Mark Levin explains to Republican Senators why Trump’s National Emergency does NOT violate the Constitution

Mark Levin opened his show tonight hitting back at all the misinformation and bad information being put out there people who think they know what they are talking about when it comes to Trump’s national emergency and the Constitution.

Levin explains for the umpteenth time why Trump’s national emergency is legal and does not violate the Constitution.

And it’s not just Republican Senators, but they are a big part of who Levin is addressing tonight.

Listen below:

Levin mentions Mike Lee (from The Right Scoop baby!) after the 8:30 mark. But I wouldn’t skip there, I’d listen to the whole thing because it’s very good.

Also, this is Levin’s podcast embed so if you want to keep on listening, I’m sure you’re in for a great show.

You may also use this as an open thread if you like.


Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

121 thoughts on “Mark Levin explains to Republican Senators why Trump’s National Emergency does NOT violate the Constitution

  1. Trump should just do like Lincoln and Issue a Proclamation and suspend habeas corpus. There is an invasion goin on.

  2. No Mark, the Constitution DOES NOT give the Executive branch the “authority to move money around.”
    Feel free to point to the sentence in Article II of the U.S. Constitution to prove me wrong, however.

    Yes, Trump has the authority to declare a National Emergency, as have the other US Presidents before him. And what happens after EVERY “National Emergency” is declared? Congress takes up a SPENDING BILL to fund said National Emergency.

    Mark mentions the Military Construction Codification Act of 1982. The FIRST page defines the term “construction,” and that it must be on a “Military Installation.” The southern Border is NOT a “Military Installation,” (See page TWO). While it would make SENSE for the Military to be in control of our borders, we’ve actually created a bureaucracy called the United States Department of Homeland Security.

    “(2) ‘Military installation’ means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department or, in the case of an activity in a foreign country, under the operational control of the Secretary of a military department or the Secretary of Defense.

    It’s really sad to see Mark go full ‘trumpster,’ after being objective in the years past. Still admire the guy tremendously, though this is why I had to tune him off. Even sadder to see him dog Mike Lee in order to fluff Trump.

    Mark 2008-2016 (during Obama presidency): Obama does NOT have the authority to move money to fund his E.O.’s. Only CONGRESS can appropriate funds from the US Treasury. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.

    Mark 2019 (during Trump presidency): Trump DOES HAVE the authority to move money to fund his National Emergency. Congress gave him that authority.

    1. Thank you for posting this. It won’t be popular, but you stated the case brilliantly. It’s just that in today’s society, facts don’t trump feelings. Yes, there must be something done about the border, but this isn’t the way.

      Meanwhile, it’ll be “Hurrah for Levin! Let’s burn Lee in effigy!” *sigh*

      1. That’s nice of you to say. To some here, posting facts usually leads to someone calling you “stupid.”

        And I was sincere in my admiration for Mark. He was the only one who wasn’t full ‘trumpster’ when it would have been easy for him to follow Hannity and Rush. Sadly though, soon after his show on FOXNEWS he started putting words in Trump’s mouth to make excuses for him. Still hoping he returns to objectivity but it’s not looking good. He recently went on a (well earned) rant about the Cradle Act (forced paid paternity leave, and it’s a GARBAGE bill) but not ONCE while railing against the Republicans did he mention Trump. Seems Mark is willfully and dishonestly omitting that A) Trump boasted about wanting this on the Campaign Trail, and B) Asked for it in his 2018 Budget proposal! 🙁

        Thank you, Talitha.

    2. BR1, if you are going to criticize Levin’s comments, why don’t you listen to him 1st?

      Your lack of understanding of Levin’s case undercut any criticism you may have.

      Levin never said the CONSTITUTION gives the prez the “right to move $ around.”

      Levin said it was the statutory authority granted in both the 1974 National Emergencies Act & the Military Construction Act of 1982 that grant the prez that authority.

      Additionally, in your race to the bottom of the stupid pit, you seemed to gloss over this part of the 1982 act that says:

      may carry out a military construction project not otherwise authorized
      by law if the Secretary determines (1) that the project is vital to the
      national security, and (2) that the requirement for the project is so
      urgent that deferral of the project for inclusion in the next Military
      Construction Authorization Act would be inconsistent with national

      Lastly, you seem to conflate funds already appropriated with the actual appropriation of funds. By “moving $ around,” Mark clearly means funds that have already been appropriated. The 1982 law clearly allows that.

      You seem to rail against Mark’s “objectivity” when it is clearly you who lacks it-or @ the very least-you have a very tenuous grasp of the case that Mark has made.

      1. 12:00 Levin: “The President is able to move funds around, not only under the Constituiton…”

        Thank you for calling me stupid. I would have read your entire post, but stopped there so thank you for saving me from wasting my time.

      2. Federal statutes do NOT supercede the Constitution. This seems implicitly obvious but if you need it made explicit read the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article 6.

  3. I usually like Mike Lee but he deserves to be raked over the coals by Levin. The border situation is out of control and calling it a national emergency is not out of line.

    1. I don’t think Lee has an issue with the declaration, but the funding mechanism.

      Although, to be honest, I can’t help but wonder if Trump brought this reversal by Lee on himself during the “negotiations” between Trump and GOP Senators.

      And I suspect Lee’s new position is a result of that meeting and is likely personal.

      It’s also symbolic, though, since there’s NO WAY they muster 2/3rds of the Senate to over-ride a VETO.

  4. Trump laying it out

    Donald J. Trump
    A vote for today’s resolution by Republican Senators is a vote for Nancy Pelosi, Crime, and the Open Border Democrats!

  5. Congress only believes in the laws they passed when the National Emergency conforms to their political beliefs. Look at some of the ridiculous things Obama declared as a national emergency and not a peep out of these paragons of virtue.

  6. Actual tweet from NYC Mayor Diblasio: “Only four things belong in the toilet; poop, pee, puke and toilet paper. Everything else causes fat birds.”

    1. I really can’t tell if you are posting jokes or not. Sewage water isn’t fed to the birds. It’s filtered and treated.

    2. He sounds very experienced in matter. Maybe his wife accidentally dropped the missing $850M in the toilet too and the birds then ate it. Yeah, that’s what happened.

  7. What this boils down to is a fight by Americans over our sovereignty and right to live our lives in peace against a Congress that wants an unfettered illegal alien invasion to satisfy one of two things: 1) Dems want a new voting base; 2) Repubs want cheap labor for their Chamber of Commerce masters. I’m afraid the only way Americans are going to win this battle is to march on D.C en masse (I’m talking about hundreds of thousands). Maybe they’ll understand that.

  8. ICYMI: After his court appearance yesterday, Jussie Smollett told reporters, “I know that the charges are serious, but I’m not going to beat myself up about it.”

  9. Today is National Pi Day. I’d like to remind everyone that pi are not square, pi are round.

  10. I can respect the Republicans who stand against this on Separation of Powers grounds. It’s too bad, though, that they’re throwing in with Democrats whose only motivation is to destroy the culture of the country while building up their voter base by bringing in a new underclass.

    1. You’re right.

      ALL the Democrats care about is on average, 3 out of 4 immigrants vote Democrat.

    2. Your comment is built on the assumption that Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

      It’s also worth noting that values have no group allegiance. A key indicator that one has no values is group allegiance. The reason why the west was founded on individualism is precisely so that values could thrive and the reason why collectivism is an utter moral failure is because collectivism (i.e. group allegiance) is where values go to die.

      1. I didn’t say Republicans are always right. On the illegal immigration issue, Republicans are way more right than Democrats who just a few years agreed publicly that illegal immigration was wrong. Now, though, they see that their power grab is unstoppable so they don’t even bother hiding it.

        “collectivism (i.e. group allegiance) is where values go to die”

        Huh, now who has an assumption of something being always wrong?

        The USA was founded on the importance of individual liberty, but to pretend that collective action wasn’t a key part of the government in the beginning and a good when used properly is to ignore history.

        Collectivism isn’t always wrong. It’s wrong to apply top-down collectivism when smaller more local applications of it are good. Your family is a collective that should cover most needs that it can cover. Your neighborhood is a collective and at times it’s appropriate for neighborhoods to take action on important priorities… and on up through to the States and then to the Federal government.

        The US military acts in the interest of the national collective because that was the appropriate level in which it needed to operate.

  11. It’s the Koch Brothers who need the explanation… Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, et al. are just following orders from the Koch’s.

    1. @ciceroni-excogitatoris
      Joni Ernst received the highest amount. $20,000 I believe, but yes, the majority of republicans received from the Koch’s.

  12. Levin says it’s constitutional and then cites a few laws, passed by congress?

    Congress cannot change the constitution with an act. It can only be amended, and ratified, by the states.

    Per the constitution, only congress can allocate money. The acts attempt to cede this power to the executive, a violation of the letter and intent of the constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional.

    Is it an emergency? Yes. Is a border wall a national defense issue? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? Arguably, yes.

    But violating the constitution to do a right thing is still wrong.

    You cannot claim to be a constitutional conservative and support this. No matter how bad you want a wall.

    1. His point is – these are laws passed by Congress and he is following the law.

      Also he only briefly mentioned it, but the courts are way more of a threat to separation of powers than Trump.

      1. Obamacare was passed by congress. It is equally unconstitutional, even though the courts said it was constitutional.

    2. @texas-chris
      Not everything that’s “constitutional” has to be spelled out in the Constitution. It’s following the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution therefore it’s Constitutional. Trump isn’t acting alone like Obama did with DACA. It is Congress that gave POTUS this power many years ago and now they are having second thoughts and want it back retroactively!

      1. Not everything that’s “constitutional” has to be spelled out in the Constitution.

        Read the 10th Amendment and get back to me.

        1. The irony is without this Amendment (X) the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution would likely NOT have been ratified.

          The Founders were terrified of an all power Federal Government. The 10th Amendment was written to quell those fears.

          Amendment 10 (X):
          Amendment X

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    3. I think that “what is Constitutional” was foreshadowed to eventually mean “whatever the courts didn’t overturn” back around Marbury vs Madison. Really that was because the Constitution forgot to include a way to resolve logical problems with following its rules and abdicated to the courts. An amendment spelling out some limits to Judicial Review should have been made right after MvM.

      Then during and after the Civil War, that foreshadowing became the effective reality. States’ Rights was fatally wounded when the combatants chose war over secession. States’ Rights died when the North won the argument over whether or not the member states had the right to object by withdrawing their membership. Really, that was another Constitutional oversight.

      After the New Deal, that effective reality became painfully obvious… except to Conservative Constitutionalist types… my past self included.

      Basically, Con Cons are hosed. We’re always fighting with our hands behind our backs against a left that just doesn’t play by the same rules. Trump is President and popular because Conservatives lost the national argument a long time ago.

      The question for me is, “What strategically is our best mindset now?”

      1. Despite your eloquent and logical refutation of my facts I stand by my ideology.

        Oh, wait, you didn’t actually make an argument, you just called names. My bad.

        1. @texas-chris You just proved your short comings again. Your inability to identify what you are referring to. Nobody called you names. Those were adjectives. If you can’t get that right I certainly don’t expect you to be able to navigate thru the Constitution.

    4. TC, Levin is saying the prez’s authority to declare a national emergency is laid out in the 1976 Nation Emergencies Act-which it is.

      So the prez is clearly acting within the statutory authority granted to him-what is “unconstitutional” about that?

      If your answer is, that the 1976 law is “unconstitutional,” then why are you just now having a problem with this? The act has been user over 50 x’s since it’s creation, now all of the sudden you find it “unconstitutional?” Is it your contention that the act is only “unconstitutional” when PDJT uses it?

      Additionally, you say “only Congress can allocate $.” Only Congress can appropriate $, the actual spending-some might say “allocation”-is actual done by the prez-this is not in dispute.

      So, if you contention is, the prez is superseding Congress’s authority to appropriate $-you are clearly wrong, that is not what the prez is doing here. Here’s re-prioritizing $ already allocated.

      Your argument is weak & full of flaws in fact & in the way you state it.

      I recommend you take a course on the Constitution before you lecture ppl about what is-or is not constitutional.

      1. As a constitutional conservative my stance was, under George W, BH Obama, and now Trump, that the War Powers Act specifically, and all acts that delegate congressional powers to the executive in general, are unconstitutional.

        Because they are.

        And I laid out the logic above. A federal judge does a similar service here.

        Constitutionally speaking, every dollar congress appropriates must also be earmarked for a specific purpose. Congress cannot simply delegate the executive a slush fund.

        Look, if Obama was taking tobacco, explosives and alcohol funds from ATF and redirecting it to confiscate guns you’d all be up in arms. And rightly so! But the ATF has the exact same level of responsibility as ICE has regarding national defense. And it would reveal the unlawfulness if Obama first went to congress for the funds and was told no. It’s Pen & Phone all over again.

        No, the executive has to go to congress, and if they refuse he has to go to the American people. If we cannot prevail on congress, then we vote their asses out. That’s the system. Pen & Phone is not the system. That’s tyranny.

    5. Mark also said that the US Constitution grants the Executive the right to move funds around.

      While I deeply respect Mark Levin, I could NOT find that anywhere in Article II of the Constitution.

      I’ll say this, I’m fed up with Mark and other trumpsters who continue to dance around the FACT that for TWO YEARS while Trump had the majority in BOTH Houses, Trump did NOTHING.

      He could have had his chauffeur and staff drive his butt to Capital Hill EVERY DAY to meet with the Republican Leaders and tell them to get it done, a phrase I borrowed from the detestable Obama, who said it to the equally detestable Pelosi and company when Obama met REPEATEDLY with Leadership to get his, once again detestable Affordable Care Act passed.

  13. Funny how our principled guys only step up against THIS president, but were quiet as mouses and did little to fight against unconstitutional over-reach of demonRat presidents. Sigh. Our side never learns. It reminds me of the line in the movie “The Patriot” when Mel Gibson is saying that he won’t vote money to send others to fight if he was unwilling (or unable) to fight himself. The Colonial Colonel asked him: “And what of your principles”? Gibson answered: “Apparently I don’t have the luxury of principles today”. Great. Welcome to the twilight zone circa 2019.

  14. I want to again, thank you scoopers for adding who you are replying to, it helps following the sub comments.
    Especially if you are having an engaged

  15. @therightscoop
    Wow, cool..
    I can search within the thread.
    When did you add the search box?


  16. Levin is right… If Congress doesn’t want Trump to do what he is doing then they need to repeal NEA. Sending Trump a rebuttal that he can veto is stupid.

    1. Not just the NEA, but whole swaths of laws that are violations of the constitutional separation of powers. Specifically, the War Powers Act, another gem Mr. Mark Levin defends with his every wheezing breath.

      1. I just got a free 2 month subscription after my last car service. I’m too cheap to want to pay for radio. (But then I don’t have cable TV either. 😉 ) The only channels I tend to listen to there are Patriot and Radio Classics (old time radio).

  17. I posted this joke on Gab earlier.

    A union boss walks into a bar from the factory next door and is about to order a beer when he sees a guy at the far end of the bar wearing a TRUMP “Make America Great Again” cap with two beers sitting in front of him.

    The union boss doesn’t need to be an Einstein to know that this guy is a Republican, so he shouts over to the bartender so loudly that everyone can hear:

    “Drinks for everyone in here, bartender…but not for the ‘Republican’!”

    Soon after the drinks have been passed out, the Republican gives him a big smile, waves at him then says, “Thank you!” in an equally loud voice.

    This infuriates the union boss.

    After a few minutes, the union boss once again loudly orders drinks for everyone except the Republican. As before, this doesn’t seem to bother the Republican. He nods and smiles, and again yells, “Thank you!”

    A few more minutes pass and the union boss orders another round of drinks for everyone except the Republican.

    Just as before, this STILL doesn’t seem to faze the Republican who continues smiling and again yells out, “Thank you!!”

    Frustrated that he can’t seem to get the guy angered, the union boss asks the bartender, “What is wrong with that Republican? I’ve ordered three rounds of drinks for everyone in the bar but him, and all the dummy does is smile and thank me. Is he nuts?”

    “Nope,” replies the bartender. “He owns the place.”

    1. Seeing how so many went without pay, and Pelosi didn’t have the heart to care for them or protecting the nation, I think he did the right thing–this could have gone on for a long time without a single foot of wall getting built.

      He made a big mistake early on by taking ownership of the shutdown–that made absolutely no sense to me.

      Lee can author to change the bill he doesn’t like, but instead he chose to stick it to Trump along with the leftists in the Senate.

      1. @Abe Lincoln Sorry, not giving him a pass on the cave. It just showed it was all bluster and it empowered the Dems. Probably like this emergency powers deal is going to turn out to be bluster.

        1. Perhaps, but it’s possible he’s playing a longer game. He could let the establishment have their way twice before unleashing a strategy they weren’t prepared for. The optics would be in his favor after ceding to Congress a second time. We’re always one story away from the federal government being forced to seal off our southern border too. However, if he’s leaving everything up to Jared Kushner, we’re about to be sold down the river. He knows Trump 2020 can’t happen in that scenario, so he may start to throw the GOP establishment under the bus as the election draws nearer, and force them to choose between the wall and re-election. When you force someone into a corner, be prepared for the unforeseen consequences.

    2. And yet the wall is being built, and the budget negotiations are already underway for fall. And he’s still working on it.


    1. Next up “Woman sues zoo for improper safety barrier separating zoo visitors from the animals” :question:

      1. Just think of all the ‘likes’ on FaceBook that selfie would have received…She thought it was worth a try.

        1. All I can say is I am so glad there was no such thing as social media when I was young and stupid. :silly:

  18. Pretty cool mentioning “our friends @therightscoop”.

    I see him RT @therightscoop articles on Twit all the time but I don’t remember him mentioning the site on his show before. Congrats, Right Scoop!

      1. I’ve never heard him mention the site. Just seen all the RTs on Twit. Maybe I just missed it. But it’s cool. I know there used to be a thread dedicated to listening to his show during the ’16 primaries.

    1. I learned about @therightscoop in 2010 when he gave Scoop’s blog a mention one night. Been coming here every since.

    1. @golfcartone Don’t know if you noticed but I’m a big fan. In reality I am just trying to promote Liberty’s greatest modern day advocate.

      1. @kram-nivel Yes, I know. Kram Nivel is the name he used as a kid to call into radio shows, if I’m not mistaken. I’m a huge fan and have been listening to him since his show started. My dad taught me about politics and how to vote. He also told me to listen to Mark Levin. So, as a teenager, I was listening to him.

        1. In the 80’s I was a police officer and was coming out of HQ one day and a couple of my police buddies called me to their car and said you gotta listen to this guy he is great. It was Rush Limbaugh. They are my two favorites and both have taught me tons. And how to reason my way through an issue.

          1. Rush is great too, though I get to listen to him much less than Levin. BTW, I’m a retired police officer. Going to school for my second career now.

            1. Man that is great. I was a cop, border patrol agent and finally retired as a deportation officer with ICE. Are you looking to be a prosecutor?

              1. @kram-nivel I’m hoping to get on with the Texas AG office, in about 5 years. So prosecutor is my first step. I’ll start at the Dallas DA’s office first, probably. Maybe a smaller town. Just have to see how it shakes out.

                1. I did like 34 years in LE. My uncle who is a retired PO once told me he would have done the job for free his first five years and then after that they never paid him enough. I griped a lot too but loved every minute of it. Well maybe not every minute but a lot of minutes. My saying I coined was as cops we’re happiest when we’re complaining. I cleaned that up a bit as to not offend. LOL.

                2. @slantry Treating me fine but doesn’t treat the Constitution very good. We do NOT study the Constitution. It’s not even mentioned. It’s up to me to learn it, which I’m trying to do by studying major SCOTUS rulings. Soon I’ll read the Federalist Papers.

            2. whew didn’t want to blow your cover was afraid I would slip and now I can say congratulations on starting the path to your new career @golfcartone

              1. @ruthiedoggiemom Thank you, my friend! I think I’ve made the right decision for my family, too. I got married not too long ago and my wife wasn’t keen on the target on the back thing after the massacre, thanks to Obama.

          2. I watched Rush when he was just starting his late nite TV show. I wasn’t even into politics then, but caught him when I just walked in the door from evening shift, and I really liked his passion…I think maybe he got me started in paying attention to what was going on around me!

            1. Man we were listening at the beginning of the start up of conservative talk show radio. What a revolution it has been. Rush was it’s founder.

              1. I’m a big fan of Rush, have been for a very long time, but as for him being the founder
                of Conservative talk radio you have to go back further than him. Consider Bob Grant.
                He was driving liberals nuts from the sixties on.

  19. @therightscoop Yes we had a good thread going on the Mike Lee article. Then Mark got us going. He’s the one to blame. LOL.

  20. You learn more in a fifteen minute Levin opening then you would learn watching all the other networks for a lifetime. That’s like a text book example of how to address an issue. I have listened to it several times and I would say it’s as good as Denali has ever been. Brilliant so damn brilliant.

    1. @kram-nivel I know someone (my age) who had no clue how our government was setup. Kept asking me all these questions. I finally said if you want to learn, then listen to Mark Levin. A year later, after more and more questions, I asked if she had started listening. NO, she says. I said do it. You’ll learn. She finally did and now she’s spot on with her understanding of what’s happening. He is brilliant.

      1. Wouldn’t you love to have had a professor like him in school? I would not have minded going in debt getting a college education if that were the case.

        1. @kram-nivel I’m in law school right now. Not a single mention in any of my classes of the Constitution. I’m having to read critical SCOTUS rulings to learn about it from a legal standpoint. Yes, I’d give anything to have Mark Levin as a professor in law school. I try not to miss his radio show but sometimes I do.

          1. Wish you the best. One thing I have heard several times read the federalist papers. I was a police officer so I would mainly just study and read Court decisions on criminal cases and such, search and seizure cases etc. I am facinated by the law and it’s application.

            1. @kram-nivel I have Federalist Papers on my list for summer reading. I can’t wait to dig into them. I’ve read bits on blogs here and there but I want to read the real thing. Thanks, man.

  21. @therightscoop – thanks for this. Mark is right! People who have difficulties understanding this, need to listen & be educated by him.

      1. 🙂 The site is having a few issues if you are on your phone. But, it did work, so you’re good.

        1. @msliberty Thanks. It is back to normal at the moment. I am going back to work in a couple of weeks. I love working and not a fan of sitting at home and being retired. I need to star getting to bed earlier. But friends like you and so many others are keeping me up late. We have a blast here don’t we? :thumbsup:

Comments are closed.