Trump vetoes Senate’s block on his emergency declaration
Congress tried to block Trump’s emergency declaration:
The Senate passed a resolution Thursday to overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, with 12 Republicans joining all the Democrats to deliver a rare bipartisan rebuke of the president.
The disapproval resolution passed the House last month, so the 59-to-41 Senate vote will send the measure to the president’s desk. Trump intends to use the first veto of his presidency to strike it down, and Congress does not have the votes to override the veto.
Trump’s response was a veto:
I look forward to VETOING the just passed Democrat inspired Resolution which would OPEN BORDERS while increasing Crime, Drugs, and Trafficking in our Country. I thank all of the Strong Republicans who voted to support Border Security and our desperately needed WALL!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 14, 2019
The twelve Republicans are Wicker, Rubio, Portman, Collins, Murkowski, Blount, Alexander, Toomey, Romney, Paul, Moran, and Lee. They say it’s not because they don’t like the wall, but because they think the president exceeded his powers.
When I looked into the powers presidents have been given to declare national emergencies, I think it’s fairly clear that Trump did not exceed his powers. Now, maybe Congress shouldn’t have given him such broad statutory powers in the first place. But they did. If they want to take away those powers, they need to pass another law to change that.
Tom Cotton is correct on that:
Democrats say declaring a national emergency is "lawless." But for an act to be lawless, one actually has to act outside the law. On the contrary, the president is using clear statutory authority delegated to him by Congress. pic.twitter.com/o4HO3InV75
— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) March 14, 2019
Now, I’m sympathetic to arguments that the National Emergencies Act is too broad and gives the executive branch too much power. That’s a reasonable debate to have. Believe me, Congress has ceded too much power to the executive for more than a century, expanding an administrative state that increasingly deprives our people of a meaningful say in their government. So I invite my Democratic colleagues to reconsider the wisdom of this path. Maybe we can reform the EPA. Perhaps we can require up-or-down votes in Congress to approve big regulations so politicians can show some accountability for once. I’m ready for those debates. Believe me, I’m ready. But in the meantime, don’t pretend we didn’t delegate all these powers, or that it’s lawless for the executive to use laws we passed, just because you deplore him.
It’s not really that difficult an idea to comprehend, and yet it will fall on deaf ears—deaf Democratic ears and probably twelve sets of deaf Republican ears, as well.
The twelve Republicans are Wicker, Rubio, Portman, Collins, Murkowski, Blount, Alexander, Toomey, Romney, Paul, Moran, and Lee. They say it’s not because they don’t like the wall, but because they think the president exceeded his powers.
I bet Paul, Toomey, Blount, and Lee actually do think that.
I’m so disappointed in Romney. Not because I expected better but I gave him a lot of money (for me) in 2012 And this is what he does.
I hope we do not get into a war before this generation turns over. We would lose.
Art Deco:
Agreed.
In state legislatures and in Congress, there always seems to be a critical mass of Republicans present to prevent the Republican caucus from accomplishing anything other than passing a tax cut which will have to be rescinded later because they won’t approve any spending cuts or instituting some bauble wanted by the rent-seekers at the Chamber of Commerce (see the ExIm Bank).
Sen. Tillis, R-NC, was among those who flipped at the last minute. He said he would vote in favor, and instead voted against. Probably he realized his re-election was on the line. I wrote to him myself to point out that Trump was well within the limits of the law Congress passed, and that the proper thing to do in opposition would be to change the law. I’m currently throwing his fund-raising requests in the trash.
Exactly correct Neo.
This may be more of a reflection of my own foibles, but I absolutely detest Mitt Romney at this point. Roger Simon thinks the 2020 election places America at the cross roads or tipping point, but I think the 2012 election was a tipping point of sorts. If Mitt Romney was paid off to throw the 2012 election, it would have looked a lot like the one we saw.
If Mitt Romney was paid off to throw the 2012 election, it would have looked a lot like the one we saw.
He’s a centimillionaire. Tough to buy.
If his cupidity was that pronounced, he’d never have left the private equity business.
So it begins…., Trump is flexing a bit of muscle and power to actually finish the job he started. There will be howls and screams on the left and not very far right who don’t want to see him succede at any price. Of course at every turn of the wheel now on the downhill slope to an election there will be sticks stuck in the spokes every time they get the chance. Now it’s time to stand up and say, “play ball”.
The 12 republicans chose the wrong hill to die on.
The only way to stop the democrats from misusing emergency power is to rescind the law passed approximately 50 years ago.
TommyJay:
I disagree about Romney in 2012.
Granted, he didn’t fight as hard or as tough as I would have liked, but he certainly did fight, and he fought quite hard if you take into consideration his basic personality and style. Nothing he did in that election (2012) represented a break with what we already knew about him.
Obama was not an easy opponent and the MSM was determined to do Romney in. That debate with Candy Crowley as the so-called moderator was an incredible example of what he was up against, and how blindsided he was. I believe—and I studied that debate in great detail and wrote a lot about it—that he just didn’t know how to counter what was happening, and he was shocked and blindsided. That’s different from not wanting to win. He wanted to win. People forget how much he criticized Obama, too. It was McCain who seemed reluctant to criticize Obama, not Romney. But Romney’s just not a rough-and-tumble no-holds-barred kind of guy.
What’s more, a lot of people on the right refused to vote for Romney for a bunch of “perfect is the enemy of the good” reasons. I debated many of them for a long long time here on the blog. And do you remember how he was demonized—even on the right—as a cold-hearted capitalist for being with Bain? I could link to thread after thread after thread here where I tried to convince people on the right that Romney wasn’t evil because he’d worked for Bain.
Romney has been a disappointment in many ways, both in 2012 and now. But I strongly believe that he very much wanted to win in 2012, and that he very much tried to win. He just couldn’t turn into someone he wasn’t.
Forcing Trump to declare a National Emergency, while insisting that there isn’t one will be the perfect pretext for the next democrat President to declare a National Emergency regarding climate change. And that’s why the dems will not change it. Same with gun ownership, “hate speech” and all the dems other favorite issues.
I suspect the dems faux outrage at Trump’s declaration of a National Emergency has a bit of the “briar patch” in it. It cannot have escaped all of them that the next democrat President can tear down Trump’s wall, declaring that the Nat. Emergency is over with no doubt more than 12 Republican Senators signing on to an open borders policy. As it would be the compassionate thing to do.
Mike K,
“I hope we do not get into a war before this generation turns over. We would lose.”
What leads you to suppose that we would lose?
A lot of what this was about was a bunch of Senate Republicans who wanted some act of political theater so they could lie to the voters about being tough on immigration without having to offend their Beltway buddies. Trump denied them that and it’s another thing he’s done that likely no other GOP President would have.
Mike
he just didn’t know how to counter what was happening, and he was shocked and blindsided.
Not being a trial lawyer hurt there, Soledad O’Brien pulled the same stunt on Giuliani on TV and he said, “Wait a minute ! How many people am I debating here ?” Romney should have done something similar. Maybe he is too slow a thinker.
What leads you to suppose that we would lose?
? This, and those are not the college snowflakes
And this.
I interviewed and examined military recruits for 8 years. They were fine but the present crop of high school kids is contaminated by the left.
No edit function.
I’m afraid that Geoffrey above at 8:44 p.m. is correct.
The reason not to claim the border is an “emergency” is that it’s not one, at least not in the eyes of those who understand the word to mean a situation that has to be dealt with urgently, now,, lest dire consequences ensue. And many people argue that the illegal border crossings have been going on since forever, so what else is new, and what’s the hurry. And of course there are the open-borders folks. So “emergency” is not an easy sell; and the only barrier to any subsequent administration’s doing likewise for its own pet project is that tis one is undeniably a true emergency obvious to all.
Mike K,
It escapes me how the Pentagon instituting a policy that insists that our forces be fit-to-deploy… is evidence that an armed conflict today would result in the Right losing to the Left. Please clarify.
Yes, the corruption in our military colleges is extremely disturbing and evidence that the leftist rot has spread even into West Point. I’m doubtful however that it has metasticized into the majority of cadets and graduates. Though left unchecked, it will become a probable eventuality. That said, it is the NCOs who run the military and they are in the main, committed to the military’s traditional role. In a civil war, I cannot see the majority of the military backing the Left.
But even if they do, America is far too big and developed for the military to effectively protect the infrastructure that feeds the urban environment. The food and medical distribution networks into the cities, the water supplies and electrical transmission are far too easily disrupted for it to be stopped. Venezuela is a preview of what an American civil war would devolve into but with one exception; nearly all the guns and shooters are on our side…
So, I don’t think the Left can win a civil war. Their hope is to win through demographics, at the ballot box.
I’m puzzled as to why Romney thought to run for Congress. He’s over 70, he had to relocate to Utah in order to run, and the man has an ample array of things to occupy his time in his winter, starting with his 20 grandchildren. Congress is such a latrine I don’t know why any serious person would want to spend time there except as a way station to spending time somewhere else.
Romney’s lived such an abundant life it’s hard to think ill of him. The Catholic blogger of my acquaintance who turned the moniker ‘Windsock Romney’ summarized what the problem with him has been as a public figure.
It was McCain who seemed reluctant to criticize Obama, not Romney.
Since 1950, there have been eight occasions where one party or another had an opportunity to keep the captain’s wheel after two terms. They’ve failed seven times. McCain was facing that head wind, compounded by the realization in September 2008 that seven major financial institutions were insolvent, two others were distressed if not insolvent, and one other was certainly vulnerable to general panic. On top of that, he’d turned over the supervision of his campaign to a couple of careerist grifters, Steven Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace. Robert Stacy McCain (no relation to the senator) wrote about this pair after the election; one feature of the campaign not remarked on in real time is that Sarah Palin saw Nicolle Wallace for what she was and wanted no dealings with her.
The Democrats have been promoting civil war by ruining those institutions which contain political conflict. Swamping the country with foreigners contra popular preferences, electoral fraud, lawfare, and now corruption of the federal police, intelligence services, and tax collectors. Pete Spiliakos was concise and perspicacious: Democrats play Calvinball. The rules change post hoc when the rules are inconvenient. You get a critical mass of people who realize this, this will not end well.
Recall the Spanish Civil War. It took the lives of 2% of Spain’s pre-war population and left the country in the hands of a quasi-military dictatorship for 36 years. (From 1820 to 1923, Spain was typically governed by crooked quasi-parliamentary regimes, bar the periods of civil war). Spain in 1933 wasn’t much more consequential on the global scene than Australia is today. We go down in a civil war, who protects the world from China?
Maybe this has been asked and answered somewhere but I’m curious if anyone can clear it up for me. If this move, particularly by the Rs that voted against Trump’s emergency declaration, was based on actual principle then where were they when Obama declared, what, 13 National Emergencies? And how many of those had absolutely nothing to do with national security or national welfare? For those worried about the next president, especially if a Democrat wins, using the emergency powers to declare climate change an emergency I would say the power is already there as evidenced by Bush and Obama’s use of it for all and sundry. Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
No. It was virtue signaling by corporate shills.
Sarah Palin saw Nicolle Wallace for what she was and wanted no dealings with her.
Sarah Palin and her husband wanted to campaign in Michigan and were blocked by Wallace.
She was the harbinger for Trump.
It escapes me how the Pentagon instituting a policy that insists that our forces be fit-to-deploy… is evidence that an armed conflict today would result in the Right losing to the Left. Please clarify.
I could add links to the Navy collisions and the stories that were covered up by the admirals. The transgender drive to infect the military. Maybe I am just pessimistic. Have you read about changes in basic training ? I went through basic. I was not an officer.
a humorous look at the changes.
There’s not much good about getting old but I won’t have to see the end of where we are going,.
” We go down in a civil war, who protects the world from China?
No one of course, Xi would have free rein to do as he would. First he takes Taiwan, then Xi takes out Tokyo?
But the Left doesn’t think it will come to civil war. They tell themselves that once they ‘vote away’ the obsolete concept of “inalienable rights”, the deplorables will go quietly into the night.
RickC,
Obama and Bush declared National Emergencies on matters that they could claim bipartisan agreement upon or in Obama’s case, at least issues that the GOPe was not willing to “go to the mat” over.
A radical democrat President can implement major aspects of the ruinous “Green New Deal” by declaring the ‘mortal’ threat of climate change to be an ‘authentic’ National Emergency. As ‘justification’, they’ll point to the scientific ‘consensus’ and to projections of a point of irreversible decline in less than a decade.
Obviously, nationalization of some industries will be necessary to martial the needed resources to effectively combat C.C. given the short remaining time frame before it’s too late! We’ll have to do it for the children…
A radical democrat President can implement major aspects of the ruinous “Green New Deal” by declaring the ‘mortal’ threat of climate change to be an ‘authentic’ National Emergency.
They can do that now. Trump has nothing to do with it. The uniparty has been running things since WWII. We see their qualifications in the “admissions bribery scandal.”
If a Democrat really tried to implement the “Green Nude Eel” war would break out and Kurt Schlicter’s novels would become non-fiction.
Looking at the facts and statistics there can be no doubt that the U.S. is facing a “crisis,” and Emergency on our southern border, in fact, from the growing numbers an actual invasion, and a mortal threat to our sovereignty, to the meaning and value of each American’s citizenship, and to their safety, security, and well being.
Thus, it seems to me that this is a very clear and simple litmus test, one to determine which members of Congress are actually dedicated to protecting the integrity, the national interests, and the individual citizens of the United States.
Vote against Trump’s declaration of a National Emergency–only declared to make possible the building of his border Wall and–no matter what your rhetoric might be, no matter what species of twisted or tortured logic you might offer to justify your vote, no matter what technicality you cite as making you have to vote that way that you did, no matter what justification or excuse you might give for casting your vote to vote Trump’s Declaration of an Emergency down–you have given an unmistakable signal, to each and every citizen of the U.S., that you do not really care about the U.S., its citizens, or their safety and well being.
You have revealed yourself–on the most basic and consequential level–as being a phony– there for the power, the perks, the great medical and retirement package, and post Congressional job offers, but absolutely not “for the people.”
Absent a real, unequivocal national emergency, Congress cannot muster the votes needed to declare one, so no they can’t.
Assertions that a Uni-party runs the country ignore a salient and contrary fact. Dems want to fundamentally change the country. The GOPe insists upon maintaining the financial status quo. Those are ultimately, oppositional. As long as the dems don’t fundamentally threaten the financial status quo and limit themselves to cultural changes, the RINOs have no objections. The RINOs are perfect examples of whom Lenin spoke when he predicted that, “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them”.
Trump is an example of a capitalist who fully understands the Marxist/progressive threat.
Oh they plan to implement the Green New Deal alright, they’re ideological fanatics. How they go about best achieving that goal is open to internal discussion but the ideological imperative to achieve that goal is not open to discussion.
They are congenitally incapable of imagining that their actions can lead to civil war. They think that the ‘obsolete’ concept of inalienable rights can be ‘voted away’ and that other than a few malcontents, that the deplorables will grumble but accept it. Just like the right has with abortion. They fail to see the difference between societal acceptance of a woman’s right to choose and limiting everyone’s right to speak their mind and to defend themselves. Which is why Eric Holder actually thinks that “you have a duty to retreat”.
Snow on Pine,
I fully agree. This was a vote that was definitive in what it reveals about the Congressional member. They are not just unfit for the office they hold, they have revealed themselves to be at the very least, tacit supporters of the destruction of the American Republic. Most out of malicious intent, some out of incompetent stupidity.
Question (re Snow at 12:27): I’ve read in several places that in fact the number of illegal immigrants is declining, and has been for the past few years.
Can anyone cite somewhat-credible sources that either confirm this or refute it?
Also, of course, how would we know? That is, I assume that the “numbers” are estimates, but on what are the estimates based?
RickC:
Yes, most people are missing something.
Trump is declaring the emergency under this act passed in 1976. Go to the post of mine that I linked in the present post under the words “I looked into” (it’s this one) and you’ll find a fairly lengthy discussion of how it works. The gist of it is that the acts involved enumerate 136 conditions under which it can be done, and in the past it has usually been used to set trade sanctions against countries with which we’re having a conflict.
So the question is whether Trump is exceeding his powers under the rules set by statute. I think it’s fairly clear he is going further than previous orders since 1976. I also think it’s fairly clear he is not exceeding his authority. But reasonable minds can differ on that.
“Obama was not an easy opponent and the MSM was determined to do Romney in. That debate with Candy Crowley as the so-called moderator was an incredible example of what he was up against, and how blindsided he was.”
it is not that hard to utter the phrase
” we don’t need an ongoing investigation to find out why you,Mr.President, didnt send in forces and why you went to bed”
or “Ford never took the money”
Can anyone cite somewhat-credible sources that either confirm this or refute it?
No. Partly this is a data war. Here is some data. Notice it is all “apprehensions.” Those who evaded are now 1/3 of California and about 35 million nationally.
There has been some discussion about how many are visa stayovers. This should be easy and yet nothing is done. That idiot woman who grabbed the MAGA hat off the guy had been here for years on a visa stayover. I guess she thought she was immune.
Mohammed Atta got his visa renewal in the mail months after 9/11. It’s a broken system and should be easy to fix. You just have to want to fix it.
Julie near Chicago–take a look at these official U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(Not statistics you will see trumpeted in the MSM, cited by Democrats on the floors of the House or Senate, or by any of the Democrat candidates so far for 2020.)
According to the graph above, the pressure against our southern border, and the number of monthly apprehensions is rapidly accelerating, is headed, in fact, through the roof.
The total for apprehensions in February 2019 alone was 76,103–far higher than any past February–even double or more what apprehensions were in some Februaries in the last several years.
The total number for apprehensions in just the last five months alone is a staggering 268,044; apprehensions on track to beat last year’s total of 521,090 for the entire year of 2018.
As I understand current law, regulations, and procedures, those who are apprehended and are not immediately turned back into Mexico are held for a brief time–a few days, a week or so–are given a preliminary hearing, and paperwork specifying a court date–the backlog of such full hearings is reported to be somewhere around 700,0000-800,000, so a court date many months or years into the future–for them to reappear for a full hearing (those in Border Protection refer to this paperwork as these illegal’s “run papers”).
Then, these illegals are just released, to disappear into our population, 90% or more of them never to return for their full hearing–and probably headed for a “sanctuary” state or city.
But these staggering numbers of “apprehensions” don’t even begin to describe the dimensions of the main, the real problem.
The main problem is the number of illegal aliens who make it across our borders and who are not apprehended, a number that appears to be far higher than those who are apprehended.
Then, as well, you also have to add in the millions of Visa overstays–tourists, students, etc.–who are not apparently tracked, or a priority, and are apparently only caught by accident.
See, for instance, the recent case of a Brazilian woman–overstayed here since her tourist Visa ran out in 1994–who was only caught because she assaulted someone who was wearing a MAGA hat in a bar, this assault was caught on camera, and she resisted the officers who were called in to deal with this disturbance–see https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/02/26/maga-hat-assault-victim-i-was-just-in-shock/
Congress has refused to appropriate money to increase the number of Border Protection Agents (or immigration judges, or beds and facilities to house illegals awaiting their brief preliminary hearing) to anywhere near the number required.
As well, according to reports, Agents are all over-stressed and overworked and–given their present numbers–cannot possibly intercept all the illegals.
Moreover, many stretches of our border are not really adequately fenced, are basically wide open, in some stretches you can just stroll on in, or a crowd of illegals can rush the border, charge through–as videos on Youtube attest to.
So, how many illegals are never caught each year as they sneak across our borders and also disappear into our population–500,000, 750,000, a million or more?
Illegals who the Democrats are increasingly talking about giving the vote.
The Democrat’s obvious goal?
To dilute the voting power of actual citizens by adding so many illegals to the electorate that all these illegals–coming from societies which have a much more Leftist/Socialist orientation and, thus, people much more likely to be Democrat rather than Republican voters–will insure that Democrats achieve a permanent majority of the popular vote and the vote in the Electoral College as well, and, thus, perpetual and pretty much unbreakable control over the United States.
To make this situation even more dire, it used to be that the figure routinely cited and used was that there were 11 million illegals here in the U.S.
However, a new and well-regarded study, out just a few months ago, gave as their new estimate, a total of 21 million illegal aliens here in the U.S., or perhaps even millions more than that.
If this isn’t a “crisis” for our country, for each one of our citizens, and our elected representatives and officials, I don’t know what is.
Cont’d —That’s why, as well, the Democrats are fighting so hard to try to remove the citizenship question from the upcoming 2020 Census—a routine question that was asked in many other decennial censuses. They don’t want anyone to know just how many illegals there are here in the U.S., or in the States they control.
Since one of the primary reasons for the Census is to determine just how many citizens there are in each State, and to use that number as the basis for apportioning that State’s number of members in the House of Representatives (and, as well, the amount of Federal aid to each State), Democrats certainly don’t want it to be found out just how huge a percentage of their population is composed of illegal aliens—say, in California, for instance—with the result that their delegation in the House would be reduced in numbers and, thus, in voting power, and the amount of Federal aid they currently receive might also be reduced.
That’s why, as well, that key States run by Democrats refused to give the requested copies of their voter rolls to the Commission President Trump set up—soon after he assumed office—to try to determine the prevalence of fraudulent voting here in the U.S., forcing that Commission to go out of business, since without the data to analyze, no analysis was possible.
These Democrats—aided by the MSM—have also derided the notion that there is any significant voter fraud here in the U.S., and didn’t want to give the Commission data that could actually disprove their contention.
Mike and Snow,
Thank you both very much. I have read so much saying that the number of I-I’s is decreasing — and I pretty much stick to libertarian and conservative sites. I think that mostly those are referring to those coming across the border, not those overstaying their visas. It’s always good to know where the data’s* coming from — if it came from Lancet,</em for instance, I wouldn't find it terribly convincing.
*I know that "data" is the plural, but I tend to think of it as a group noun.
Oh well, AWOL. :>(
Cont’d —That’s why, as well, the Democrats are fighting so hard to try to remove the citizenship question from the upcoming 2020 Census—a routine question that was asked in many other decennial censuses.
Don’t tell judge whats-his-face, but it’s asked in the American Community Survey as well, most recently in 2017. Along with 1000 other questions.