alexa (03-14-2019)
The Democrats who voted against it were mostly because of partisan politics. They will vote against Trump on anything.
I understand the reason most of those Republicans voted against the declaration. They say that Trump is taking their authority from them by spending money not authorized by the congress. Actually he's not, he's just directing money which they authorized to be spent.
Although I suppose that Trump will argue that the bogus national emergency is legal under the terms of the NEA, both Houses have voted to terminate it, and his own words ("I don't need to do this, I just want to go quicker" or words to that effect") belie both the allegation that it's a bona fide emergency and that Congress' will is to build a wall.
If Congress wanted to appropriate money for that purpose, they would have. The phony cons among us are shown to be hypocrites by arguing that the Executive should be able to appropriate funds in disregard of the express will of the Legislative.
The intent of the NEA was to enable the President to act quickly in real emergencies, not build vanity projects to appease their supporters.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/343/579.html1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. 2 In these circumstances, [343 U.S. 579, 636] and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government [343 U.S. 579, 637] as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law. 3
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.
Check the history of how past president's have used this authority. More than 90% of the time there was no national emergency. Securing a border which is a pathway to human traffickers and a variety of criminal types is closer to an emergency than most anything its been used for in the past.
Captdon (03-14-2019)
It's the same old lame excuses and scare tactics. What if they do this, we shouldn't vote for this. Just like they didn't hold up Obamas justice appt. because they claimed they might do this if we are in power. Well it happened anyway. It's an excuse not to do their jobs every time. I may be the only R not surprised.
That's not they reason those fascist voted in favor of the resolution.
They voted for the resolution because, once you look at the list, they are the usual anti-American RINO traitors that have been impeding Winnie since the beginning of the Trump CANDIDACY.
There's the perpetually wrong females, Collins and Murkowski and Romney..
There's Little Traitor Rubio who has always voted in favor of the Invaders.
There's Rand Paul, also against the very concept of borders.
Etc, etc, etc.
Freedom Requires Obstinance.
We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.
MisterVeritis (03-14-2019)
The Constitution grants the President authority to act in time of insurrection and INVASION. That Congress passed a law clarifying the President's power in 1976 was convenient but not essential.
When did the fascists decide that national security was a vanity project? Especially when fascists as diverse as Nutty Nancy and Cuck Schumer have voted, when that pretender from Kenya polluted the White House, to build and fund the border wall?
Freedom Requires Obstinance.
We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.