“This was a difficult vote” — Ted Cruz releases statement on his vote FOR Trump’s National Emergency

Ted Cruz has released an official statement explaining why he voted for Trump’s national emergency declaration today in the Senate.

You can read his full statement below:

“Today, the National Emergencies Act required the Senate to answer one question: whether there is an ongoing emergency at our southern border. I voted to support the President’s declaration because, as Texans realize all too well, there is one.

“This was a difficult vote. I understand my colleagues’ real concerns regarding the vast emergency powers that Congress has given the President over the last half-century. I share those concerns.

“The press will spin today’s vote as a rejection of border security, as opposition to a wall, and as a rejection of President Trump’s commitment to building the wall. All of that is false.

“Here’s what I believe: Number one, we have crisis on our border. A heartbreaking emergency, which I’ve seen first-hand in Texas, over and over again. Countless human lives hurt or lost by drug traffickers, human traffickers, and unchecked illegal immigration. For example: In 2018, Customs and Border Protection apprehended 396,579 people at our border. In the first 4 months of 2019, CBP has caught another 201,497. If that rate continues, we’ll apprehend over 600,000 people in 2019. These hundreds of thousands include a record-high number of families, including over 1,700 identified cases of an adult lying about a relationship to a child in order to get into our country. Each of those children are at serious risk of sexual assault or physical abuse – nobody compassionate should want even a single boy or girl in the custody of human traffickers. Between 2012 and 2018, border authorities seized over 7,300 tons—almost 14,700,000 pounds—of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. Of these, fentanyl seizures alone increased by almost 400% from 2016 to 2018. And in just 2014 to 2018, Border Patrol agents captured 1,630 members of MS-13 alone. That’s one member of MS-13 almost every day. This is a crisis and a tragedy, and we must fix it.



Number two, we need to build a wall. From the first day I ran for Senate, I’ve fought to build a wall. I urged the President and the Senate to take up budget reconciliation and fully fund the wall last year—when we still had majorities in both houses of Congress. I’ve introduced the EL CHAPO Act to build the wall, and pay for it using the billions criminally forfeited from El Chapo and other drug dealers.

Number three, the Constitution matters. Profoundly. My whole life, I’ve fought for the Constitution. The Constitution protects our fundamental liberties, and every President should be bound by it, whether Republican or Democrat. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I made that promise to the People of Texas. When President Obama violated the Constitution through executive amnesty, I led the fight against that lawless action. Unlike President Obama, here President Trump is acting pursuant to explicit statutory authority. The National Emergencies Act gives the President the authority to activate more than a hundred distinct emergency powers, including those he is exercising here. That statute is, I believe, over-broad. It invites abuse.

“Indeed, it is easy to imagine a future Democratic president using this statute to try to implement a radical, far-left agenda over the will of Congress and the American people. A President Warren could declare climate change a national emergency and try to suspend offshore drilling. A President Sanders could declare a national emergency in the Middle East and try to freeze the bank accounts of Americans who do business with Israel. And a President Sanders, or Warren, or some other avowed socialist, could try to reallocate billions of dollars, without the consent of Congress, to advance their socialist policies to address those and other so-called emergencies. That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee’s ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. This bill would end any new national emergency if Congress does not approve it within 30 days. Combined with a thorough review of ongoing emergencies, this proposal would reduce the danger of an abuse of national emergency powers by any of the dozens of far-left candidates seeking the Democratic nomination.

“And I am grateful that the President announced today—at the urging of many of us—that he will support our efforts to reform this law, and guard against potential abuse by a lawless future president, Democrat or Republican.

“Yet while I support reforming the National Emergencies Act, that wasn’t what the Senate voted on today. Current law empowers the President to declare a national emergency and activate statutory emergency powers when he determines there is one, and Congress can then vote to determine whether or not an emergency exists. And make no mistake: an emergency absolutely exists on the border, and it is a national and humanitarian disaster.

“We cannot end this emergency without securing our southern border, and we cannot secure our border without building a wall.

“I support the President’s efforts to build the wall and secure our border. And I will continue to work with the President and my colleagues in Congress to reform our national emergency system and protect Congress’s Article I authority.

“But today’s question was whether there was an emergency at our southern border. There is, and I voted to recognize that tragic fact.”

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.

106
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
30 Comment threads
76 Thread replies
34 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
newest oldest most voted
Bluebottle
Member
Bluebottle

It’s disgusting to read everyone praising Cruz for turning his back on the Constitution when it suits him.

Face it, if any Democrat did this Cruz would be performing his “Monarchy” routine.

Cruz is a weak-kneed hypocrite.

I’ll never trust or respect him again.

Kenoshamarge
Member
Trusted Member
Kenoshamarge

I believe Cruz did the right thing. And I believe he did it because of the one thing he kept saying – is there a crisis or not? As a Texan he knows that there is. Illegals are a crisis and I’m sad that Mike Lee didn’t see that.

As for Rubio – who knows that he sees. It changes on a daily basis. I’ve had no use for him since the Gang of Eight.

The rest of them are never to be counted on for people on the right. Red Senators in Blue states are seldom worth spit.

As for Murkowski? Who knows what Alaska is these days. Certainly not Red or they would never have voted for her.

CalvinCool
Member
Member
CalvinCool

Where’s that idiot always trashing Ted Cruz who was screaming about how he’s owned by the Koch brothers? Oh yea, silent. Because he was proven wrong. Again I stress, he’s not infallible, but on the important votes, Ted always stands with Texans and Americans, not special interests. And if he was bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and the COC, he would have never opposed illegal immigration to begin with.

H2O
Member
Member
H2O

Good for you Ted!!!!!!!! Your statement is the exact reason I supported you in the primaries in 2016. Your statement also sums up why I am upset with the 12 other “Republicans” that voted against the measure. The Emergency Border Wall measure itself is LAWFUL. The true fight should be for reforming the ability to declare emergencies in the future…..which DJT has already agreed to. Trump’s veto had better not be over-ruled. I am tired of the legal double standards that Trump is held to versus Obama the wicked.

Talitha
Member
Active Member
Talitha

It’s not a difficult vote for a senator from Trump country.

CalvinCool
Member
Member
CalvinCool

You are aware that Mike Lee and Rand Paul are from states that vote even more unanimously for Republicans and even they flubbed this vote, right? Credit needs to be given where credit is due. Glad to see my Senator did the right thing.

Talitha
Member
Active Member
Talitha

There are Republicans who are not for Trump. But I’ve been saying loud and long that Ted’s about face is because he’s Texan and — except for liberal pockets — Texas is Trump country. Some of my friends on Twitter were so amazed he voted that way. Not when you think of Texas.

Teri Smith
Member
Active Member
Teri Smith

This is pretty much why I love my Senator.

sam
Member
Active Member
sam

““The press will spin today’s vote as a rejection of border security, as opposition to a wall, and as a rejection of President Trump’s commitment to building the wall. All of that is false.”

And many on our side will be right there with the press.

“That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee’s ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. This bill would end any new national emergency if Congress does not approve it within 30 days.”

Thank you Senator Cruz. Rational, well thought out reasoning, as always.

eibra19
Member
eibra19

I do not like Ted Cruz, but he did the right thing. The 12 that didn’t should be ashamed of themselves. What is it going to take to give President Trump the respect he deserves? I didn’t know people could hate so bad, where in the Hell have I been. Blunt will be the next one to go in Missouri, he is a shyster and needs to go, never did anything to help Missouri – EVER! Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul are frustrated wanna-bee POTUS candidates – easy enough to understand why these POS’s betrayed Trump.

sam
Member
Active Member
sam

Avatareibra19
Here we go with the BS hate stuff again. Hey bud, get your 2nd post in quick, then take your meds.

eibra19
Member
eibra19

Stuff it Sam! You had your say, get over it~ a/h!

sam
Member
Active Member
sam

Avatareibra19
So, wasted your 3rd comment on me. Proves how dumb you are.

eibra19
Member
eibra19

You need to examine yourself Sam, if I’m so dumb, why do you even bother to make a comment that goes into thin air? It only proves how stupid and dumb you are!!!!!! Oh, by the way, you are a POS!

sam
Member
Active Member
sam

Avatareibra19
Whatever. Lol

pybop
Member
Active Member
pybop

It is pathetic that your first ever comment was anti-Cruz

eibra19
Member
eibra19

So, pybop, it’s still America I don’t like Cruz, apparently you haven’t done your research. I’m not preventing you from liking him, am I? It’s pathetic that you feel you have to control a persons comments.

humansrus
Member
Member
humansrus

I like Ted Cruz and always have. He was my first choice in 2016 and Trump was my second. I think the right man for the job won the election. Your post is fine with me. Sorry you were attacked for no real reason. It’s happened to me several times on this site.

eibra19
Member
eibra19

Thanks, humansrus, I’m a thoroughbred conservative and you would be surprised at the information I researched on more than Ted Cruz, but how can a politician not have negative information on them? They work in a criminal environment the is conducive to their behavior. I can handle the attacks, but it always helps to get support. Thanks again.

FrPaul
Member
Active Member
FrPaul

Our man, Ted Cruz!

DaYooper
Member
Active Member
DaYooper

Ted Cruz laid down the PERFECT explanation why he voted against the proposition. I am acutely disappointed with Mike Lee (among others). Ted’s vote was a reasoned, well thought out conclusion. One hopes for a consensus to formulate a “tightening-up” of the National Emergency Statute for anticipated future mischief of future Chief Executives. But for now, one step at a time. And Ted Cruz did well.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Active Member
Finrod Felagund

It’s a rare day that I won’t stand with Ted– and this is not one of those days.

Well said, Senator Cruz.

New West
Member
Active Member
New West

Agree! Too bad Mike decided to do this first instead of trying to change the law first. Unfortunately the Loons won’t go for it cause they really like it and will no matter what is tried, will use it…They are completely lawless and unfortunately Mike Lee has disappointed a lot of people….

Scope formerly pinecone
Member
Active Member
Scope formerly pinecone

Perfect tone. Perfect understanding of the facts. Perfect last paragraph.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

My final point on this was not directly addressed by Cruz, but it bears mention. Every single argument I’ve seen on the notion that we have an emergency has been based on a listing of facts about metrics on border-crossing related crimes and generated problems. But the harder to document aspect of this crisis is the ongoing and exponentially-increasing strain on state infrastructure, and the concomitant strain on the American polity that comes from a complete lack of assimilation, thanks to the double-impact of a mounting illegal alien population, and from the importation of refugees, who never seem to be returned after the threat to their life is reduced. These costs are mostly incalculable, but obvious. The strain on healthcare alone is massive, and limits medical response time to citizens, while continually multiplying the cost. This structural aspect didn’t become an emergency by looking at year-over-year stats on border crossings.… Read more »

FrPaul
Member
Active Member
FrPaul

Very well said, Sir.

You have been doing a great job with these last few posts that I have seen from you…

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

Thanks!

Teri Smith
Member
Active Member
Teri Smith

You are so right about the health care! I used to live down at the border and since the illegals did not have any health care they would turn up at the emergency room for the slightest thing–even a common cold. Since the emergency room was not allowed to turn them away, after they saw a doctor, they could simply explain that they couldn’t pay and there was no coordination with the immigration so they got off without paying a dime. So the hospital, of course, had to charge the paying citizens even more. People could simply float across the Rio Grande on a tube and mingle right in. Free schools, free healthcare, and much more. Taxpayers and real citizens footed the bill.

Tracy
Member
Trusted Member
Tracy

Voting against the resolution is a vote supporting Trump’s EO

msliberty
Member
Noble Member
msliberty

That’s what I thought. I saw his name on the list with Lee earlier today.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

And by the way, I stated below that the law (by which I mean the National Emergencies Act) is not likely to be tested in court.

I think any court challenge to Trump’s Emergency declaration will likely focus more on things not in the law, such as the border barrier itself, or his appropriations choices, or his use of eminent domain.

To invite court review of the National Emergencies Act could result in an even more powerful, unchecked executive. As I wrote below:

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.

So people need to tread carefully on the idea of a court challenge.

Tracy
Member
Trusted Member
Tracy

Lawsuits are already flying, the judiciary is the best friend of open border supporters

57Matty
Member
Active Member
57Matty

Say, what ever happened to Francis?

AFVet4America
Member
Trusted Member
AFVet4America

57Matty57Matty I wonder, I haven’t seen her here for the longest time.

Proud Nana
Member
Noble Member
Proud Nana

57Matty57Matty I saw her here about a week ago.

ruthiedoggiemom
Member
Active Member
ruthiedoggiemom

I did too and her Cruz fawning got several down votes ” If Ted were president now …..” I don’t even remember the context not that it matters haven’t seen her since, I’m not crying.

Scope formerly pinecone
Member
Active Member
Scope formerly pinecone

Anyone else notice that Finrod Felagund has a habit of downvoting every comment he doesn’t agree with, without bothering to debate his position, or say why he doesn’t agree? grin

57Matty
Member
Active Member
57Matty

I hadn’t noticed. He doesn’t do that to me… wink

I wouldn’t use a down vote on simple disagreements. But I don’t pay much attention at all to votes now with the new system.

Lillie Belle
Member
Member
Lillie Belle

She has been here since the format change!

Chow Yun Fatty
Member
Active Member
Chow Yun Fatty

Simple fact. If the constant flow of illegals is not stopped, it will at some time in the future, lead to a permanent democratic party controlled nation. California, New York, Washington State, Oregon, New Jersey, Colorado, among others are now permanently in the dems pockets. Republicans will never win these states again in a presidential election. Arizona and Nevada are looking worse and worse every year. Florida is in the danger zone. Only thing keeping it afloat for republicans are retirees.

Republicans will never win over these people because the dems will always be willing to give them more. We give them legal status, dems give them citizenship , we give them a job, dems give them welfare. You can’t compete with that.

AFVet4America
Member
Trusted Member
AFVet4America

Chow Yun FattyChow Yun Fatty They already want illegals to have the right to vote.

Chow Yun Fatty
Member
Active Member
Chow Yun Fatty

I know. Which makes the stakes even higher. They also want idiots like David Hogg to be able to vote at 16. Also take into consideration the birthrates of illegals here already exceeding those of citizen’s.
What Trump is doing is legal and constitutional. Funny how many people who are raging about this never said anything about the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It trampled the constitution, yet all we ever hear is how awesome Regan was. I like Regan and feel so far he was the best President in my lifetime. But for somebody who talked about how evil big government is, he sure was fine with letting them out gun us.

DaYooper
Member
Active Member
DaYooper

16 year-old voting? Hell they can’t even change a flat tire!

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

So to follow up, Congress has a chance, under the Emergency Powers Act, to try to terminate the President’s lawful exercise of emergency power under that same law.

I don’t see anyone claiming otherwise.

But under that law, the argument is over whether such emergency does exist. Before Trump was elected, most Democrats agreed that the porous border was a crisis. Now, even though it has gotten worse by every measure, they are foot-dragging, with the only possible purpose being to harm the President’s re-election. (That’s inductive reasoning, not just a spurious claim.)

Even so, there is nothing wrong with a real argument over the crisis.

But it’s time to end the claims about the Emergency declaration being illegal or unconstitutional.

AFVet4America
Member
Trusted Member
AFVet4America

AvatarK-Bob Yes it is time to end that argument. Though Sen Cruz doesn’t say it’s illegal or unconstitutional, others may be saying it. Sen Cruz is worried about future abuse of the law.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

Yeah, I left that up to Cruz.

But honestly, all kinds of constitutional provisions and also laws on the books are ripe for abuse. The reason they are not–to whatever degree they are not–is because of the three most important powers vested in the people (the vote, the First Amendment, and to ensure they remain with the people, the Second Amendment).

It’s sad to see a critical component of national sovereignty being treated like a political football over “concerns” like this.

There will always be “concerns.”

But in this case, they are well restricted by a law that is not likely to be tested in court (which is a good thing, because emergency power is vested in the Executive, law or no law).

AFVet4America
Member
Trusted Member
AFVet4America

AvatarK-Bob Yup, now was not the time for the argument Sen Lee was making. Well it may have been the time to address it with the POTUS but not the time to vote with the other side.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

Why not? Even if he’d gone the way you wanted we’d still be looking at a veto. So what does it matter? Trump gets his emergency AND Lee gets to point out the failings of the NEA. It’s win/win.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

“Lee gets to point out the failings of the NEA”

No one has pointed out any problem with the existing law, other than sweeping, ahistorical arguments boiling down to, “It exists, which is a mistake.”

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

I have. Like I said below, if I could go back in time, I’d plug its one major major flaw before it could be wrongfully – legally, but wrongfully – used this way.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

“I’d plug its one major major flaw “

Unless I missed it, you didn’t specify the language that embodies this purported flaw.

But as to “wrongly,” no. Trump’s use of it is correct, necessary, and unlike nearly any other such emergencies, his solution is extremely limited, both in scope and in terms of cost.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

It’s the lack of language to cover this scenario that’s the problem. Wrongfully using it to circumvent Congress because he couldn’t convince them to support his method of dealing with the border crisis may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right.

Think of it like me intentionally going down a dark alley wearing jewelry to attract thieves so that they come for me. At which point I get to self-defend and kill them. Legal? Yes. Necessary? Yes. They were trying to kill me. Good? Sure. I took murderous thieves off the street. But Ethical? No, because I instigated that attack with the intent of killing them.

Doing something good, something necessary, something beneficial to society, something entirely legal doesn’t necessarily mean what you’re doing is right. This is something Donald, and a lot of his supporters, really REALLY fail to understand.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

He isn’t “wrongly” doing anything. And your, “He was askin’ for it,” entrapment scenario must apply to some other thread somewhere, because it sure doesn’t apply here. You just keep saying he’s wrong. Your arguments tend to be circular, ending back with, he’s just wrong. He’s doing exactly what he should be doing. And he’s doing it in accord with the Constitution, his duties under the Constitution, the law, and in application of reasonable measures. There’s nothing inherently “wrong” about a border barrier. There’s nothing inherently wrong about taking an action Congress is unable to do, even though it *could* do so. There’s nothing inherently wrong with reallocating funds already earmarked for defense. There’s nothing inherently wrong with taking an action that the other branches simply fail to recognize is critical to the defense of the US. You can disagree with his decision. But that doesn’t make his actions and… Read more »

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

If he were doing it right, he’d be happily signing a bill that Congress was happy to send him. Instead, he demanded a bill from Congress and then failed to convince them why they should send it to him. So rather than go back to the drawing board, he found a poorly written law that allows him a loophole to get around them. Think that’s what the Founders intended?

He’s not doing it right. He’s doing it technically legal. There’s a difference. But if that’s good enough for you, fine. It’s not good enough for me. Ends AND Means are equally important.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

But under that law, the argument is over whether such emergency does exist.

I could argue it. Make a pretty good case for it too, I think. But you and I have had this conversation before.

And I agree that it’s time to end the claims about the declaration being illegal/unconstitutional. But I would argue that it’s made under false pretenses. Whether or not that changes anything legally aside, the crisis at the border – which has been status quo for years – is suddenly being trotted out to cry emergency, when the emergency (based on the time and circumstances in which they declared it) shows that the emergency they’re really concerned about is with re-election.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

There’s nothing “sudden” about it. Not in any way.

That is a bit of sophistry that the open borders/anti-Trump folks think will work as an argument, simply because we’ve finally arrived at the point where the declaration became necessary. It ignores virtually all of human history, and more specifically the well-documented, and “still fresh in the memory of those alive,” history of the border crisis since Eisenhower.

When the phase change occurs between problem and emergency neither defines the current status nor refutes it.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

I know. My point wasn’t that the timing of the declaration negates the fact that an emergency actually exists (and has for some time), rather it highly suggests that the Administration didn’t care enough about it to declare one until they failed to get their way.

Which means that the emergency, in their minds, isn’t the border – it’s their failures.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

That’s a moral equivalence argument in the form of, the old comedy trope, “See, it’s so stupid no one will ever suspect it’s us!”

Taurnil
Member
Active Member
Taurnil

Sounds like how Democrats behave.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

Perhaps. I just see a major difference between:

“For years prior to my election, Congress has failed to act. Therefore, to deal with this crisis I am invoking my powers to declare a national emergency…”

and

“I have asked Congress to act and they refused me. Therefore, in response I am invoking my powers to declare a national emergency…”

The former deals with the crisis. The latter deals with a man being refused something.

Tracy
Member
Trusted Member
Tracy

They both deal with the crisis.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

No. The latter deals with a man being refused something, in which dealing with the crisis is an incidental benefit.

The reason that distinction is important is because of the ethics of the act. If you say “We get what we want either way, so who cares” you’re neglecting a very important aspect of it that separates the moral from the immoral.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

“The latter deals with a man being refused something.”

Only if you completely strip away all of the other more vastly important aspects of the issue and his plan.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

They’re irrelevant. Congress didn’t like his plan. Period.

The response from the President should be, “OK I’ll come up with one you do like.” Instead he’s going with “F*** you I’m going to do what I want.”

Which is the Barack approach to Presidenting, I might add.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

Irrelevant, my a$$. Way to characterize the deaths, rapes, and other human disaster aspects of this crisis.

“Congress didn’t like his plan. Period.”

Congress doesn’t “like” anything. They vote, same as the voters do, only they vote for things for vastly different reasons.

And I’ve shown several times why the claim that a President can’t just “do what he wants” is BS. Obama got away with a few unconstitutional things because the courts and the media had his back. But he was deterred by the courts in several other areas, and the Republicans prevented him from doing some things.

Trump followed the law, he also took into consideration all of the many political concerns necessary to take his actions. That’s not even close to what Obama did with DACA. Obama just decided to leave it to the courts and did it anyway, overturning long-standing policy.

Trump isn’t overturning anything.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

Way to characterize the deaths, rapes, and other human disaster aspects of this crisis.

I’ll double-down on it with a “Meh.” You should know by now that pandering to that crap is a non-starter. I don’t chuck principle out the window because oh the humanity.

Congress doesn’t “like” anything. They vote, same as the voters do, only they vote for things for vastly different reasons.

Then maybe Donald should give them some reasons to vote in a way that helps his goals.

Trump followed the law, he also took into consideration all of the many political concerns necessary to take his actions.

Trump followed his agenda, taking advantage of an intentional misreading of a statute to get what he wants and call it technically legal.

He’s just like Barack. He’s not a uniter. He’s a “middle finger in your face if you don’t like it.”

Tracy
Member
Trusted Member
Tracy

Good response.

Taurnil
Member
Active Member
Taurnil

I saw nothing difficult about it.

AFVet4America
Member
Trusted Member
AFVet4America

The difficult part was he shares his colleagues concerns about the future, and couldn’t join them because that was not the question at hand to be voting on. So he voted for it because we do have a National emergency at our border in more ways than one.

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

Glad Ted voted with the president and happy to see he’s working on changing the law. Does anyone doubt even though the Dems complained about this national emergency they won’t vote with Ted to change the law?

Hidyho
Member
Noble Member
Hidyho

sjmomsjmom Twisted, isn’t it? Dems long ago quit w/ the ‘reasoning’ skills. It’s all about the hate now, sadly. unamused

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

HidyhoHidyho The Dems are “twisted” people.

FrPaul
Member
Active Member
FrPaul

Ohhh, so true!

AFVet4America
Member
Trusted Member
AFVet4America

I think his only difficulty was not being able to join Sen Lee , but his last statement is the correct one. “But today’s question was whether there was an emergency at our southern border. There is, and I voted to recognize that tragic fact.”

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

Good job, Ted. Cruz was spot on, except for one small point, which is *still* being neglected in this debate. I just posted this in another thread on this vote, but it applies even more to this powerful argument made by Sen. Cruz… =========== I haven’t heard a single pundit or commenter ask why Congress bothered to pass the National Emergencies Act of 1976. At the time it was passed, one or more states of emergency had been in existence since 1929, and had no such law to give any structural shape to how emergencies were handled (other than emergency clauses found in specific laws). In fact, the Congress in 1976 recognized in drafting the bill that, Enactment of this legislation would . . . insure that the extraordinary powers which now reside in the hands of the Chief Executive . . . could be utilized only when emergencies actually… Read more »

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Trusted Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

There’s nothing DIFFICULT about protecting US sovereignty and its borders, Ted. You either have the COJONES to do it or not.

AFVet4America
Member
Trusted Member
AFVet4America

Ciceroni ExcogitatorisCiceroni Excogitatoris Apparently he has what it takes.

AFVet4America
Member
Trusted Member
AFVet4America

“But today’s question was whether there was an emergency at our southern border. There is, and I voted to recognize that tragic fact.”

Exactly! And I also agree with the rest of his statement.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

I fully agree with Ted. But, if I could go back in time I’d warn Congress about a failing in the NEA as they drafted it; that they need a distinction from an Emergency that exists and needs to be addressed because Congress can’t act, versus one that exists but then Congress won’t act in a certain way to address it.

Yes, we have an emergency. It needs to be addressed. There was a plan to address it – but Congress rejected it. The PEOPLE rejected it. The proper course of action for a President who respects that is to come up with a new plan. One that he CAN sell to Congress; to the People.

The People do not want this wall. Or if they do, their choice of legislators does not show it. Doing it anyway, under the authority of the NEA, is wrong.

It’s legal, but it’s wrong.

hbnolikee
Member
Member
hbnolikee

If you noticed, the democrats control the house and won’t vote for anything that Trump wants. They are the “RESIST” crap mongers and we must get rid of them in 2020.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

Why didn’t we do that in 2018? And let’s bear in mind that folks we DID vote for had control just prior, and wouldn’t vote for what Trump wanted.

I think you overestimate the Democrats control. Plenty of Republicans seem to have a problem with Donald’s plans too. Which means the Americans who voted for them must as well.

I mean, why else would they vote for such candidates if they didn’t?

MxnCheeseHead
Member
Active Member
MxnCheeseHead

So you think a President’s right to veto should be eliminated? A veto only occurs when “the people” send something to the President which he doesn’t want as the leader of the Executive Branch. So since “the People” want everything Congress sends to the President, there should be no veto power.

Since the President is elected by the nation as a whole, and individual Congress members only represent voters of their sections, one could use your logic to say the President represents “the people” too. So maybe the veto is a use of checks and balances and is actually working the way our founders designed it… or at least closer to their design than if the veto power didn’t exist.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

So you think a President’s right to veto should be eliminated?

Where’d you pull THAT conclusion from?

sam
Member
Active Member
sam

AvatarMxnCheeseHead
“Individual Congress members only represent voters of their sections”
That is so cute. Has anyone told them they represent voters, NOT the party?

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

The people do want this wall.

It’s overwhelmingly what they voted for.

Congress cannot give it to them, because Congress sees that a slowly mounting crisis can be played as “no crisis” until the time for stopping the crisis is passed, and the ensuing damage becomes permanent.

So it’s up to the Executive.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

It’s overwhelmingly what they voted for.

Their legislative choices suggests otherwise.

This is the same point I made earlier today, about the difference between voting for a President vs voting for a Legislature. Voting for the President is a general thing, it indicates which direction you want the nation to go generally. Voting for your Legislators is much more specific. They’re your real voice. They’re the ones you go to for specific actions.

In both 2016 and 2018, the American people may have voted generally for a pro-Border Security agenda – but when it came to the actual legislators who would represent them in how that legislation gets drafted, they went with Congressmen who would not support a wall agenda.

I don’t know why they did that, but it undermines the notion that it’s something they “overwhelmingly” wanted. Because such a notion is not reflected in their choice of representative.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

It most definitely is what they voted for. It turns out that some representatives lie. That’s not the fault of the voters.

Whether people voted for a wall or not is inarguable. It’s heavily proved by the Trump vote in both the 2016 primary, and the general, as well as the re-election rhetoric of top Republican leaders, *and* all incoming freshman Republican members of Congress.

Voters got cheated, sure. But they stated as loudly and clearly as possible that they want a border barrier, and have done so for decades.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

It turns out that some representatives lie. That’s not the fault of the voters.

It is when we’re talking about re-elected congressmen who have consistently failed to serve those efforts. I don’t blame the liar when everyone knows he’s a liar and they re-elect him anyway, spouting that “binary choice” crap at me.

Voters got cheated, sure.

Seems to happen a lot. To the point that they’re either the dumbest morons on the planet, or they don’t actually care enough about this border barrier to make better voting choices.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

“they’re either the dumbest morons on the planet, or they don’t actually care enough”

Way to ignore how voters are allowed to participate in the process.

“Hey, did you want the steaming turd soup or the sh*t sandwich?
Haha! You picked one. Ur stupid.”

Sorry, but the “binary” complaint is irrelevant. Politics is more complicated than, “look who they keep chosing.”

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

The voters got what they asked for in their legislature. They could ask for something better, but they just resign themselves to whatever’s easiest. Which is why they get fed sh*t by their representatives.

It’s what they asked for.

K-Bob
Editor
Trusted Member
K-Bob

Sure. They asked to be lied to because they voted.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, and I’m an idiot.

MxnCheeseHead
Member
Active Member
MxnCheeseHead

You say its wrong for Trump to veto a bill “the people” want. In this post and another you say Trump is going against the wishes of Americans.
If everything Congress sends to the President is assumed to be the desired of America and it’s wrong to go against it via veto then it can only be concluded that the veto power should be eliminated.

Fortunately we both know that Congress does not always represent the wishes of America. Albeit in theory they would.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

I have never said it’s wrong for Trump to veto anything. If you can’t cite that directly, then stop saying it.

MxnCheeseHead
Member
Active Member
MxnCheeseHead

The People do not want this wall. Or if they do, their choice of legislators does not show it. Doing it anyway, under the authority of the NEA, is wrong.

Your premise is anything Congress doesn’t approve is voice of the people and vetoing or going against Congress is thus wrong.

However that is not how the power of checks and balances work.

If President is responsible for securing the country, but Congress won’t approve direct funding for a particular item, the President should take any legal action he deems necessary to fulfill his constitutional obligations.
The NEA is the legal means of doing this.

AT
Member
Active Member
AT

Your premise is anything Congress doesn’t approve is voice of the people and vetoing or going against Congress is thus wrong.

What if Congress is wrong? Such as putting forth an affordable care act in direct defiance to the will of the people? Obama should have vetoed that one.

If President is responsible for securing the country

You’ll have to show me where that is in Article II.

The NEA is the legal means of doing this.

It doesn’t mean it’s the right means. Especially since America, vis a vis Congress, already said no.

He should find another way to secure the border. There’s lots of them.

SheerPolitics
Member
Active Member
SheerPolitics

None of these republicans squawked about changing a law that Obama used plenty of times…..

MxnCheeseHead
Member
Active Member
MxnCheeseHead

But they only controlled the House and Senate. /s

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

If what Trump wants to do is legal and constitutional, then there’s NOTHING difficult about it.

hbnolikee
Member
Member
hbnolikee

Yet, here we are.

EWizzyEJDSon
Member
Active Member
EWizzyEJDSon

Difficult Vote? No. Should’ve been a no brainer if you care about the country at all.

Back to Top of Comments