The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: edpc on March 03, 2019, 05:43:36 pm
-
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) disclosed on Saturday that he will vote in support of a resolution this month to block President Trump's emergency declaration, reports the Bowling Green Daily News.
"I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress. We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing."
https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-supports-resolution-block-trumps-emergency-declaration-3ddfdfbf-e11c-4362-b897-3191c8d3e148.html (https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-supports-resolution-block-trumps-emergency-declaration-3ddfdfbf-e11c-4362-b897-3191c8d3e148.html)
-
This assumes the 47 democratic members will all vote no, along with Paul, Murkowski, Collins, and Tillis. It’s possible Jones and Manchin could defect, but that may not matter. Rubio, Romney, Lee, Alexander, and Sasse are also good bets to vote no.
-
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) disclosed on Saturday that he will vote in support of a resolution this month to block President Trump's emergency declaration, reports the Bowling Green Daily News.
"I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress. We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing."
https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-supports-resolution-block-trumps-emergency-declaration-3ddfdfbf-e11c-4362-b897-3191c8d3e148.html (https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-supports-resolution-block-trumps-emergency-declaration-3ddfdfbf-e11c-4362-b897-3191c8d3e148.html)
Well .... isn't the veto one of those very checks and balances? I don't see the downside, considering that 'most' Americans are on-board with building a wall for heightened border security. :shrug:
-
Well .... isn't the veto one of those very checks and balances? I don't see the downside, considering that 'most' Americans are on-board with building a wall for heightened border security. :shrug:
The downside is that Congress has never blocked an emergency declaration, since the law was passed. It’s not a political first you’d want. Starting fights with the Senate where there’s a slim majority has potential repercussions on other agenda items.
-
It’ll be interesting to see how much effort the democrats put into trying to get the veto overridden.
-
The downside is that Congress has never blocked an emergency declaration, since the law was passed. It’s not a political first you’d want. Starting fights with the Senate where there’s a slim majority has potential repercussions on other agenda items.
Other agenda items? There are no other agenda items ... right now... that are more crucial than securing our borders and thus, securing our national defense. That the DemocRats insist on importing every tom, dick harry and sherry on the planet, unvetted and unchecked for diseases or intentions... is only creating MORE of a crisis and emergency nationwide. Sorry... but I'm still ok with whatever it takes to get that border shut down unless or until this onslaught is able to be handled (ie never). Again... I'm thinking of that old saying "desperate times call for desperate measures".
-
Other agenda items? There are no other agenda items ... right now... that are more crucial than securing our borders and thus, securing our national defense. That the DemocRats insist on importing every tom, dick harry and sherry on the planet, unvetted and unchecked for diseases or intentions... is only creating MORE of a crisis and emergency nationwide. Sorry... but I'm still ok with whatever it takes to get that border shut down unless or until this onslaught is able to be handled (ie never). Again... I'm thinking of that old saying "desperate times call for desperate measures".
There are still judges to confirm, a revision of NAFTA to review, plus other duties under Senate control. Those are all things the admin has worked on and pointed to as accomplishments, prior to the declaration. So, yes....there are other agenda items. Since they preceded the wall, you have to wonder if it was really considered the crucial priority you believe it is.
-
Other agenda items? There are no other agenda items ... right now... that are more crucial than securing our borders and thus, securing our national defense. That the DemocRats insist on importing every tom, dick harry and sherry on the planet, unvetted and unchecked for diseases or intentions... is only creating MORE of a crisis and emergency nationwide. Sorry... but I'm still ok with whatever it takes to get that border shut down unless or until this onslaught is able to be handled (ie never). Again... I'm thinking of that old saying "desperate times call for desperate measures".
There are lots more important issues facing this country than wasting billions of dollars building a white elephant of a wall in the vicinity of the Southern border.
You want to curtail illegal immigration? Make eVerify mandatory and make it a felony to have someone in your employ who is not authorized to work in the US.
You may have to overcome a veto from Trump on that one, however, since his organization has historically been one of the major offenders.
Also, make it a felony for an employer to not disclose to ICE when that employer has reason to believe that someone in his or her employ is working on stolen or fraudulent work papers.
Do those two things, and the issue of illegal immigration will shrink from an ulcerated sore to the equivalent of a minor pimple.
-
There are still judges to confirm, a revision of NAFTA to review, plus other duties under Senate control. Those are all things the admin has worked on and pointed to as accomplishments, prior to the declaration. So, yes....there are other agenda items.
But not as critical as securing our border. Dude, come on.... you have to know that is yet another orchestrated assault-by-immigrants ... instigated by the biggest enemy within, the Obamas, Clintons, Soros, etc. They are trying to do ongoing damage to this country, despite being out of office "officially"... but with the help of their minions in Congress on 'both' sides of the aisle.
-
But not as critical as securing our border. Dude, come on.... you have to know that is yet another orchestrated assault-by-immigrants ... instigated by the biggest enemy within, the Obamas, Clintons, Soros, etc. They are trying to do ongoing damage to this country, despite being out of office "officially"... but with the help of their minions in Congress on 'both' sides of the aisle.
OK, but I don’t have any control over the legislative priorities of the admin. There was an EO issued on people coming in from certain designated countries, colloquially known as the ‘travel ban.’ We had Gorsuch appointed. The first legislative attempt was centered on ‘repeal and replace.’ Trump got into a fight with the Freedom Caucus over that and threatened to primary them in 2018. Later we had the tax law.
Last summer, we had the ‘zero tolerance’ policy at the border. During all that time, the republicans in the House could never agree on something to bring to the floor as a border bill. No real effort was made by the White House to get it done. That was part of the reason the WH Legislative Affairs man, Marc Short, resigned. It just wasn’t that important to them, at the time. The point is, for two years, we had no serious push for the wall.
It was only at the 11th hour, aftet the House had been lost, that it had become so urgent. That’s only because of the backlash from the base. The ‘minions’ are not to blame. Coulter correctly summed it up, after the border compromise was signed.
Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
This is not Paul Ryan’s fault. It’s not Mitch McConnell’s fault. Trump ran AGAINST the GOP and won. Responsibility is 100% his.
11:53 AM · Feb 15, 2019 · Twitter Web Client
-
OK, but I don’t have any control over the legislative priorities of the admin. There was an EO issued on people coming in from certain designated countries, colloquially known as the ‘travel ban.’ We had Gorsuch appointed. The first legislative attempt was centered on ‘repeal and replace.’ Trump got into a fight with the Freedom Caucus over that and threatened to primary them in 2018. Later we had the tax law.
Last summer, we had the ‘zero tolerance’ policy at the border. During all that time, the republicans in the House could never agree on something to bring to the floor as a border bill. No real effort was made by the White House to get it done. That was part of the reason the WH Legislative Affairs man, Marc Short, resigned. It just wasn’t that important to them, at the time. The point is, for two years, we had no serious push for the wall.
It was only at the 11th hour, aftet the House had been lost, that it had become so urgent. That’s only because of the backlash from the base. The ‘minions’ are not to blame. Coulter correctly summed it up, after the border compromise was signed.
Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
This is not Paul Ryan’s fault. It’s not Mitch McConnell’s fault. Trump ran AGAINST the GOP and won. Responsibility is 100% his.
11:53 AM · Feb 15, 2019 · Twitter Web Client
Yeah, I don't care about playing the blame game as much as I care about solving the problem of our compromised national security via our southern border. One thing I am pissed about is how the laws have yet to be changed to un-motivate most of these immigrants to make the trek here. It's like they've got somebody telling them to come cuz our system is so screwed up that nobody will ever mess with them again, once they get here [tic]. And of course.. all the freebies...
-
The downside is that Congress has never blocked an emergency declaration, since the law was passed. It’s not a political first you’d want. Starting fights with the Senate where there’s a slim majority has potential repercussions on other agenda items.
This is the first time an emergency declaration was used while congress was in immediate session and had voted contrary to the declaration in regards to appropriations.
I know people are hung up on the wall issue, but Paul has a point and this is a new situation. The emergency declaration law was put in place for rapid action when congress was not able to immediately vote on an emergency - not to contradict or counteract congress. We are, after all, a representative republic. If Congress doesn't vote the way we want on something, even if we believe it is an emergency, that is on us. That isn't on someone to over-ride them because they believe differently
For example, the Hurricane Katrina declaration was made and within 48 hours, congress had voted to appropriate the funds in the declaration. In this case, the declaration came after the appropriation bill that countered the bill and congress was in session at the time the declaration was made after so it was solely meant to bypass congress.
-
Yeah, I don't care about playing the blame game as much as I care about solving the problem of our compromised national security via our southern border.
Well, someone is still playing the blame game.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/30/politics/trump-paul-ryan-border-wall/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fsearch%2F%3Fq%3DTrump%2Bblames%2Bformer%2BSpeaker%2BPaul%2BRyan%2Bfor%2Bnot%2Bgetting%2Bborder%2Bwall%2Bfunding (https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/30/politics/trump-paul-ryan-border-wall/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fsearch%2F%3Fq%3DTrump%2Bblames%2Bformer%2BSpeaker%2BPaul%2BRyan%2Bfor%2Bnot%2Bgetting%2Bborder%2Bwall%2Bfunding)
-
Well, someone is still playing the blame game.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/30/politics/trump-paul-ryan-border-wall/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fsearch%2F%3Fq%3DTrump%2Bblames%2Bformer%2BSpeaker%2BPaul%2BRyan%2Bfor%2Bnot%2Bgetting%2Bborder%2Bwall%2Bfunding (https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/30/politics/trump-paul-ryan-border-wall/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fsearch%2F%3Fq%3DTrump%2Bblames%2Bformer%2BSpeaker%2BPaul%2BRyan%2Bfor%2Bnot%2Bgetting%2Bborder%2Bwall%2Bfunding)
Anyone (everyone) in politics will always play the blame game. It's politics. There's always a lot of blame to go around. And another constant in the universe is... the radical left will always blame everyone else, especially anyone on the right.
I am all for the positive "reset", however. Whatever it takes to save this nation from the left, I'm for.
-
There are lots more important issues facing this country than wasting billions of dollars building a white elephant of a wall in the vicinity of the Southern border.
You want to curtail illegal immigration? Make eVerify mandatory and make it a felony to have someone in your employ who is not authorized to work in the US.
You may have to overcome a veto from Trump on that one, however, since his organization has historically been one of the major offenders.
Also, make it a felony for an employer to not disclose to ICE when that employer has reason to believe that someone in his or her employ is working on stolen or fraudulent work papers.
Do those two things, and the issue of illegal immigration will shrink from an ulcerated sore to the equivalent of a minor pimple.
I disagree. We NEED a wall!!! It helps border patrol agents do their jobs and is a physical barrier, helping to curtail illegal immigration.
What about all those illegals in our prison system who we are supporting and those that don't work? E-verify isn't going to do squat.
We need mass deportation and a moratorium on all illegal immigration, including asylum. Secondly, we need to stop all the perks to illegals and andend to birthright citizenship to those born here to illegal parents.
Our asylum laws need to be changed (as Trump tried to do) and our immigration laws strongly enforced.
-
Anyone (everyone) in politics will always play the blame game. It's politics. There's always a lot of blame to go around. And another constant in the universe is... the radical left will always blame everyone else, especially anyone on the right.
I am all for the positive "reset", however. Whatever it takes to save this nation from the left, I'm for.
OK, but follow this to the potential conclusion where SCOTUS sides against the declaration. Who’s going to be blamed, Trump or the court? We would be back to the point where the previous two years had been wasted and the delay through the legal system was unnecessary. The failure should go to the true source.
-
OK, but follow this to the potential conclusion where SCOTUS sides against the declaration. Who’s going to be blamed, Trump or the court? We would be back to the point where the previous two years had been wasted and the delay through the legal system was unnecessary. The failure should go to the true source.
At that point, any 'blame' will be secondary to the angst from most Americans, I suspect. It does, however, put the SCOTUS in a bit of a pickle... since their idea of 'rule of law' will probably result in just that scenario. So the 'blame Trump' crowd can and will go wild with celebration. Meanwhile, our country will be doomed.
You already know what I'm hoping for. :laugh:
-
I disagree. We NEED a wall!!! It helps border patrol agents do their jobs and is a physical barrier, helping to curtail illegal immigration.
What about all those illegals in our prison system who we are supporting and those that don't work? E-verify isn't going to do squat.
We need mass deportation and a moratorium on all illegal immigration, including asylum. Secondly, we need to stop all the perks to illegals and andend to birthright citizenship to those born here to illegal parents.
Our asylum laws need to be changed (as Trump tried to do) and our immigration laws strongly enforced.
You are as entitled to disagree as you are entitled to be wrong. Ain’t life grand.
Certainly, walls, or other forms of barrier, should be used where the cost-benefit ratio truly demonstrates the benefit, such as preventing people from trying to cross st particularly dangerous places, but a monolithic wall along the entire border is nothing more than a grandiose white elephant; an extraordinary waste of very limited resources.
As for illegals currently in US jails, pretty please, explain how the WALL keeps them out of the US.
(Hint: it doesn’t, because they’re already in the US)
Really put some teeth into the laws against hiring illegals, and you’ll see illegal immigration dry up like a desert river during the dry season.
-
At that point, any 'blame' will be secondary to the angst from most Americans, I suspect. It does, however, put the SCOTUS in a bit of a pickle... since their idea of 'rule of law' will probably result in just that scenario. So the 'blame Trump' crowd can and will go wild with celebration. Meanwhile, our country will be doomed.
You already know what I'm hoping for. :laugh:
Democrats won’t love a decision affirming the wall, but they sure will love the executive power it gives the next dem president.
-
Democrats won’t love a decision affirming the wall, but they sure will love the executive power it gives the next dem president.
Considering the way things are going already, I doubt that they would give it a second thought... since they will do anything they please with or without precedent.
-
Considering the way things are going already, I doubt that they would give it a second thought... since they will do anything they please with or without precedent.
Don’t be so sure. There have been times when precedent they’ve set has been recognized as bad and addressed. FDR served more than two terms. The 22nd Amendment was passed, because of it. JFK appointed his inexperienced brother as AG. Nepotism laws were passed because of it. Serious buyer’s remorse has followed the Reid decision to exercise the nuclear option on judges. It’s the prime reason why you don’t see it used on fiscal matters, even though it’s entirely constitutional. Upholding this decision is a blank check for future expansive executive powers.
Plenty of ‘national’ emergencies are related to situations in foreign countries. For instance, Trump recently extended the Obama era one for the Venezuela situation. If a wall can be built for a national emergency, it can be dismantled for a ‘humanitarian crisis’ later. Even worse, imagine a future Dem declaring a national emergency on the number of illegals here, the costs involved, then ‘solving’ it with amnesty. Now, you have instant legal voters, thanks to the precedent, and you can forget about voting that person out of office.
If we think they’re just going to do whatever they want, let’s drop the idea we care about checks and balances or limited government. Let’s just scrap the constitution, declare Trump president for life, and stop their dictatorship with our own. The ends justify the means, where existential threats are present, right?
-
Don’t be so sure. There have been times when precedent they’ve set has been recognized as bad and addressed. FDR served more than two terms. The 22nd Amendment was passed, because of it. JFK appointed his inexperienced brother as AG. Nepotism laws were passed because of it. Serious buyer’s remorse has followed the Reid decision to exercise the nuclear option on judges. It’s the prime reason why you don’t see it used on fiscal matters, even though it’s entirely constitutional. Upholding this decision is a blank check for future expansive executive powers.
Plenty of ‘national’ emergencies are related to situations in foreign countries. For instance, Trump recently extended the Obama era one for the Venezuela situation. If a wall can be built for a national emergency, it can be dismantled for a ‘humanitarian crisis’ later. Even worse, imagine a future Dem declaring a national emergency on the number of illegals here, the costs involved, then ‘solving’ it with amnesty. Now, you have instant legal voters, thanks to the precedent, and you can forget about voting that person out of office.
If we think they’re just going to do whatever they want, let’s drop the idea we care about checks and balances or limited government. Let’s just scrap the constitution, declare Trump president for life, and stop their dictatorship with our own. The ends justify the means, where existential threats are present, right?
While you make some good points.... the bottom line is, I still put NOTHING past this crop of radical leftist Democrats when it comes to defying past precedents and setting their very own.... just like they did to get ObamaCare passed against the will of most Americans. They care nothing about the rule of law, the Constitution OR about precedents. They care about grasping, attaining and then keeping power. Period. We are up against a ruthless enemy, dude. One that has finally dropped all facade and pretense. They're out of the commie closet and are loud and proud about it. And....considering this crop of gutless/nadless GOPers.... I'm not real sure we 'can' prevail or win against them. It has gone too far, I fear.
-
Good for Paul.
-
While you make some good points.... the bottom line is, I still put NOTHING past this crop of radical leftist Democrats when it comes to defying past precedents and setting their very own.... just like they did to get ObamaCare passed against the will of most Americans. They care nothing about the rule of law, the Constitution OR about precedents. They care about grasping, attaining and then keeping power. Period. We are up against a ruthless enemy, dude. One that has finally dropped all facade and pretense. They're out of the commie closet and are loud and proud about it. And....considering this crop of gutless/nadless GOPers.... I'm not real sure we 'can' prevail or win against them. It has gone too far, I fear.
Well, the problem with Obamacare was is was pushed through, using ‘deem and pass.’ That was not unprecedented. It’s a rule that goes back to the 1930s. It’s been used by both parties to move legislation, since then. In fact, the republican controlled congress, during the Bush 43 years, used it over 30 times. That includes reauthorization of controversial laws, like the Patriot Act. There’s another hard lesson of precedent.
-
Considering the way things are going already, I doubt that they would give it a second thought... since they will do anything they please with or without precedent.
There was no significant discussion amongst democrats of using the “national emergency†dodge until Trump dreamed it up.
-
Well, the problem with Obamacare was is was pushed through, using ‘deem and pass.’ That was not unprecedented. It’s a rule that goes back to the 1930s. It’s been used by both parties to move legislation, since then. In fact, the republican controlled congress, during the Bush 43 years, used it over 30 times. That includes reauthorization of controversial laws, like the Patriot Act. There’s another hard lesson of precedent.
The rats used reconciliation for ObamaCare, which had previously been used for budget bills, not for something as disastrous for the entire nation as ObamaCare was and still is. They set that "new precedent" without a care and without one GOP vote.... which showed just how ruthless they ARE. And as hard to believe as it may be.... they have only become MORE ruthless over the past nine years.
-
The rats used reconciliation for ObamaCare, which had previously been used for budget bills, not for something as disastrous for the entire nation as ObamaCare was and still is.
That’s not entirely true. There are probably many examples you could find over the past 80 years. However, let’s go back to the previous example of the Patriot Act. That expanded the FISA authority. How has that worked out, over the last decade?
-
That’s not entirely true. There are probably many examples you could find over the past 80 years. However, let’s go back to the previous example of the Patriot Act. That expanded the FISA authority. How has that worked out, over the last decade?
The Patriot Act was and still is a disaster. And remind me... who were the senators that pushed that disaster?
-
The Patriot Act was and still is a disaster. And remind me... who were the senators that pushed that disaster?
Not sure about the senators, but it passed that side 98-1. The original bill was introduced in the House, by Sensenbrenner.
-
Rand Paul being Rand Paul. That is to say, erratic.
If this needs a presidential veto (and subsequent failure of the Congress to override that veto) to move forward, well... just get on with it.
Let's get the Congressional "approval/disapproval" votes out-of-the-way.
They were never going to be anything more than "for show", in any case.
Then, start clearing out any opposition in the courts, with a "fast-track push" to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And in the meantime -- GET THAT WALL A-BUILDIN' !!
-
This is where I agree with Rand 100%.
-
This is the second or 3rd time I have heard "President & veto" mentioned in connection with the President's emergency declaration & Congress. The way I read the statute it is Congress "vetoing" the declared emergency by a joint resolution...no legislation, no opportunity for a presidential veto.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622)
-
This is the second or 3rd time I have heard "President & veto" mentioned in connection with the President's emergency declaration & Congress. The way I read the statute it is Congress "vetoing" the declared emergency by a joint resolution...no legislation, no opportunity for a presidential veto.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622)
The joint resolution must be signed by the President.
-
Further digging reveals "2/3rds required & signature required since 1983" due to "Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha"...
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/lawmaker-news/432124-national-emergencies-act-leaves-congress-lacking
-
Sen. Rand Paul: I support President Trump, but I can't support this National Emergency Declaration
In September of 2014, I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution. He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'
Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.â€
I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-i-support-president-trump-but-i-cant-support-this-national-emergency-declaration (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-i-support-president-trump-but-i-cant-support-this-national-emergency-declaration)
-
Sen. Rand Paul: I support President Trump, but I can't support this National Emergency Declaration
In September of 2014, I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution. He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'
Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.â€
I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-i-support-president-trump-but-i-cant-support-this-national-emergency-declaration (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-i-support-president-trump-but-i-cant-support-this-national-emergency-declaration)
I cannot fault Rand for adhering to his principles. Yes, I get that the DEMS always stick together, but like Rand I believe one must stay true to themselves and their core beliefs. Otherwise, what integrity and credibility would be left? I think he is correct in that the president has the authority to declare a national emergency but not to declare a national emergency in order to reapportion funds that Congress has already approved.
Lee and others have mentioned (though not specified) that there are legal means to get funding. Why hasn't Trump done so?? That's the big question here. Others have made suggestions as to how he can get funding, yet for some reason, it has fallen on deaf ears.
Instead he goes ahead and signs a bill he should have never signed and then declares a national emergency when he knows full well it's going to be shot down. He even admittedly said so. Why?