Justin Amash

Can You Name the Only Republican to Co-Sponsor a Bill Blocking Trump's National Emergency?

More than 200 Democrats-plus one Republican-co-sponsor a joint resolution against Trump's national emergency declaration.

|

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

More than 200 members of the House of Representatives are co-sponsoring a joint resolution to block the national emergency that President Donald Trump declared last week to fund a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border. The vast majority of the resolution's sponsors are Democrats, with one exception—Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.).

"Right now I believe that we're at about 226 or 227 co-sponsors, including one Republican, Justin Amash, and I look forward to getting more support as the days go on," Rep. Joaquin Castro (D–Texas), who introduced the measure, told reporters this morning.

The one-page resolution is straightforward. It cites the part of the National Emergencies Act that allows a joint congressional resolution to terminate a national emergency.

A majority of the Democrat-controlled House has already co-sponsored the legislation, so it will likely be approved there. Things are much less certain in the Senate, where Democrats hold just 47 seats, though Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine) has said she will also vote "yes." Even if three more Republicans defect—and that could happen, since several GOP senators have criticized the president's move—Trump would almost certainly going veto it. The bill's supporters would need two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. This seems unlikely, as Republican leaders in Congress have largely endorsed Trump's plan to reallocate roughly $3.5 billion from the military construction budget in order to build the wall.

Still, Democrats have reached out to Republicans to try to convince them to support the resolution. "This is a historic power grab and it will require historic unity by members of Congress—Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative—to counteract the president's parasitic movement," said Castro.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) has also called on Republicans to help act as a check on the president's power. "I know they care about the Constitution of the United States," she told reporters today. "I know they care about the separation of powers."

It's no surprise that Amash would break with his colleagues on this issue. After Trump declared the emergency, the Michigan representative tweeted that the president was "attempting to circumvent our constitutional system."

"Congress should (and I will) work to repeal laws that ostensibly grant legislative powers to the president," he wrote. "But even if Congress does no such thing, such laws are void under our Constitution, and any emergency declaration by the president for a non-emergency is likewise void."

Amash, notably, is not opposed per se to the idea of a wall on the southern border. But he does have concerns over the property-rights ramifications of building such a wall. That's why he introduced a bill last month that would requiring the feds to offer landowners "just compensation" before seizing their property to make room for the barrier.

NEXT: 'Social Justice'–Touting Bill Weld Has Kind Words for Fellow Ex-Prosecutors Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is this a huge Thomas Massie fail?

    1. No.

      This is another Justin Amash fail.

      This resolution is to stop Trump.

      The law that allowed Trump to do what he’s done remains intact–for when the next Democrat needs to use it.

      1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

        click here =====>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

      2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

        click here =====>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

      3. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

        +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+…………….. http://www.pay-buzz.com

      4. It’s really a failing of Congress to delegate power to the President, which they did back in 1985 via the National Emergencies Act. And it’s purely a symbolic vote because Trump will veto the bill. Just like all those votes to repeal Obamacare, until Trump was president and then a bunch of RINOs voted to keep it.

        As someone who voted for Johnson, and doesn’t think a wall is necessary (we wouldn’t need it if we just deported illegals rather than allowing them to stay) I think Congress should let Trump build the wall: it’s less than 0.1% of this years budget, and half the country voted for Trump and his wall. I’d rather see people start getting deported, because then the Democrats and RINOs would take to heart what I learned in government school: if you don’t like the law – change it. I also bet Trump would accept significantly increased immigration, provided we get productive law abiding people rather than relatives of welfare queens and anti-US Muslims.

        1. I agree. I’m perfectly fine with increasing immigration numbers as needed. Which is hard to do with thirty million illegals gumming up the works.

    2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

      click here =====>>>> http://www.payshd.com

  2. Amash isn’t wrong, but too bad for him prior congresses didn’t give a shit and they wrote the law as they wrote it. I’m glad to see he’s at least found a principled reason to protest this action though, and I suspect Rand Paul won’t like it in the Senate but I suppose we’ll see.

    1. He’s not wrong, but he has adopted the hypocritical position of his financial backers. You can’t say DACA is perfectly fine and then pretend like this isn’t.

      1. True enough, I think the bit that most people are taking issue with is declaring emergencies over things that would appear to not be the type of emergency that was probably intended by Congress, but since when has that ever stopped a President or a future Congress from bending things out of shape?

        1. 20 million invaders

          I wonder how many it’s supposed to take to constitute an emergency.

          1. If that was the emergency, the declaration would be to round-up and deport them (or possibly execute them as hostile invaders), but thats not what the declaration does. Therefore it is safe to say that it is,not an emergency. Also, Trump and the Republicans have done a completely shit job of prioritizing and promoting the illegal immigration as a national emergency. Which they have had 2 years to do.

      2. DACA is more like not enforcing federal drug law in states that legalized cannabis.

        1. The thing that defenders of DACA seem to conveniently forget is that deferred deportation does not actually mean never being deported.

          1. I would say that was more true for the people and state officials who are violating federal drug law.

            1. DACA and drug laws are not comparable.

          2. Justice delayed is Justice denied. (For the victims; in this case all US citizens and LEGAL immigrants)

            1. I’m a US citizen and not a victim of illegal immigration.

              1. I’m a US Citizen a victim of illegal immigration.

                Thanks Trump for fighting for us!

            2. Show us on the doll where the illegal immigrant touched you

              1. Oh Little Jeffy, brainless and idiotic as ever.

              2. In his paycheck. In his housing prices. In his tax burden. In demand for US infrastructure.

                And wherever there was big government power, there were immigrants voting to support it.

                Do OBLs believe that big government is a violation of rights, or not?

                If you do, big government voters violate rights. They are criminals. Importing big government voters is importing State Crime. It’s a means of the ruling class to crush freedom.

                “Libertarian Moment”

            3. US citizens are not victims of DACA. I’m a US citizen. I’m also trying to build my own house. Not that I consider myself to be victim per se, but if I had to be considered as one with regard to immigration, it would certainly be because of government immigration policies that make it impossible for me to find help with simple manual labor at a price I can afford to pay. I used to be able to find immigrants (brown skinned, spanish speaking- I never asked about their immigrant status), that were happy to help at reasonable prices (which they set). It seems impossible to find this kind of help now.

              1. “Needz moar cheap labor”

                Another OBL account?

          3. LOL… They NEVER did get deported and became DREAMERS instead.

          4. Oh sure it does.

            The longer the delay, the more societal upheaval in deporting the illegals, the less likely we ever do it.

        2. Unlike refusing to enforce cannabis laws, though, DACA allocated money toward a new registration system that was not allocated by Congress. So the example is not the same. DACA is actually a lot more similar to this wall sleight of hand

          1. DACA didn’t reallocate anything. It was funded by the application fees. Which raises a serious issue re whether the executive can defy congress and impose broader govtl consequences on people merely by raising the money ‘privately’. Unfortunately I suspect the jackboot wing of ‘libertarians’ who post here are perfectly ok with that since it looks like privatized govt. Except that DACA was more privatized wussiness than the manly application of the jackboot.

            But that is all more akin to Trump building the wall using gofundme. Not to his declaration of emergency.

            1. So a new bureaucracy and applications were created for free and then funded by application fees. And then to make the system permanent the Congress attempted to allocate money to the program, but I guess they shouldn’t have because everything was free and then paid for by application fees. None of what you said is what happened.

              Like I said, there is a lot of hypocrisy going on here.

                1. That article was written by IRLI/FAIR. They are not remotely experts on auditing/financials. They do however have a clear agenda re immigration that would create a strong incentive to lie. Not that you or your ilk are capable of understanding the difference.

                  I repeat – my entire comment stands as is.

                  1. Your comment defies logic. It makes about as much sense as Mexico paying for the wall. In both instances people are pretending as if something can be done for free. This kind of blind faith, because you like a policy is the opposite of logic and is more closely similar to a religious tenet.

                    1. At *best* your argument amounts to the president moved funds that were not appropriated by Congress and then application fees paid back that money that was allocated by executive fiat. But, for many applicants the fee was waived, which would mean that it is highly unlikely that all funds appropriated by the executive were repaid.

                      If you think that is significantly different from this situation then I guess your driven by blind faith more than anything.

                    2. Should be noted that Congress also noted that it was illegal for President Obama to allocate funds that were not appropriate for said purpose. And this is why the opposition now looks so hypocritical. If you didn’t have a problem with DACA then congratulations you shouldn’t have a problem with this.

                      “On January 27, 2015, Senators Grassley (R-IA), Johnson (R-WI), and Sessions (R-AL) reissued to the public their November letter to Joseph Moore, Chief Financial Officer of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which states in part:

                      On November 20, 2014, the President announced several executive actions, including plans to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA) and to extend “Deferred Action to Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” (DAPA). These events raise serious legal questions and may have significant budgetary consequences. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is “the federal agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.” The President’s directives will redirect scarce resources from this core mission to activities that Congress has never approved, and will very likely jeopardize the financial health of the agency. If USCIS has a budget shortfall, the agency will no doubt ask the taxpayers to shoulder the burden.”

                    3. It makes about as much sense as Mexico paying for the wall. In both instances people are pretending as if something can be done for free.

                      No. It is simply understanding that the Prez does have leeway in managing the exec branch. What he doesn’t have is the constitutional authority to defy the legislature re spending and pretend that the executive branch is his personal/campaign sandbox. That means if Trump somehow finagled a check from Mexico, he’d have leeway in allocating people’s time to that project. Cuz cost accounting is a bit arbitrary and govt is near impossible to audit.

                      This kind of blind faith, because you like a policy is the opposite of logic and is more closely similar to a religious tenet.

                      I never liked DACA and I pretty much despise all the attempts to cynically yap about ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ that does nothing about actually reforming immigration but merely serves as a cover for either electioneering or the status quo cronyism of our current system. That applies to ALL you DeRps.

        3. If that was all DACA did, that’d be true. But DACA also provided temporary work permits, something not authorized by Congress and something that is more than “not deporting”.

        4. “DACA is more like not enforcing federal drug law in states that legalized cannabis.”

          DACA is more like aiding and abetting an invasion of the US, directly violating Article IV, Section 4:
          “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”

          The Constitution obligates the federal government to prevent invasion.

          Trump is the first President in *decades* to even pretend to attempt to uphold the constitution with regards to immigration.

      3. Can you name one single instance where Amash voted with the GOP and Massie didn’t?

        1. They usually vote the same way. Massie is more often a co-sponsor on things like Syria and Yemen withdrawal, though. Though Amash has started supporting co-sponsoring the Yemen resolutions.

  3. Most of the $2 billion drug interdiction money they intended to use has already been spent.

    1. Based on ACA financial accounting, federal dollars can be spent at least twice – – – – – –

  4. Too bad congress didn’t repeal the national emergency act they had once passed, or not passed it at all.

    The legislature has for years ceded authority to the Executive and the Judiciary and the Democrats are now pretending to make a brave stand against what they allowed and encouraged.

    1. But since we have it, Trump should use it to ram the wall down their treasonous commie throats.

      1. This.

        The Right has always shied away from using its *legal* powers “because the Left would do it too”, failing to notice that they spend the rest of their time bemoaning the lawless criminality of the Left.

        Use all lawful powers up to the limit. That’s the way you *might* get the Left to think twice about big government power. If the Right always refrains from using their lawful powers, why would the Left ever want them limited?

        Why would they ever want to see a club only they have the will to use destroyed?

  5. Screw the resolution. Repeal the statute that gave Trump this power in the first place.

    1. And that is exactly the correct approach. That would affect all outstanding “emergencies”. Forty-something of them I think?

    2. Or, pass the resolution AND repeal the law.

      1. Just repeal the law. As soon as we have wall funding.

  6. I guessed correctly. Amash is the only one that puts principle over party.

    1. “Muh principles! Lose eternally!”

      The fundamental moral mistake of the Right, for a century, is mistaking complicity in one way rule of law as supporting the rule of law, instead of betraying it.

      The Right understands you have the right and the moral duty to shoot back at those who shoot at you. But they fail to consistently apply the principle when guns are not directly and immediately involved.

      One way ceasefire is surrender
      One way rule of law is subjection
      One way civility is subservience

  7. Why just this emergency? Let’s end them all. Or even most of them. Any number is a start.

  8. I knew it was going to be Amash!

    1. I’m surprised he’s the only Cuck.

  9. A majority of the Democrat-controlled House has already co-sponsored the legislation, so it will likely be approved there. Things are much less certain in the Senate, where Democrats hold just 47 seats, though Sen. Susan Collins (R?Maine) has said she will also vote “yes.” . . . . Trump would almost certainly . . . veto it. The bill’s supporters would need two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.”

    At that point, I might drop some opposition to what Trump is doing on the grounds of separation of powers–and I’m talking about what’s appropriate rather than what’s legal.

    If the Court comes in and says that it’s unconstitutional because Congress has the enumerated powers to set the rules of naturalization, declare war, finance the military, etc., then that argument holds a lot less water once Congress has weighed in. If Congress wants to take back their enumerated powers by passing new bills to fix mistakes in the old ones, I’m all for that, but Congress weighing in on this emergency and failing to stop it doesn’t do much for the argument that Congress was completely shut out.

    1. Especially considering Pelosi has said she is in favor of emergency powers just not this one or allowing Trump to use it.

      1. The use of emergency powers when there’s no emergency is unacceptable regardless of what team tries to do it.

        1. Kind of my fucking point, dipshit.

        2. The invasion of the US has been an emergency for decades.

  10. Using powers expressly authorized by Congress isn’t circumventing Congress. If the House doesn’t like that it’s being used for something other than their pet issues, fuck em. Demonrats aren’t fooling anyone on the procedural argument. It was lost decades ago when this was first passed. Everyone supports the act except Amash and maybe Paul in the Senate.

    1. To be fair, Congress originally wanted to be able to override a presidential declaration of emergency by a simple majority, but SCOTUS decreed that the President was entitled to a veto and hence Congress rewrote the law to require a 2/3 majority to get its authority back.

  11. “such laws are void under our Constitution,”

    Not unless the supremes say so, buddy. I give you the Affordable Care Act.

    1. Yup,

      “The one-page resolution is straightforward. It cites the part of the National Emergencies Act that allows a joint congressional resolution to terminate a national emergency.”

      Not that it makes a difference any more these days but…

      US Constitution Article I, ? 7, ?3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

  12. My biggest problem with this resolution, and I wish Amash had introduced his own rather than co-sponsor this one is that Pelosi has already said today that she supports emergency powers she just is trying to stop Trump from being able to use it in this case. And it’s mainly because it is Trump doing it.

    1. Solely because Trump is doing it – – – –

      1. How many of Emperor Hussein’s EO did she oppose?

        1. None is the answer.

          This about Trump outsmarting them…again.

          I would be fine if Congress repeals the National Emergency Act, so no president ever can use a power like that.

          Democrats wont do that because they incorrectly think that a Democrat will be president in the future.

          1. Trump is a new kind of Republican, occasionally willing to use his *lawful* powers to support the Right.

            Imagine what a Republican with a true will to win could do.

    2. Which is in line with the de ocrat policy of ‘it’s ok when we do it’.

      Fuck them. The democrat party should be forcibly dismantled. Put most of the democrat leaders in GitMo.

  13. Forget signing the resolution. Demand that congress pass a revocation of the NEA in its entirety. Sign that.

  14. “That’s why he introduced a bill last month that would requiring the feds to offer landowners “just compensation” before seizing their property to make room for the barrier.”

    Um, isn’t that just the tiniest bit redundant? Constitutionally speaking, I mean? Is he also going to introduce a bill to prohibit Trump from establishing a state church?

    1. If my reading is correct he is requiring just compensation “before” taking the property. The Constitution does not require contemporaneous payment (at least as current case law from SCOTUS interprets it). The current system is take and then we will fight you over compensation. The bill would prohibit that.

  15. Why would you even want to be a Republican politician if it means putting your gonads in a jar and handing it over to an overweight yokel in motorcycle garb named Bubba? I keep thinking that each new crop of Republicans becomes more like the people they represent as the party increasingly radicalizes into stupid oblivion, but then the people never fail to get even stupider. I’d just go into private practice.

    1. Obvious troll is obvious.

      1. I’m just strongly against Republicans. Why would that be a trollish sentiment at a libertarian website?

        1. Because you demonize anyone you disagree with, not just Republicans, as we are all aware. Additionally, all you ever advocate for is less liberty for everyone and more government authority. You are far worse of a bigot and far less educated than those you claim to despise.

        2. “I’m not a troll, I swear!”

          You’re really losing your touch.

        3. Tony, I’m strongly against Marxism enthusiasts with slaver designs on my country.

          Now to,drink your Drano.

    2. Trying to Stop an Invasion – Democrats, “How stupid is that… Lets Subsidize the takeover.”
      Ya, someones ideology is “even stupider”.

      1. “Invasion.” Look in the mirror for stupidity please.

        1. Yup invasion.

        2. Really? What else would you call thirty million people here illegally?

    3. ” an overweight yokel in motorcycle garb named Bubba? ”

      racisttony gonna racist

  16. Trump should make the following offer: “I’ll sign the bill if it includes 5.7 billion for the wall”

    I know most of you hate Trump and I’m no huge fan, but I’ve hated Pelosi and Schumer for much, much longer.

    1. I’m a fan of some of the things he’s done, and is trying to do. I also:love the way he makes treasonous progtards apoplectic.

  17. Emergency powers are for situations in which the Legislature doesn’t have time to act. The House did have time to act and chose not to adopt the president’s plan.

    This is plainly an abuse of power and Congress should be working toward a bipartisan effort to repeal the NEA so that neither side can pull a stunt like this again. But we’re in a perpetual election cycle, so talking points are the best anyone can expect.

    1. You’re making statements that are not reflected in fact. The EP Act does not limit the president to your description.

    2. “Emergency powers are for situations in which the Legislature doesn’t have time to act.”

      The Left always mistakes their wishes for reality.

  18. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

    click here =====>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  19. I am making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people say to me how much money they can make connected so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my existence. This is what I do?. http://www.Mesalary.com

  20. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here……. http://www.2citypays.com

  21. Amash is pretty good, but he could be even better.
    “… he introduced a bill last month that would requiring the feds to offer landowners “just compensation” before seizing their property to make room for the barrier.”

    Seizing someone’s property is still stealing, even if you pay them “just compensation” for it. True property rights means the owners should have the freedom to reject the offer.

    1. “True property rights means the owners should have the freedom to reject the offer.”

      Your absolutist propertarianism is explicitly rejected by the Constitution.

      And absolutist propertarianism in land is one of the least justified property claims.
      The Lockean Proviso hasn’t held for over a century.

  22. The realities underlying the immigration debate are that we have more than enough people, more than enough imported poor people (see The Characteristics of Unauthorized Immigrants in California, Los Angeles County, and the United States by Karina Fortuny et al; the February 9, 2006 report by the California Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) on efficacy of border police; the Analysis of the California 2001-02 Budget Bill by the LAO), and more than enough imported criminals (read about Jamiel Shaw, Kate Steinle, Juan Francisco De Luna Vasquez, ); consider the disproportionate medicare fraud, food stamp fraud, and mortgage fraud by recent arrivals from cultures in which crime and fraud are normal – look up Glendale medicare fraud.

    1. Do libertarians believe that big government is a violation of rights, or not?

      If you do, big government voters violate your rights. They are criminals. Importing big government voters is importing State Crime. It’s a means of the ruling class to take your freedom.

      “Libertarian Moment”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.