-ride.

NOW he's going to VETO a budget?  sure.