It’s official, Sen. Mike Lee has come out of the closet (Leach)

[corbe]

It’s official, Sen. Mike Lee has come out of the closet

by David Leach • March 18, 2019

In the Age of Trump, where Trumpservatism has replaced conservatism within the Republican party, many of those once heralded for their “strident” defense of conservative values have come out of the closet — politically speaking — to publicly admit their same-politics attraction to the Far-Left.

One such “conservative” is Gutless On Principles Hall of Shame enshrinee, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).

Over the past two years, Lee has developed a political infatuation with Ivanka Trump’s socialist feminist agenda and has worked to advance many of the same policies promoted by Hillary Clinton during her 2016 campaign.

Lee, along with Marco Rubio, were same-politics partners with Daddy’s precious to “help” working families by using so-called tax reform to increase their dependency on the federal government via the tax code.

<..snip..>

https://www.stridentconservative.com/its-official-sen-mike-lee-has-come-out-of-the-closet/

[ABX]

Standing on Constitutional grounds is 'gutless'?  Alrighty then.

[Bigun]

Standing on Constitutional grounds is 'gutless'?  Alrighty then.

Your spin is becoming quite tiresome!  He's not standing on Constitutional grounds. He's trying to justify his indefensible actions!

[ABX]

Your spin is becoming quite tiresome!  He's not standing on Constitutional grounds. He's trying to justify his indefensible actions!

Did you read his and Paul's justification or are you just playing the 'your way at any cost' angle?

They have a very good case to make- Trump should have never signed the budget bill. He used his EO in part to over-turn provisions in the budget bill he signed just two hours before the EO. It wasn't about it being an emergency or not, nor about the need for security, but about the use of the EO to specifically over-turn a law that was just signed.  The justification and letter of the law behind the EO is to act when congress can't- not to over-turn what they passed. We still are a Constitutional Representative Republic.

[QueenCatofAragon]

Standing on Constitutional grounds is 'gutless'?  Alrighty then.

“Stridentconservative?”  How about “nutcaseconservative?”

“Meanwhile, the search for a “straight” conservative in Washington continues.”

Well, if Mike Lee isn’t pure enough for you, maybe give up politics and wait for Jesus.

[Bigun]

Did you read his and Paul's justification or are you just playing the 'your way at any cost' angle?

They have a very good case to make- Trump should have never signed the budget bill. He used his EO in part to over-turn provisions in the budget bill he signed just two hours before the EO. It wasn't about it being an emergency or not, nor about the need for security, but about the use of the EO to specifically over-turn a law that was just signed.  The justification and letter of the law behind the EO is to act when congress can't- not to over-turn what they passed. We still are a Constitutional Representative Republic.

Yes!  I did read their attempts to justify their actions and find them severely lacking in this case!

If they think the law is bad they have every right to change it but they cannot do that retroactively and, IMHO, the president is acting within the law here.

[ABX]

“Stridentconservative?”  How about “nutcaseconservative?”

“Meanwhile, the search for a “straight” conservative in Washington continues.”

Well, if Mike Lee isn’t pure enough for you, maybe give up politics and wait for Jesus.

I think you got confused with my response. I consider Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Justin Amish three members of Congress who one should take note of- to at least listen to, as a 'check' if you are following the Constitution. They may not be perfect, but those three at least put the Constitution first instead of playing party games.

[ABX]

Yes!  I did read their attempts to justify their actions and find them severely lacking in this case!

If they think the law is bad they have every right to change it but they cannot do that retroactively and, IMHO, the president is acting within the law here.

That's the problem, he wasn't acting within the law- the Emergency Powers Act is clear it is for when Congress can't act, such as they aren't in session. Prior uses of the Emergency Powers Act were always followed up by Congress voting on the law.

This is similar to the War Powers Act in that it is used for emergencies when Congress can't immediately vote. 

The problem is Trump signed the budget bill that specifically stated certain things the funds couldn't be used for, then he signed the EO over-turning that. His Constitutional powers should have been used to Veto the bill. He doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just change the law- especially one he just signed two hours prior.

Or looking at it another way- Trump set himself up for something he knew could be over-turned- probably for political ra ra points.

[Bigun]

I think you got confused with my response. I consider Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Justin Amish three members of Congress who one should take note of- to at least listen to, as a 'check' if you are following the Constitution. They may not be perfect, but those three at least put the Constitution first instead of playing party games.

I am quite familiar with what the Constitution says, and perhaps more importantly, what it does not say!  The president's actions here are well within the law as it exists today.

[QueenCatofAragon]

I think you got confused with my response. I consider Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Justin Amish three members of Congress who one should take note of- to at least listen to, as a 'check' if you are following the Constitution. They may not be perfect, but those three at least put the Constitution first instead of playing party games.

@ABX

I was just responding to the author—as if he were here, lol.  🤷🏻‍♀️

[ABX]

I am quite familiar with what the Constitution says, and perhaps more importantly, what it does not say!  The president's actions here are well within the law as it exists today.

Cite the law.

[Bigun]

Cite the law.

50 U.S. Code Chapter 34
U.S.C. sec. 2293

[ABX]

50 U.S. Code Chapter 34
U.S.C. sec. 2293

Read section B.

Still requires congressional approval- not to over-turn Congress.

As that gives him 180 days to go to congress to approve the emergency declaration, (which, under 50 USC 1601 was made when Congress was unable to act), do you think he'll be going back to congress as required?

Should we meet back here in a few months time to see if he did?

[Jazzhead]

Yes!  I did read their attempts to justify their actions and find them severely lacking in this case!

If they think the law is bad they have every right to change it but they cannot do that retroactively and, IMHO, the president is acting within the law here.

Perhaps.  But be careful what you wish for.    Sen. Thom Tillis, before capitulating on the emergency declaration vote as you insist, hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

Republicans need to realize that this will lead inevitably to regret when a Democrat once again controls the White House, cites the precedent set by Trump, and declares his or her own emergency to advance a policy that couldn't gain congressional approval. 

Kudos to Mike Lee and my own Senator, Pat Toomey,  for taking Sen. Tillis' warning to heart,  and deciding to stand as Constitutionalists rather than bootlickers to Trump's hysterical base.   

[Bigun]

Perhaps.  But be careful what you wish for.    Sen. Thom Tillis, before capitulating on the emergency declaration vote as you insist, hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

Kudos to Mike Lee and my own Senator, Pat Toomey,  for taking Sen. Tillis' warning to heart,  and deciding to stand as Constitutionalists rather than bootlickers to Trump's hysterical base.

Too bad the idiots weren't thinking about their constitutional responsibilities back in 1976 when they passed the law into existence!  Congress has been sloughing off their responsibilities to others for ages and it only became a problem when THIS president came along!  Why?

[skeeter]

Your spin is becoming quite tiresome!  He's not standing on Constitutional grounds. He's trying to justify his indefensible actions!

Did any of the 12 republicans who have become staunch defenders of the letter of the Constitution in this case take to the microphones when Obama issued his plainly unconstitutional DACA EO?

It's hard to find evidence of it, besides a little lip service.

[catfish1957]

It’s official, Sen. Mike Lee has come out of the closet

by David Leach • March 18, 2019

Wow, another parasitic worm slams a conservative while wearing the Orange knee pads. Yawn....

[jmyrlefuller]

Wow, another parasitic worm slams a conservative while wearing the Orange knee pads. Yawn....

Nah. This guy just hates everybody.

Take a look at this one he wrote a couple weeks back accusing pro-lifers of doing it for the money:
https://www.stridentconservative.com/what-do-planned-parenthood-and-pro-life-groups-have-in-common-making-money-from-abortion/

Leach is a false-flagger concern troll if ever I saw one.

[TomSea]

Did any of the 12 republicans who have become staunch defenders of the letter of the Constitution in this case take to the microphones when Obama issued his plainly unconstitutional DACA EO?

It's hard to find evidence of it, besides a little lip service.

I would think Rand Paul and Mike Lee joined Rubio on this issue. It was known for at least, 6 weeks that Rubio was not for this emergency spending.


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

I'll bet most of the sitting Republicans were not for DACA.

[skeeter]

I would think Rand Paul and Mike Lee joined Rubio on this issue. It was known for at least, 6 weeks that Rubio was not for this emergency spending.


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

I'll bet most of the sitting Republicans were not for DACA.

Did Rubio speak out against Obama's illegal EO at the time? He says it was unconstitutional here.

[TomSea]

I agree, Leache's record doesn't look too good in looking at his columns, a bit the way, the American Conservative really doesn't reflect a lot of values of a great number of American Conservatives, just looking at their website. This David Leach appears to have a radio show, a lot of people have radio shows that are only podcasts, carried on the internet nowadays.... (yes, I guess, they aren't real radio shows at that, internet radio).

[ABX]

Did any of the 12 republicans who have become staunch defenders of the letter of the Constitution in this case take to the microphones when Obama issued his plainly unconstitutional DACA EO?

It's hard to find evidence of it, besides a little lip service.

Rand Paul did. At that, he was a loud voice against Obama ruling by EOs and abuse of War Powers as well.

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/905098321840283650

Hell, even Paul Ryan called out Obama on the unconstitutional DACA move. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/09/flashback-2014-paul-ryan-says-daca-blatantly-unconstitutional-now-wants-keep/


At that, even Trump himself slammed Obama's use of an 'emergency' EO in this manner over DACA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/15/subvert-constitution-trumps-remarks-obamas-executive-actions-show-hypocrisy-critics-say/

So when the question comes up, 'where were they then', they were calling out 'ruling by EO' we are supposed to accept now (remember our side screaming about the 'pen and phone').  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/executive-order-tyranny-obama-plans-to-rule-america-with-pen-phone

[ABX]

Nah. This guy just hates everybody.

Take a look at this one he wrote a couple weeks back accusing pro-lifers of doing it for the money:
https://www.stridentconservative.com/what-do-planned-parenthood-and-pro-life-groups-have-in-common-making-money-from-abortion/

Leach is a false-flagger concern troll if ever I saw one.

Good catch.

[Jazzhead]

Too bad the idiots weren't thinking about their constitutional responsibilities back in 1976 when they passed the law into existence!  Congress has been sloughing off their responsibilities to others for ages and it only became a problem when THIS president came along!  Why?

Why?  Because the NEA was enacted to address emergencies, not provide a tool for the President to circumvent the Congress' duly-stated priorities.   

I agree with you that more money is needed for border security.  But under the Constitution that money must be appropriated by Congress.   There may be a crisis at the border, but there is no "emergency" as contemplated by the NEA.   This is a case of a President and Congress butting heads on budgetary priorities.   I agree with the President's side of the issue - but not enough to give him extra-Constitutional powers that will be taken up with relish by the next Democratic President.   

[Bigun]

Why?  Because the NEA was enacted to address emergencies, not provide a tool for the President to circumvent the Congress' duly-stated priorities.   

I agree with you that more money is needed for border security.  But under the Constitution that money must be appropriated by Congress.   There may be a crisis at the border, but there is no "emergency" as contemplated by the NEA.   This is a case of a President and Congress butting heads on budgetary priorities.   I agree with the President's side of the issue - but not enough to give him extra-Constitutional powers that will be taken up with relish by the next Democratic President.

So it boils down to disagreement as to what constitutes an emergency. Along with the President, I think there is one and those on your side don't.  How are we to resolve this?  Mr. Marbury no doubt felt he should have his commission but NEVER got it!