Senate Republicans already moving to curb the president’s national emergency powers

Not only did enough Senate Republicans vote with Democrats the other day to send their disapproval of Trump’s national emergency to his desk for a veto, but now they are already moving to put new restrictions on the law.

Via The Hill:

But Republicans are already setting their sights on making it easier to terminate future emergency declarations — setting up an intriguing round two.

“It’s an institutional issue, it’s a congressional authorities issue. We have the power of the purse,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). “Under the National Emergencies Act, there was too much latitude that was given away … and we need to pull that back some and let it be used for legitimate national security purposes.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) added that there is “unanimity” in the GOP conference about making changes to the law in the wake of the fight over Trump’s emergency declaration to construct the U.S.-Mexico border wall.



The new legislation already has an author…

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has tapped Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) to craft legislation in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that could win the 60 votes needed for a bill to defeat a filibuster and ultimately pass the upper chamber.

Even GOP senators who sided with Trump are interested in the broader issue.

“I would like to revisit the emergency powers that Congress has provided to the executive branch,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who voted with Trump. “I do think it’s going to be a healthy debate to have.”

“A lot of discomfort with the law”

McConnell told reporters after a closed-door conference lunch that there was “a lot of discomfort with the law” among Republicans and that they were “discussing” ways it could be altered.

Roughly a third of the Republican conference, including members of leadership, is already backing legislation from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would require Congress to pass a resolution approving future national emergency declarations within 30 days. Without the approval, the resolution would be terminated.

“I don’t know of any president that likes to give up power, but clearly Congress has been asleep at the switch,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who voted with Trump but is supporting Lee’s legislation.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) added that “there is a lot of people, myself included, who believe that the National Emergencies Act … needs to be reformed.”

Trump agreed last week to work with Republicans on reforming the national emergencies law. But I must wonder how he feels about this effort so quickly after his veto of the legislation.

It kinda feels like more ‘disapproval’ coming from Republicans in the Senate on Trump’s current national emergency, and I suspect he won’t be eager help them if he feels that his national emergency is the motivation for this new legislation.

But I do think it will be interesting to see how Democrats react to this. So far I think they’re probably ecstatic to see all that’s happened after Pelosi introduced the privileged disapproval in the House a few weeks ago. But will they join with Republicans in placing new restrictions on the law? They’d look like hypocrites if they don’t, given their recent disapproval vote, but then what’s new? They certainly didn’t care that Obama abused his authority as president with DACA even though they are now very outspoken against Trump’s legitimate use of the emergency law. If they are worried that Trump might win in 2020 and get another four years, the might vote to reform the law. But if they think he’ll lose, the might risk looking like hypocritical opportunists so their next president won’t be hamstrung by the new legislation.

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.
newest oldest most voted
Rednca
Member
Member
Rednca

Note to senant repubicans; We The People are watching. Never before in my lifetime have I witnessed a better President for We The People than this President and you effing rino repubicans are fighting against us when you go against this President!!!

ConstitutionalRepublic
Member
Member
ConstitutionalRepublic

If Congressional Republicans want to take back control of Emergency Declarations, ie; the 1976 Emergency Declaration Act, then they better revisit the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc, as they are all related to give the US President national emergency authorization powers to secure the safety of the Nation as the US Constitution dictates the US President to do, has full Constitutional Plenary Power and Authority to do, which is the President’s primary duty as the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

As I pointed out before, the concept of a legislative veto has been stomped on by the Supreme Court before… it’s important to note that the notion of a “legislative veto” is actually on more shaky ground, constitutionally speaking (see the 1983 ruling in INS v. Chadha) than is any Presidential declaration of emergency. When Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976 it was in full recognition that emergency power is vested in the Executive.. Thus, the NEA was passed to insure that: 1) Emergencies didn’t continue indefinitely. 2) Emergencies had some notion of “vetting” by the Congress by giving them a way to declare them ended if they do not concur with the Executive. 3) To provide tools of law to guide emergency actions, and theby help the President to actually *solve* them. All of that is in the law now. So what is Lee’s problem? Congress is… Read more »

Blackbeard
Member
Member
Blackbeard

Use yer magic portal t’ do a search on “Mormons” ‘n read wha’ they believe in. Thar be wha’ be wrong wit’ th’ yellow-bellied Cap’n Lee. They be a crew o’ nuts.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

I think “re-election funding” likely has more to do with it.

Blackbeard
Member
Member
Blackbeard

That makes his maneuverin’ much more intentional, which be even worse than jus’ bein’ plain ole crazy, Cap’n Bob. I says we throw ‘im o’erboard. Arrr!

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Hey Bob, I’m not going to double-up our conversation, I just want to say that I really appreciate having them with you. When we disagree, we have a great conversation even if never comes to resolution. Thanks for that.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

Well, heck, I wouldn’t participate if I didn’t get some decent brane exercise out of it, too. So thanks back atcha!

GIVJetMech
Member
Member
GIVJetMech

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) – “Under the National Emergencies Act, there was too much latitude that was given away … and we need to pull that back some and let it be used for legitimate national security purposes.”

What? This JOKE of a Senator doesn’t think that 75,000+ illegal immigrants coming across our southern border EVERY MONTH isn’t a “ legitimate National Security” issue???

Bull!

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

He doesn’t have any clue. It was the Senate that specifically admitted the emergency powers were held by the President, and so the NEA was passed to help reign in that power. Congress gave away *nothing.*

friskycat
Member
Active Member
friskycat

Then the new law will be for both demoRats and Republicans, NOT just president Trump!

Charli
Member
Noble Member
Charli

Whether it is RINOs or dimonwits, this is nothing more than worthless busy work, done to prove they are needed. They are not. BUILD THE DAMNED WALL! mad

Colonel Beauregard Sanders III
Member
Active Member
Colonel Beauregard Sanders III

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). “Under the National Emergencies Act, there was too much latitude that was given away … and we need to pull that back some and let it be used for legitimate national security purposes.

So my question to Mr. Portman and anyone else who thinks the emergency declaration is an overreach is WHY OH WHY is border security (which by it’s definition is the very CORE of national security) is somehow not a “legitimate” national security purpose????????

And furthermore there is NO more applicable moment to declare a national emergency than when there is one AND congress cannot or will not act. That’s the quintessential example for WHY the NEA was passed in the first place! That they want to change it now reveals where their loyalties lie as they dishonestly hide behind concern for the constitution and guys like Mike Lee fall for it!

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

I just answered that for you.

Charli
Member
Noble Member
Charli

Amen! They have all forgotten 9/11/01 and are setting us up for terrorist attacks by “immigrants” who hate us.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

A couple of thoughts.

1) Republicans REALLY don’t want that wall built!
2) McConnell comes out of his shell once again to screw America over.
3) Republicans must REALLY be scared of democrats.
4) Trump seems like the only one who wants this problem solved.
5) Republicans… working with democrats… to stop Trump…

Democrats are overt, known devils. Seems republicans are getting used to the notion…

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Who voted for the Republicans? Who supported putting those people in office?

We can’t cry foul at our “representation” when the only reason we elected him was to avoid electing somebody else. We get the politicians we ask for.

bigsir74
Member
Active Member
bigsir74

When Senator lee came out against the President it appears several others are jumping aboard to slow or stop the Presidents plans for fixing the problems at the Border.

Landscaper
Member
Noble Member
Landscaper

When Mama gives her marching orders (The Chamber of Commerce) about keeping open borders, the GOP fold faster than a cheap Chinese lawn chair and say “Yes Mam”.

Paladin
Member
Noble Member
Paladin

I would have more respect for our GOP senators if they went after the activist Courts first!

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

What is it you’d have them do?

WilliamWigman
Member
Member
WilliamWigman

I like Lee’s reform….. it allows the executive power to react, but puts the responsibility back where it belongs Congress.

That is why I want Congress to pass something like the REINS act that was suggested, which requires all executive regulations written by the executive agencies to be approved by congress. Make them have to defend the rules that we are forced to live under.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

By design, the emergency “responsibility” belongs with the Executive branch.

WilliamWigman
Member
Member
WilliamWigman

Sure, and by design money allocation is a Congressional thing. It has always been, and should always be congressional. By all means let us set up a tool that can be abused that destroys one of the checks in our system.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

Congress allocates in general, but the Executive allocates in specific.

As I wrote before, that’s an unavoidable consequence of resource distribution.

It doesn’t matter who gives you money to acquire or build stuff, you decide what individual items to acquire and what specifically you will build.

Sure, they can try to limit your choices, but the fact that you still decide how to spend the resources they gave you is unavoidable.

So that argument in pretense of dictatorial powers is simply an empty argument.

There are two laws Trump is following to find the funds he needs. He’s following both of them to the letter.

Teri Smith
Member
Trusted Member
Teri Smith

I would like all 3 branches of government getting their respective powers back in line with the constitution and then getting down and doing the work. It sometimes seems like an impossible dream.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

We couldn’t. We don’t want to. BOTH sides now want benevolent dictators in charge of everything, and then to keep up the appearance of the three branches.

Teri Smith
Member
Trusted Member
Teri Smith

I totally agree.

JaimeJimmision
Member
Member
JaimeJimmision

Congress no longer passes budgets or laws but sentiments and allows the beaurocracy to create “rules”. The cult of the Presidency has grown exponentially with expectations of near dictorial powers (“pen and phone”). Courts no longer rule on the law but make it up. I fear for our Republic and like the fascists and global warming what will happen in the next decade. Thank you @AT for reminding all of us of this important issue. Now if can stop the indoctrination of our children there might be hope if not I fear all is lost.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

and we need to pull that back some and let it be used for legitimate national security purposes.

This is why I’ve been so adamant that it’s a legal, constitutional, entirely necessary, but wrong thing to do.

At the risk of committing ad hominem everybody knows that this is not what the NEA was intended for; that it’s being misused from its intended purpose to accomplish a goal that Donald couldn’t accomplish correctly, ie. legislatively. And no, I don’t care that Congress is hellbent on denying Donald everything. Because all 535 instances of that is on us. So was electing someone who wouldn’t be able to work with Congress.

We should not be celebrating finding a legal loophole to getting what we want. That’s the way leftists think. This was a poorly constructed law and it needs fixing.

Colonel Beauregard Sanders III
Member
Active Member
Colonel Beauregard Sanders III

So I would have used that exact quote for the purpose of asking just what the hell are “legitimate national security purposes” if not securing our own border? How on earth have we reached a point where legitimate national security seems to be overseas in other countries, but never our own?

That makes no logical sense. There’s no legitimacy or consistency in that position. It’s clearly not about constitutionality or the president’s prerogative to maintain national security would be the primary concern.

So the question becomes why is border security, which is at the very heart of any nation’s security, somehow popularly viewed by our political elites in America as somehow inconsequential or having nothing to do with national security?? What is the supposedly reasoned argument behind that nonsensical position? I’d very much like to understand.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

You have to realize that the NEA isn’t being invoked because there’s an emergency regarding the border. While that may be true (and I agree it is), the problem is that’s not why the NEA was invoked. The NEA was invoked because Congress chose not to act on the President’s agenda. I know it. You know it. Donald knows it. Mike Lee knows it. And so does everybody else. And that’s not a legitimate national security purpose. Declaring an emergency because Congress won’t do what you want is clearly not the intent behind the statute. Now, it’s poorly worded so that Donald can get away with it, and it’ll be entirely legit. But that doesn’t make his doing so right. He’s taking advantage of a loophole, and convinced his bloc to go along with it “for the greater good.” It’s an ends justify the means approach, and it’s wrong –… Read more »

Colonel Beauregard Sanders III
Member
Active Member
Colonel Beauregard Sanders III

What other purpose does the NEA have other than to declare an emergency when there truly is one and congress cannot or will not act? Seriously, WHAT other purpose is there for even declaring a national emergency??? The ONLY reason it’s needed at all is BECAUSE congress won’t get anything done. That’s WHY the darn thing exists in the first place!! So tell me again how this somehow goes beyond that intention…

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

There’s a very big and fundamental difference between “cannot” and “will not.” The NEA was obviously intended for the former, not the latter.

The latter is a statement of intent. They didn’t act because they CHOSE not to act. They weren’t prevented from it, they decided very clearly. They clearly disagree with the President about how to address the border (and that it’s an emergency). That’s their right as Congress; their entire purpose as a check against the Executive.

And let’s not forget, the American voters hired these people to do this. We could have gone with people who would follow Donald’s agenda, but we chose not to. This is the whole reason we split the branches up in the first place.

Colonel Beauregard Sanders III
Member
Active Member
Colonel Beauregard Sanders III

When it comes to voting for something only individuals can express any intent and the inability to agree on a resolution that can pass into law is indistinguishable from the subjective perception of a lack of will. The point is that congress not getting things done on something that constitutes a national emergency precipitates the use of the NEA. It’s the whole reason that act was passed in the first place.

The disagreement on whether this usage by Trump is legitimate centers primarily upon what is considered to be a national emergency. There is plenty of evidence that this can easily qualify as a national emergency and at the very least it certainly would qualify far MORE than many other national emergency declarations which are still ongoing.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

They’d argue they are getting something done – just not what you, me, and the President want.

They want fencing and concertina wire, not walls. They want to expand facilities for catch and release. They want to accept refugees, and provide amnesty for those who need it. They disagree that there’s an “emergency” down there. From our perception, that seems like “doing nothing” or “not getting things done.” From theirs, well, that’s how they’ve decided to handle the border. The President asked them for something different. They said no.

That does not an emergency create.

Colonel Beauregard Sanders III
Member
Active Member
Colonel Beauregard Sanders III

So from a tactical standpoint he’d have been better off declaring the emergency first and then going to congress for a more permanent solution, while his emergency declaration created more legitimacy and urgency for his request. Too bad that didn’t happen. I still don’t trust these people who seem to STILL have no problem with lingering Bush and Obama emergency declarations, while suddenly being all bothered by Trump’s. I think it reveals their desires to see unfettered mass illegal immigration continue more than it says anything about their concerns for the constitution.

MxnCheeseHead
Member
Active Member
MxnCheeseHead

If it was an emergency 90 days ago, which it was, then yes, it should have been declared. However, this is a political football that both sides want to use against each other, plus it would have been a non-partisan victory if it would have passed (budget).

I undertand ATs point of view, but I agree with the argument its better to get funds by passing a non-partisan budget than by declaring NEA is better. Better for the country and for getting future funding.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Oh absolutely. I brought this up the other day. The reason the NEA action is so tainted is because of its timing. That’s what makes it seem less about border security and more about Congress rebuffing him.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

The situation itself is an emergency. What Congress voted on is immaterial to that fact.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

No, but Congress gets input on how that emergency is handled (in fact, I’d even posit that they get to DECIDE how that emergency is handled, and take The President’s suggestions under advisement in order to make sure it’s something he’ll sign). The NEA is not “Emergency! The President now does whatever he wants.” And if it is, then that’s a statute that needs immediate fixing.

Congress didn’t like Donald’s idea. They knew they’d never reach consensus with him so long as he’s intractable on this wall. So, I suspect they are waiting for Donald to indicate what he’ll be willing to sign.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

I’d even posit that they get to DECIDE how that emergency is handled,

A legislative body is structurally unable to do any such thing in any meaningful timeframe.

It’s not their job to be the first responder. It’s their job to ckean up after and set up things to help prevent 5hat same emergency in the future.

“Whatever he wants”

That claim has been proven to be utter garbage.

Sorry for folks who don’t like contention between and among the three branches, but that’s how it was designed.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

A wall can’t be built in a meaningful timeframe. If Trump were declaring an emergency to put more personnel at the wall to intercept and deter border jumpers, and seize the guns, drugs, and bangers coming through, that’d be one thing. But he wants to build a wall. That’s a slow process. One that Congress has time to debate. Because a wall doesn’t respond to the emergency.

When the rats are in your kitchen, the first thing you do is deal with the rats. Deciding how to prevent the rats in the future – whether by traps, or poison, or putting 2x4s over all the holes in the baseboards – is something that can and should be debated.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

A wall can’t be built in a meaningful timeframe

It can be started in one, and it can (and already has) demonstrate results in one. Which means that the entirety is not the point of the emergency action, nearly as much as the actual emergency part is.

So yes, it can be built in a very meaningful timeframe, and it absolutely is a an emergency response that works.

Your rat analogy is ignoring too many factors to work. Trump already *did* step up enforcement. It’s why the immigration courts are jammed. He’s not one guy with a hammer. He’s got DHS and DOJ working quite hard to deal with the illegals who are here, while DHS gets the wall built.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

So more courts and more enforcement. Treat the arterial bleed first. Cure the cancer later.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

Congress “chooses” nothing.

They vote. You have proven exactly why a unicameral legislative body is a complete disaster. Some foolishly think those votes express a unified will. They do not. They cannot.

It’s exactly why the founders chose a separately elected Executive, and a bicameral legislature. Only a unitary executive can respond quickly to emergencies.

It’s *his* job, not theirs.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

They didn’t see fit to put that in the Constitution now, did they.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

put that in the Constitution

Logic and reason show how they *did* put it into the Constitution.

No branch is specifically charged with “emergency” power because the founders weren’t stupid. They used logic to vest powers such that only one branch can really recognize and respond to national states of emergency.

Congress is not created in such a way to do so.
The courts are even less able to do so.

The Executive is given the charge to defend the nation, and the control of law enforcement to do so.

It’s *his* bloody job.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

The Executive is given the charge to defend the nation, and the control of law enforcement to do so.

Pretty sure I didn’t see that one in there either.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

I didn’t see that one in there either.

Then you didn’t look very hard.

Try reading Article II. Especially the duties charged to the President.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

I’m looking. I see something about being CIC, pardons, Senate vacancies, treaties, nomination of public officers, being the chief diplomat…

How about you just spare me the guesswork.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

“How about you just spare me the guesswork.’

Seriously? Geez.

No ther branch is charged to see to the faithful exection of the law.

No other branch is charged with command of the militia, or the military.

No other branch is charged in specifc as the defender of the Constitution (although all federal officers are required, as members of the government in general, to take an oath to personally defend the Constitution).

These three things logically redound to national defense. It was the express, written intent of the Founders that the Executive be seen as the branch with the duty and powers of national defense.

Congress in 1976 had no trouble understanding this. It’s really sad to see how this current Congress must fumble around in the dark.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

If it were the “express written intent” they would have expressly written it intentionally. That’s a thing about statutory interpretation. If they put it there, it’s because they wanted it there. If they didn’t, it’s assumed they didn’t do so intentionally.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

“So tell me again how this somehow goes beyond that intention…”

It doesn’t.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

You keep pushing these unsupported declarations. They are still incorrect.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

What’s unsupported? It’s legal. He’s within the Constitution. It needs doing.

It’s an ends justify the means approach to the problem, the statute needs some tuning to avoid arbitrary emergency declarations, and Donald didn’t use it until he was rebuffed by Congress. Which is wrong.

There’s nothing unsupported about any of that.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

There’s nothing unsupported about any of that.

You have demonstrated you aren’t even aware of why the NEA was passed, or how the Founders viewed the structure and powers of the three branches, and why.

You just keep making sweeping statements that it’s all wrong.

Well sorry, that’s not how it works.

I mean, yeah, next time you go to vote, you can vote that way, if you like. But it’s not how anything else operates.

Make a case based on history, the founders own arguments, and the Constitution, and we’ll see what happens.

I’ve never seen anyone make a case that Congress is structurally able to do anything at all that is within the timeframe of “urgent”, let alone “emergency.” It’s a silly concept. And that’s without even looking into human nature and politics.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

You have demonstrated you aren’t even aware of why the NEA was passed, or how the Founders viewed the structure and powers of the three branches, and why.

I’m guessing it wasn’t for situations in which a problem is recognized and Congress didn’t support the President’s solution for it.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

For one, it was passed in full recognition of the inherent emergency powers of the Executive.

So you guessed wrong.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

I don’t see how that addresses my point. Those powers are not unlimited.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

“Those powers are not unlimited.”

At the time, they were only limited by the Constitution. The NEA tacked on a few more limits. But the point is, the Congress expressly recognized in 1976 that the emergency power was held by the President.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

And again, I’m willing to bet that Congress didn’t recognize “Congress not legitimizing the President’s plan to address an emergency” as an emergency situation in and of itself.

Susitna
Member
Trusted Member
Susitna

AT: Didn’t you hear what Barr said? He perfectly explained that the law was designed exactly for the purpose that President Trump used it for. If Congress doesn’t recognize that there is an emergency the President cannot just wait and see. If Congress is not right, the President has to act. I mean we can go back and forward on this but Trump’s duty is to protect us. There is actually a war at the border and if this is not an emergency I don’t know what it is. Furthermore, why exactly now everyone is worried about the President’s power. Obama had 13 NEAs and all other Presidents a whole collection of those. The duty of all Republicans would have been to support the President, but some are also involved in the multi-billion market of drugs etc. or worried about being elected again. It is never about the People and… Read more »

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

If Congress doesn’t recognize that there is an emergency the President cannot just wait and see. I don’t think it’s necessarily a matter of Congress not recognizing the problem, so much as it is them not liking Trump’s solution. For the life of me, I don’t know why Trump doesn’t offer alternative solutions that he can sell to them. (Well, actually I do – but let’s not derail this with that.) If Congress is not right, the President has to act. That’s like saying if the cops won’t stop my neighbor from beating his wife, then I have to go over there and tune him up. Yea, I probably do have to act. But I’m still stepping outside my lines by doing so. I mean we can go back and forward on this but Trump’s duty is to protect us. It’s really not. That’s loosely suggested by Article I for… Read more »

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

“Trump’s duty to protect us.”

His duty is to protect and defend the United States. Not “us.”

There is a difference.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Again, not seeing that in the Constitution. But give me a second to scroll down and see if you cited A2 on that one.

Susitna
Member
Trusted Member
Susitna

Here we go. Mr. K-Bob shows up.
There is a difference? Wow! Brilliant comment!
We The People are not within the United States.
How could I forget that?
You know exactly what I meant, but you always want to play with definitions. This makes you feel above everyone I guess…… Good for you!

AT knows his stuff but never makes me feel bad.
There is a difference.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

You’re mad, and I’m a bad person.

Fine.

But if you want to understand the way the Constitution works, you need to make important distinctions. Scoffing at them limits your thinking.

Susitna
Member
Trusted Member
Susitna

To K-Bob: I am not mad but tired and you know why. And you are not a bad person but it would be more productive to stop memorizing paragraphs and instead listen to what people here are really saying. Actually, you didn’t even answer my comment but you referred me again to the Constitution. This makes you always feel strong. Be more humble and come down to the floor of We The People. We are not here to show off our knowledge but to think and learn together.
Scoffing my words limits your logical thinking.
This happens a lot to people that can only memorize stuff.
Avoid addressing me anytime soon.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

AvatarSusitna
All I’ve gotten from you are personally-directed complaints.
You aren’t even bothering with the topic.

Susitna
Member
Trusted Member
Susitna

AT: Thank you for explaining to me all this matter and I understand what you mean, what you know and where you are coming from. Nevertheless, the whole thing has become so complicated that Trump has to act now. He cannot be waiting for every politician to be happy because he/she got something while the situation at the border is deteriorating on a daily basis. There is something called priorities and sometimes those force us to make quick decisions. I really appreciate and admire all your explanations and knowledge but try to understand that there is a moment for everything. We have now an emergency, people are dying and we are discussing here stuff in the worst moment.
This is my simple opinion and I can assure you that there are many that just want simple solutions to huge problems.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

That’s fair. My only real response is to point out that huge problems rarely have simple solutions, and that simple solutions have a tendency to cut corners.

Sometimes that’s necessary. I don’t dispute that. But rarely is it right. And we should avoid those “ends justify the means” type solutions whenever we can.

Susitna
Member
Trusted Member
Susitna

AT: Yes, I am also against the practice “ends justify the means”. When I talk about simple solutions, I actually mean logical solutions. These kind of solutions are sometimes just in front of us but we get stuck in complexity. Knowledge is good, but the right application is even better. The right timing cannot be disregarded as well and Trump is the master of timing.
I am glad that I always learn something from you and I thank you for your patience.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

They want open borders.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

The law was intended to limit the emergency powers vested in the Executive. It did not grant that power.

And solving a border crisis is exactly an emergency that falls to the President. The NEA provides tools of law he can use. But the NEA is not the final arbiter of emergencies.

So Trump is using inherent emergency powers, but is choosing to limit his actions in accord with existing law.

So it is exacty the correct use of the law.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

What granted it then?

And solving a border crisis is exactly an emergency that falls to the President. The NEA provides tools of law he can use.

Indeed. I’m not saying he can’t use the NEA. Congress made a weak law. He’s exploiting that weakness in order to push a specific course of action, in response to an emergency, that Congress won’t support him on. That was obviously not the intent of the NEA, and it therefore requires remedy.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

That was obviously not the intent of the NEA

The intent was to limit states of emergency.

We’re in one. The President is acting to address it. That’s not Congress’ job. It’s his.

They can do their job and come along to help make necessary law to address the problem, or they can challenge him by voting to over-rule the declaration.

*That’s* what the law is for.

But that law may unconstitutionally limit the Executive branch. Especially if Lee’s changes get added.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

It should limit it. I cannot imagine a single Founder that would have wanted the Executive acting with impunity any time he arbitrarily used the word “emergency.” Now, I agree, in this case there IS an emergency. And I agree that the use of the NEA is legal. But we’re not talking about simply responding to the emergency, we’re talking about responding to it in a very specific way that Congress has very clearly said they’re not OK with. Not because they don’t have time to debate the point in order to address the emergency, but because they already have and said no. A wall isn’t the only solution to this emergency. And Donald could very easily act in a way that addresses the emergency but still respects the decision they’ve already debated and refused. And if I were President, I’d close the borders as much as possible and station… Read more »

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

“acting with impunity”

Back to that disproven claim.

Congress voted. The Executive has a voice and powers, too. Congress isn’t the last word. It will rarely be the first.

Congress simply proved it is unable to deal with an emergency.
They are not the ones empowered to do so.

This irrational fear of dictatorial powers only seems to bother people when it’s due to open borders. When they took over scools and healthcare, no one cried “dictator!” Because it wasn’t the President.

So Congress has demonstrated far more need to be reigned in.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

This irrational fear of dictatorial powers only seems to bother people when it’s due to open borders. When they took over scools and healthcare, no one cried “dictator!”

Well, in fairness, I did. I’ve long been of the position that Congress abuses the f*** out of their “common defense and general welfare” and “necessary and proper” clauses.

(That said, one thing I think they really under-utilize is their ability to issue letters of marque and reprisal. :D)

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

Useless, how about fixing our borders and resigning in the judges overstepping their authority as well?

Hidyho
Member
Noble Member
Hidyho

NOW they’re wanting to make changes???? What, were they taking their mid-day naps when Obama tore thru the WH pen supply?

bob434
Member
Active Member
bob434

I think they want to prevent democrats from declaring emergencies for things like ‘climate change’ and to instate ‘2n’d amendment restrictions’ and even to instate first amendment restrictions- but maybe I’m misreading their intentions-

Hidyho
Member
Noble Member
Hidyho

Avatarbob434 I guess time will tell!

Teri Smith
Member
Trusted Member
Teri Smith

Well, better now than never. I agree with you about the napping when Obama tore through the WH pen supply. But if we don’t get the powers of the 3 branches back in line now, we’ll be in for more tough times if another democrat gets back in. We were meant to be a Constitutional Republic, but we have strayed from the Constitution.

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

Did they do this when Obama declared his 13 national emergencies?

Scope formerly pinecone
Member
Trusted Member
Scope formerly pinecone

WatchmanWatchman – Nope, not a peep from any one of them. The R’s never fought against anything Obama did.

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

With Republicans like that, who needs Democrats.

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

The Democrats won’t go along with this. They want the president to have more power, especially when one of theirs is in the WH.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

sjmomsjmom Why? He (or she) could just write EOs like 0 did. The Gutless Old Pansies have a track record of folding like an umbrella factory.

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

Unfortunately, that’s true and exactly what they’d do. This is one of the reasons I railed against those who voted against Trump. A Dem won’t care about the Constitution or the rule of law. Past experience should’ve told the “high and mighty”.

Scope formerly pinecone
Member
Trusted Member
Scope formerly pinecone

sjmomsjmom – Agree. I thought Pelosi already made that clear when the resolution, passed for just this one declaration, was being debated, she said she would not go along with reigning in presidential powers. Of course it is for the reason you stated, she doesn’t want to reign in any future D president.

stillwater66
Member
Member
stillwater66

Traitorous, gutless, back stabbing, and cowardly, are the words that best describe the Republican Party. Where was the outrage, and condemnation when Obama was playing fast and loose? Nothing but crickets. The American People voted into office a fighter, a true American Patriot, a President that actually serves the American People. Yet, we have a Republican Party that does NOT back our President, and further more will side with the Democrat Socialist Left, to impede, or outright block every attempt this President takes to accomplish all he promised the People, he would do. I blame Paul ” the Lemur ” Ryan, Mitch ” turtle head “McConnell, ” little Marco ” Rubio, the God complexed Rand Paul, back stabber Mike Lee, pure RINO Susan Collins, along with her sister Lisa Murkowski, pompous ass Mitt Romney, RINO ROB Portman, Toomey, Wicker, Blount, TRAITOR THOM TILLIS, Moran or moron, I can`t remember, and… Read more »

trytothink
Member
Trusted Member
trytothink

Although I was in favor of the national emergency declaration by Trump, I’m also in favor of Congress acting to permanently pull that authority back from the executive with Lee’s legislative proposal.

It’s a shame that Democrats will only go along with taking these kinds of steps when a Republican is the President… but whatever. Get it done even though Democrats suck.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

Since the emergency powers are vested by default in the Executive branch, Congress has no claim to “pull them back.”

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

How dare Tromp go around them to protect the borders when they refuse to! The gall of that man! exclamation exclamation exclamation exclamation

SheerPolitics
Member
Trusted Member
SheerPolitics

Reviewing past national emergency declarations, it seems we don’t mind sticking our noses in other countries, but the minute Trump wants to protect the US, suddenly everyone wants to put a stop to it. Most of these “national emergencies” have nothing to do with us directly, but are sanctions against other countries.

It’s interesting that the first one after 1976 by Carter: Blocking Iranian Government Property ordered the freezing Iranian assets as part of the U.S. response during the Iran hostage crisis is still in effect, but Obama was able to ship millions of dollars over to Iran.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

@Sheer Don’t worry, that was Canadian money. Our dear, former president wouldn’t have done something illegal, like send them our money.

Blacula
Member
Member
Blacula

When is Trump going to start building the national emergency border wall? There should be a few miles built by now. Trump needs to quit TWEETING and get MOVING!

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

If you’re paying attention, the wall has been under repair, improved and extended all along.

Blacula
Member
Member
Blacula

That is repair and new fencing from previous spending bills. That’s not the same as the national emergency border wall which should be using the military to build the wall.

Texas Chris
Member
Trusted Member
Texas Chris

LIES!

If that were true the media would have told us… hmm

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

Oh, yes. How silly of me to think otherwise.

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

Some wall has been built and other parts of it repaired and restored.

DemocratsRFubar
Member
Noble Member
DemocratsRFubar

BlaculaBlacula

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and the Romans didn’t have to abide by EPA, and the rest of the A-Z index of other gooberment agencies that have enough regulations to choke a horse.

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

This is the government we’re talking about, speed and efficiency is not something they are known for.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

You need to set your time machine to “today”. It’s not 2016 anymore.

AOC looks like she smells
Member
Member
AOC looks like she smells

If what comes out of this is a border wall AND a curtailment of the runaway executive branch in the future, I’m all in.

But, Congress can start with the massive bloated Federal departments who write law every day in the form of policies and procedures. These unelected, civil service protected, faceless government ciphers present a far greater existential threat in my opinion.

willtapp
Member
Active Member
willtapp

While I do think the act is to broad, I find it interesting that Portman, with all the news on the increase of illegals and drugs at our border being at record highs, says it’s not being used for a “legitimate emergency”.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

It’s truly telling when RINOs are pushing for amending the National Emergency legislation when it’s being used to protect US sovereignty… where were these RINOs when Obama gave Iran $150 billion in cash? Or when he circumvented immigration law by granting Amnesty via DACA?

willtapp
Member
Active Member
willtapp

Ciceroni ExcogitatorisCiceroni Excogitatoris , sucking up to their donors the Kochs and COC.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

You’re 100% correct, W.

Blackbeard
Member
Member
Blackbeard

Where were these RINOs when Obama gave Iran $150 billion in doubloons?

They were busy makin’ mateys wit’ all th’ homos who feel thar rights are bein’ trampled upon. Th’ RINOS understand that thar be naught worse than a scorned nancy.

Sean
Member
Member
Sean

Good. The Republicans completely missed out on the opportunity of a lifetime to pass everything under the sun while the media was obsessed with Trump playing the role of distraction. So, why not use the Democrat’s own hatred against them in making sure the powers they gave Obama and the Presidency are curtailed so as not to be used against us again in the future? I don’t want President Beto or Harris or Sanders using this legal loophole National Emergency to limit gun ownership or cram green deals down our throats.

SheerPolitics
Member
Trusted Member
SheerPolitics

FYI, Carter’s first NE was to freeze the assets of Iran, which is still in effect. Yet Obama was able to ship millions in cash over to Iran. So don’t count on any change in the NE law to be anything but to stop Trump.

Back to Top of Comments