Trump Administration

House Votes to Terminate Trump's National Emergency

Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash joined with Democrats to oppose the president's power grab.

|

YURI GRIPAS/UPI/Newscom

The House of Representatives voted today to terminate President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency, in a rare but welcome rebuke of executive overreach.

H.J. Res 46, which reads simply "the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019…is hereby terminated" passed on an 245-to-182 vote. The resolution commanded the support of all House Democrats, as well as 13 Republicans, including Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.), the resolution's one GOP co-sponsor, and Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.).

"This isn't about the border. This is about the Constitution," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) to CNN before the vote. Amash echoed these sentiments, while throwing some shade at his fellow Republicans who opposed the resolution, tweeting, "if your faithfulness to the Constitution depends on which party controls the White House, then you are not faithful to it."

The resolution comes two weeks after Trump's national emergency declaration, which—thanks to the broadly worded National Emergencies Act—allows the president to redirect already-appropriated defense funds to military construction projects that haven't been approved by Congress. According to the White House, Trump plans to use this emergency authority to redirect $3.6 billion of defense funding for a border wall, something today's resolution would put an end to.

Trump's declaration of a national emergency was roundly condemned by legal commenters.

National Review's David French argued that a border wall—part of a civilian border security effort—can't be considered a military construction project. The Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin says that the situation at the border can't plausibly be considered an emergency, invalidating Trump's declaration. Others, like the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro have said that the president's emergency declaration might well be legal under the vague National Emergencies Act, but that the act itself is unconstitutional.

Some 16 states have sued the Trump administration over his emergency declaration.

The resolution now goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it needs to secure at least four GOP votes in order to pass. So far only three GOP senators, Susan Collins (R–Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R–N.C.) have said they'd vote to terminate Trump's national emergency.

"There is no intellectual honesty in now turning around and arguing that there's an imaginary asterisk attached to executive overreach — that it's acceptable for my party but not thy party," said Tillis in a Monday night Washington Post op-ed.

That Tillis, Amash, and others are willing to buck their party to oppose Trump's national emergency declaration is a positive development. Less encouraging are the reactions of their fellow GOP lawmakers.

On Monday, Politico surveyed over a dozen Senate Republicans who still haven't decided if they'll vote to actually oppose Trump's emergency, despite criticizing it as unwise or even unconstitutional. At least ten GOP senators, including Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) and Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) have given unambiguous support for the president's declaration.

Equally worrying is the reaction from some Democrats, who seem less bothered by the constitutional or legal ramifications of Trump's emergency declaration, and more worried that it's not being invoked for progressive policy aims.

Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) suggested in an interview that while the lack of a border wall is not a national emergency, climate change, gun violence, and student loan debt are. "That's what we ought to be working on," said Warren.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.) was even more explicit, tweeting, "our next President should declare a #NationalEmergency on day 1 to address the existential threat to all life on the planet posed by Climate Change."

It will likely be a few more weeks until the Senate votes on the resolution passed by the House today. Trump has already promised to veto the measure. According to CNN, it's unlikely that Congress would be able to summon the two-thirds majority necessary to override the president's veto.

So, while it's welcome that Congress is at least attempting to grab back some of its powers from the executive with today's vote, it's quite likely that it will have minimal practical effect.

Advertisement

NEXT: Rep. Justin Amash: 'The President Doesn't Get To Just Declare an Emergency'

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. “if your faithfulness to the Constitution depends on which party controls the White House, then you are not faithful to it.”

    If you oppose a single emergency decree on a single issue by a single President, you’re not upholding the Constitution, you’re being extraordinarily selective – you’re accepting the general concept of Presidentially-decreed national emergencies, except of course when a President you dislike is declaring them.

    1. Exactly.

      Moreover, this House vote effectively CONCEDES the legitimacy of Trump’s national emergency declaration.

      The Dems just cut the knees out from under all those lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s national emergency declaration.

      More broadly, the Cloward-Piven strategy being pursued to destroy this country — by purposeful overwhelming of our “immigration” system (which currently includes forcing the taxpayer to cough up more than $117 billion annually, at last count, in welfare, housing, healthcare, sustenance, and, education for all of the illegal aliens who cross the border) ends, and it ends now. Trump decided that the continued exacerbation of unrestricted encroachment (or “invasion,” or whatever it is, but don’t call it “immigration” because it’s not) into this country “caused” (incentivized) by “open borders” constitutes a national emergency. Protecting the nation’s border is one of THE most fundamental meanings of “national security,” and specific statutory authority exists that references it, in contrast to the Liberals’ strawman “wait until we get a Dem president and then we can declare national emergencies to confiscate all your guns and all your wealth in order to address ‘climate change’ (but in reality to feather our own nests)” arguments, which are strawman and false-equivalences as compared to the open border/illegal alien/overwhelming-costs-therefor situation we have, and the president’s statutory authority to deal with it.

      1. Know-Nothing Anti-Immigrant Party you are.

        The 1850s want you back.

        1. Fuck off, child molester

          1. I’m not Catholic you pedophile.

            1. Fuck off, turd.
              Please make the world more intelligent and die.

              1. Sevo, is Moneyshot the Hihnfaggot, or another progtard?

                1. 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.payshd.com

              2. 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://xurl.es/jobsnet

            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. the Cloward-Piven strategy being pursued to destroy this country

        lol

      3. yeah, I agree, he is just a know-nothing bag of hot air (and shit, I presume). “Unrestricted encroachment”, “THE most fundamental meanings of…” I wonder how far up your ass you had to pull those ones out of nowhere but from your silly child-like mind

    2. Yes, and it has been going on since George Washington’s presidency. The problem is both parties have had total control and failed to fix the problem. Why? Because it is to useful a tool when in power, and politicians cannot see beyond the next election when they lose power. So, in summary, don’t expect any change.

  2. H.J. Res 46, which reads simply “the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019?is hereby terminated” passed on an 245-to-182 vote.

    56%

    Oh, sorry. Needs to be 2/3 majority to count. Try again.

  3. While I fully disagree with the motives of most who voted for this resolution, it is good to see congress stand up and assert their authority. It’s also nice to see such legally shady practices get pushback before the oligarchs in black decide what they want.
    The problem is we’ve seen how selective they are with these principles. It’s good to set such a precedent that the executive cannot unilaterally take such actions, but I have serious doubt that it will hold the moment an initiative favors democrats or government authority at large

    1. Perhaps at some point Congress will grow a pair of balls and finally put a sunset clause in the AUMF. There’s a reason we don’t want to give broad authority to wage any war, anywhere in the office of the President.

    2. It’s not a legally shady practice. Trump can’t just appropriate unlimited funds for this or any other purpose. All he can do is redirect limited existing funds that have already been appropriated towards the ’emergency’.

      As usual, de ocrats are flat out lying about the whole thing.

    3. When someone applies their principles selectively, they are not principles.

  4. The resolution comes two weeks after Trump’s national emergency declaration, which?thanks to the broadly worded National Emergencies Act?allows the president to redirect already-appropriated defense funds to military construction projects that haven’t been approved by Congress.

    Does it? Where does it say that?

    The act says he can declare an emergency, but any extraordinary powers must have previously been authorized by Congress. Perhaps there is some authorization lying around somewhere, but it’s not in the act itself.

    1. It’s in one of the two statutes Trump invoked in the emergency declaration – 10 U.S.C. 2808.

      1. 10 USC 2808

        In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces,

        lol

        1. Lol I get a wall and you get sandy in your pussy. Win win bitch baby.

        2. Little Jeffy, this is far beyond your limited understanding. Maybe go play in your sandbox.

        3. Yup, due to Congress deliberately undermanning the ICE, stopping this invasion requires use of the armed forces.

          Is it BS to some extent? Yeah, but no more so than many things that are routinely done.

      2. So, will the US Army (Department of Defense) patrol the border instead of US Border Patrol (Department of Homeland Security)?

  5. Let’s watch as all the Trumpalos who earlier today were arguing that Trump is perfectly within the purview of the powers delegated to him by Congress now yell and scream that Congress is upending the Constitution.

    1. And when Trump vetoes it he’ll upending the Constitution! Everyone is violating norms…..by having ignored norm violations in the recent past

      1. What’s depressing is that in 2016 intelligent people from all stripes of “non-mainstream” political perspectives were pointing out that a silver lining to a Trump presidency would be that the Office of the President would finally be held accountable and perhaps curbed a bit.

        Instead, many who once called themselves ‘libertarians’ now approve of all kinds of unilateral executive overreach on the principle that not quite enough people complained sufficiently loudly when the last several presidents over-reached, so therefore we should be cheering Trump on.

        1. Turns out, a lot of people who called themselves libertarians back in the Obama years, were really just Republicans who hated Obama but who didn’t want to be stuck with the icky Republican label. But now that Obama is gone, then it’s back to Team Red, baby!

          1. Not everyone is fooled by authoritarian, stale-thinking, right-wing bigots in libertarian drag.

            1. How’s trumps ass taste?

              1. You would know.

            2. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|2.26.19 @ 8:15PM|#
              “Not everyone is fooled by authoritarian, stale-thinking, right-wing bigots in libertarian drag.”

              And not everyone is fooled by statist assholes claiming some familiarity with libertarianism, statist asshole.

          2. Personally, I called myself a Libertarian starting in the mid-70’s, through the mid 90’s, and was very active in the LP.

            Lately? Well, the LP left me about as much as I left it. The libertarian movement I joined back then understood path dependence, that you couldn’t throw open the borders while the country was still a welfare state, so ending the welfare state had to come first.

            Today’s LP? Not so much. They’re mostly about implementing the parts of libertarianism that are compatible with the left’s ambitions, and putting off the bits that aren’t. Just another institution the left has taken over and now uses as a sock puppet.

            1. Me too Brett.

        2. Agreed. I think my biggest problem is that they’re not realizing, or don’t care, that Trump is a symptom not a cause. Congress didn’t bother to actually try and rewrite the statutes in question, so they aren’t really holding the Presidency in check they’re just trying to hold Trump in check which isn’t really the same thing at all.

          1. they’re not realizing, or don’t care, that Trump is a symptom not a cause

            Yeah – that’s my biggest concern – that after Trump the culture of DC will just snap into “ahhh – now we’ve purged the corruption and lying from Washington, and can go back to normal.”

            1. Of course that’s what will happen. It’s insane to believe otherwise. It’s a no win scenario in fact. Give Democrats enough of a majority to curb Trump, and they impeach and continue the progressive agenda. Don’t give them that, and we get the past 50 years of status quo.

              While neither option is a libertarian win, it seems the choice is clear.

              1. it seems the choice is clear.

                Let me guess – the James T. Kirk solution to the no-win scenario?

                Oh wait, you were going to say “vote for Team Red”, weren’t you? HA

                1. Sand in your pus-sy all there is sand in your pus-sy.

                  Apologies to Kansas

                  1. Grow up.

                    1. “chemjeff radical individualist|2.26.19 @ 10:32PM|#

                      Grow up.”

                      L
                      O
                      L

                2. Actually, I would say the best route jeffy, is to try to move the GOP in the direction we want. Of course, YOU are not in any way anything but a progressive, so I am sure that is not the path you would choose.

                  1. If 2019, filled with cheering on socialism, baby killing, and declaring war with the climate, hasn’t moved Jeff to the right, nothing will.

                    Jeff would complain about Trump while in Bernie’s breadline.

                  2. “Actually, I would say the best route jeffy, is to try to move the GOP in the direction we want.”

                    Yea. You are the GOP, so move it wherever you want.

    2. Sullum deserves credit for being as unbiased as usual. “Even though it’s legal” . . .

      I’m with Sullum. The question isn’t whether it’s legal. The question is whether it’s wrong.

      I will say that when we talk about the President stepping all over Congress’ powers, we’re usually talking about Congress’ failure to stand up for themselves. At some point, the question stops being about the constitutionality and starts being about Congress’ failure to defend their enumerated powers. Can we complain about that here?

      I don’t see anything unconstitutional about any of this. I deride Congress for ceding their constitutional powers to the president in the past, and I applaud Congress for standing up for themselves now.

      1. At some point, the question stops being about the constitutionality and starts being about Congress’ failure to defend their enumerated powers. Can we complain about that here?

        Yes – I made a similar comment earlier today.

        I don’t see anything unconstitutional about any of this.

        Per the letter of the law? No. Counter to the spirit? Arguably yes – very much.

        1. I’d counter one thing and say Trump is using the statutes exactly as intended by the Congress that wrote them. Presidents before the statutes claimed even broader powers, notably. I think that’s why at least some of us are already claiming the constitution is dead; the spirit is almost completely lost already.

    3. This is hilarious to watch all the trolls and socks try and get a discussion going while in such a butthurt status.

      Thanks again Trump!

  6. Massie voted in favor of the resolution and his position has actually been consistent on executive overreach. Amash has been consistent with the will of his funders, though

    1. JFC, your hate of Amash is ridiculous.

  7. “if your faithfulness to the Constitution depends on which party controls the White House, then you are not faithful to it.”

    The Constitution’s been a dead letter for a long time. It’s finally getting to the point that nobody even feels it necessary to pretend the corpse is still twitching. See for example, the early slate of Democratic hopefuls.

    1. We shouldn’t expect politicians to care any more about it than the American people do. I blame the American people.

      We should be yelling at our friends and family about this. Well, not my friends and family. They’re blameless. But Jerryskids’ family–especially his uncle. Man, that guy needs a yelling.

    2. Not to beat a dead horse but I’d take a couple of those Democratic nominees over half the Republican caucus when it comes to executive overreach.

      1. That may be going too far.

        Show me a progressive who won’t support violating the separation of powers out of principle when it’s something they want.

        The Paris Accords were a horseshit treaty.
        The Iran nuclear deal was a horseshit treaty.
        The individual mandate was horseshit.
        Obama’s Libyan adventure was horseshit.

        1. And the new crop of candidates are already braying about declaring global warming a national emergency. Who’d’a thunkit? Who’d’a thought Trump was not the least-principled politician?

          1. Yes, but this just shows how shallow their thought process is – the power to declare an emergency doesn’t give them any other power unless it is expressly authorized in another statute. Trump can build his wall because 10 USC 2808 allows him to reappropriate funds allocated to military construction. What statute are libs going to point to once they declare their global warming emergency to do…well…anything? Ok, it’s an emergency. Now what?

            1. What statute are libs going to point to once they declare their global warming emergency to do…well…anything?

              The Green New Deal.

              1. That had no chance of passing, notably.

            2. I appreciate your point here. FWIW, the point I was making is that there isn’t really anybody like Amash on the other side of the aisle, is there? And isn’t that a function of the left’s ideology? I think the Democrats’ principles went the way of the dodo bird about the same time as the honest liberal went extinct.

              When President Ocasio-Cortez declares an emergency to implement the Green New Deal, who on the Democrat side of the aisle will stand up like Amash on principle and say, “I want secure borders [a green economy] as much as the next true believer, but I’m not willing to violate the Constitution to get it”?

              I maintain that the purpose of progressives is to use the coercive power of government to force us to make sacrifices for their idea of the greater good. I’m not sure Amash’s principled argument is possible on the Democrat side of the aisle anymore. Principle for a progressive is forcing us to do what they see as greater good–and if that’s in spite of being unconstitutional, that just shows the depth of their commitment to the greater good.

              Is there anyone on the left who opposes hate speech laws because they violate the First Amendment anymore? They consider principled constitutionalism the enemy almost universally, and I only added the “almost universally” because I’m allowing for the possibility that such a person still exists in the Democrats in Congress somewhere. But I can’t think of anybody like that.

              1. Let me make this simple for you.

                Progressives and other Socialists are uninterested in means, they are interested only in ends. And as has been said many times “the ends justify the means”.

                This discussion that features points like, “I agree with your objective, but your method is wrong” is inherently a constitutionalist/libertarians/conservative argument.

                Notice, I did not reference Republican or Democrat in my statements up until now.

                Now, Democrats in national office are ENTIRELY Progressives and other Socialists today. They differ on what methods will get them there the fastest.

                Republicans are a mixed bag, at least to some extent, with a mixture of Progressives, Conservatives, and libertarian leaners.

              2. “And isn’t that a function of the left’s ideology?”

                Yes

                And many who call themselves libertarians let them get away with it so they can go to cocktail parties

                *cough* Suderman *cough*

            3. “Trump can build his wall because 10 USC 2808 allows him to reappropriate funds allocated to military construction. What statute are libs going to point to once they declare their global warming emergency to do…well…anything?”

              At that point, I think we’re looking at a grass roots event.

              This would probably be bigger than the Tea Party, which exploded outside the Republican party but within the conservative movement–in no small part because President Bush and Minority leaders Boehner were Republicans.

              We’d definitely get a bigger reaction from the Republican grass roots than the one Gingrich harnessed in 1994 against HillaryCare, gun control, etc.

              Point being, the reaction to the Green New Deal would be so big and powerful outside of Washington DC that what the Republicans in the House and Senate were doing might seem irrelevant. We’re talking the Yellow Vest movement times 100. That reaction wouldn’t be about finding precedent or leverage in law. That reaction would be about maintaining the legitimacy of the U.S. Government.

              Whomever the grass roots elects in reaction to the Democrats implementing the Green New Deal will make Trump look like an insider.

            4. What statute are libs going to point to once they declare their global warming emergency to do…well…anything? Ok, it’s an emergency. Now what?

              Same one Trump cited – 10 USC 2808.

              “In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces,…”

              Evidently all the President has to do is to send the military to do some task related to climate change, in his role as commander-in-chief, and then declare a fake national emergency over climate change, because – see, the military was necessary to stop climate change, because the commander-in-chief said so!

              Creating a manufactured emergency isn’t so hard after all.

              1. This is it, the point that so many Trumpistas ignore in their rush to laud their Principal over any Constitutional principles. Global Warming is a national emergency as much as illegal immigration. It just depends on who your Principal is and what point it wants to stretch beyond reason.

                1. You both, Jeffy and alphabet soupy, are full of it.

                  Like Trump’s position or not, citing 10 USC 2808 makes sense for Trump BECAUSE hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the US across the border, especially since they have begun to do so in ten thousand people convoys, can be regarded as an invasion.

                  Repelling an invasion is a legitimate function of the US military and it is no coincidence that Trump has called it an invasion. It is key to the legality of the action he has taken.

                  So “Evidently all the President has to do is to send the military to do some task related to climate change, in his role as commander-in-chief, and then declare a fake national emergency over climate change, because – see, the military was necessary to stop climate change, because the commander-in-chief said so!” is pure bullshit because there is no connection between “climate change” and the responsibilities of the US military.

                  You don’t need to agree with Trump. It would be nice if you made well considered arguments instead of stupidly contrived ones.

                  1. “You don’t need to agree with Trump. It would be nice if you made well considered arguments instead of stupidly contrived ones.”

                    You mean like this one, “hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the US across the border, especially since they have begun to do so in ten thousand people convoys, can be regarded as an invasion.”

                2. Where will they be directing the military to point their guns? The sky?

                3. So Global Warming, you are ready to go to war with China, India, and every 3rd world country right? Also, war with cows. I know your reason is their CO2 is invading us like illegal immigrates

        2. The Iran nuclear deal was a horseshit treaty.

          You’re still a fucking idiot GOPer Ken.

          1. That treaty was either ratified by two-thirds of the Senate or wasn’t it–regardless of whether I’m a fucking idiot GOPer.

            Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?

            1. NATO joined with the US to ban nuclear weapons grade fuel in Iraq and you want to quibble about the Senate ratifying it?

              That is why you are an idiot. You only care about GOP victory and Obama losses.

              1. “NATO joined with the US to ban nuclear weapons grade fuel in Iraq [Iran] and you want to quibble about the Senate ratifying it?”

                You mean Iran?

                NATO didn’t join with the US to ban nuclear weapons grade fuel in Iran. Iran was found to be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for enriching uranium in secret. According to the treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, Iran forfeited the right to enrich their own uranium. That wasn’t about NATO and the U.S. That was about the UN.

                The UN Security Counsel passed a resolution condemning Iran for violating the NPT, even China and Russia acceded to it. Neither of them vetoed it, and the sanctions that were imposed on Iran for violating the NPT either. Are you under the impression that Russia is part of NATO? Are you unaware that the U.S. Senate ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?

              2. Moneyshot, or whoever the fuck you are, take your progtardation elsewhere. Or better yet, commit suicide.

              3. Again, as pointed out before, progressives (like you) don’t actually care about stuff like adhering to the constitution. (like getting treaties ratified)

                Ends justify the Means, right moneyshit?

  8. My complaint against Trump’s emergency power grab was that–regardless of whether it’s legal–it was running an end around Congress’ enumerates powers. So, I guess the irony is that now Congress has weighed in, that complaint ain’t what it used to be. How do we complain about Trump not taking Congress into account–on this issue–when Congress is weighing in as much as they think their popularity and their constituents will let them?

    I was opposed to Trump running an end around Congress this way–even though I support securing the border. If the Democrats in the House want to impress me, they should pass some legislation to rein in the president when it isn’t a highly partisan issue that they oppose like building the wall. I suppose I should be impressed by Amash being principled on this issue. Is there a principled Democrat to be found anywhere in Congress?

    1. My complaint against Trump’s emergency power grab was that–regardless of whether it’s legal–it was running an end around Congress’ enumerates powers.

      ^ This.

      There is no scenario where the power of government is limited by people who aren’t being insufferable hypocrites. We have to work with the government we have, after all.

      1. Agreed. And, for sure, there is no principled Democrat to be found…..which is why they should come together to close this loophole. Tyranny via Emergency actions is not in the best interest of anybody, regardless of political affiliation. However, I’d be surprised if they can re-assert their power at this point. It’ll be interesting to see how the judicial branch interprets this move.

  9. INS v. Chadha is such a stupid ruling. Congress has the power to make laws to delegate “lawmaking” to the executive, but not the power to make laws saying that it can revoke those powers without a veto-proof majority? Fucking stupid.

    The National Emergencies Act Makes No Goldurned Sense

    1. Now now Juice. You know the rules. The rules are:

      – If the President is a D, then the rule is “The President must follow strictly to the letter of the Constitution and if he doesn’t, it is just proof that he hates America”
      – If the President is an R, then the rule is “The President gets to do all the things that the previous D president did, and don’t you dare question me on if it’s constitutional or not, just look at how furiously I’m waving my flag! USA! USA!”

      1. Does it ever bother the tribalists, on either side, that their identity can be reduced to one bit of information?

        1. Does it ever bother the tribalists, on either side, that their identity can be reduced to one bit of information?

          No. No it does not.

      2. Well, according to the article, this makes sense to me.

        One thing that the Pildes article doesn’t address, and something that deserves a thorough hearing in the eventual challenge to this specific emergency, is severability. In Chadha, Congress had explicitly included, in Section 406, a provision laying out that if any particular provision of the Act is held invalid, the remainder of the Act shall not be affected. So when the Court struck down the legislative veto provision, the immigration and naturalization regime of the United States could keep on trucking uninterrupted.

        But there’s no such non-severability clause in the NEA. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a law designed to lay out the balance of constitutionally legislative powers being deferred to the executive without assuming the joint resolution mechanism was central to the whole enterprise. If Congress can’t kill this on a simple majority vote, then the whole NEA should be struck down.

        Should be? Wasn’t it already struck down in INS v Chadha? Has the NEA been a dead letter since 1983?

        1. I am looking forward to Kavanaugh casting the deciding vote to declare the NEA unconstitutional. LC1789 will have a meltdown.

      3. Lol remember when this tool used to pretend to not be team blue.

        1. Yep. Just another progtard traitor. His parents should really have him put down.

          1. If we wack him in NY, can we get off claiming it is just a late term abortion?

      4. Are you a retard, Jeff? Seriously. I’m not kidding. Only a retard could write what you’ve just written and not see that it undermines everything that you’ve been braying about.

        – If the President is a D, then the rule is “The President must follow strictly to the letter of the Constitution and if he doesn’t, it is just proof that he hates America”

        So, the rules are, if the President is a D, the President must follow strictly to the letter of the Constitution .

        Okay.

        – If the President is an R, then the rule is “The President gets to do all the things that the previous D president did, and don’t you dare question me on if it’s constitutional or not, just look at how furiously I’m waving my flag! USA! USA!”

        And if the President is an R, then he ‘gets’ to do all the things that the previous D president did.

        Okay. And what did the D President get to do?


        – If the President is a D, then the rule is “The President must follow strictly to the letter of the Constitution

        So that means–based on what you’ve said– that the R President ‘gets’ to follow strictly to the letter of the Constitution .

        And you wrote this as some kinda ‘gotcha!’ ?

        Do they measure your IQ in negative numbers?

    2. Insanity. Congress shouldn’t even have the authority to shirk its responsibility by delegating to the executive

      1. Someone who used to hang out here was prone to pointing out that the Framers never anticipated that one of the co-equal branches of government would actually seek to get rid of its powers. I think it may have been Gilmore, but I wouldn’t want to swell his ego by quoting him twice in one day.

      2. If we had as many Congressional reps as we should, they would have enough people to do the work of every executive department they claim is necessary.

  10. Good thing this so-called emergency was still in its first trimester. There was hardly a heartbeat.

    1. Are you under the impression that the House passing something means it’s now the law?

      1. In fact, as I think you implied earlier, this may backfire badly – if Congress can’t get this resolution actually passed, it becomes tacit approval of the State of Emergency.

        1. The only good outcome would be passing with a veto proof majority. But, yeah, it will be worse if they can’t even get it to a veto.

          1. Another Trump win will be good.

            Build the wall.

            No more illegals

        2. I suspect Chipper read the headline and thought that Congress had passed a law ending Trump’s emergency–and it didn’t even need to go to Trump’s desk for signature.

          He was already headed to the emergency’s funeral, but the patient isn’t dead yet. The patient hasn’t even sneezed yet.

          1. It’s called a play on words, Ken. Brevity is the soul of wit, Kenosabe.

            1. Yeah, well, just for the record, the emergency isn’t its first trimester. The emergency has been born, it’s a nine pound baby boy, and it’s already running around, happy as a clam. And of all the ways the emergency might get killed, this bill passing the House is by far the least threatening of them. The fact that they couldn’t get two-thirds of the House to vote for it makes it less threatening than it might have been.

              When it starts making its way up through the courts, let me know.

              IF IF IF the Senate passes it by more than a two-thirds majority, let me know.

              Pelosi’s temper tantrums are frightening but harmless.

            2. It wasn’t a play on words, and you have no fucking wit whatsoever, chipper morning eunuch.

              Stop
              Trying

              1. If you actually had more personality than a paperweight, I would take the time and trouble to roast you. But man, oh, man, are you ever featureless and insipid, like a patina of mildew on an old shower curtain.

  11. Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D?Mass.) suggested in an interview that while the lack of a border wall is not a national emergency, climate change, gun violence, and student loan debt are. “That’s what we ought to be working on,” said Warren.

    And that’s why she’s been consistently in my top 3 2020 Presidential candidates. I look forward to the next Democratic President fighting for common sense gun safety legislation.

    #LibertariansForWarren
    #LibertariansForGunSense

    1. Does anyboby but me wonder if OBL is a DNC sock puppet?

      1. OBL is doing god’s work. He (or she) spends all day mocking the nonsense that progressives pretending to be libertarians say around here. These lefties will ignore the blatant nanny stating going on by the democratic party because they agree with the DNC on open borders and baby killing.

        It makes my day

  12. Pelosi And Schumer Deliver Their Response Through Snapchat

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJYn8t5gZFs

  13. This is why Trump will go down as the greatest President of the first half of the 21st Century – he got these useless fucks to find their balls and stand up for something.

  14. Wait, i thought all these fake-ass “libertarians” were all about the TEXT of the Constitution?

    Now they want the Dotard to have powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

    Seriously, you fake-ass libertarian assholes can’t even remember what your Useful Idiot orders are.

    1. Eh, protecting the border is literally one of those things the federal government should do.

      1. Show me in the TEXT of the Constitution where a WALL is required.

        I am tired of asshole conservatives bleating about the actual words of something (like privacy) need to be in the Constitution.

        Of course I know that idiot Originalists are just Aborto_Freaks that work their way backward into interpretation.

        1. Lol I support a wall just so you have a rage stroke.

          1. Really, my effort and concern are minimal compared to all the fake-ass libertarians trying to justify The Dotard’s Big Government inclinations.

            1. You are just as much a fake libertarian as anyone here. You team blue libertarian cosplayers just have less control of your tempers and forgot what the pimp hand feels like.

            2. Big government according to you is a wall to protect citizens that cost 5 billion dollars. Big government to me is a fake climate disaster to destroy the economy and pay everyone not to work.

              The enemy of your enemy is your friend. In this case, your friend is a socialist who hates cows, babies, and planes.

              You picked your side, now enjoy the ride.

              1. Big government is also the expansion of the welfare/industrial state explicitly aided and accomplished through the creation and importation of millions foreign nationals, including dependents themselves and driving others into dependence as prices rise and opportunity falls.

                1. *welfare/industrial should be welfare/administrative

                  …though the welfare industrial complex is a part of this

        2. It doesn’t have to specify a wall you stupid shit. Just like it doesn’t have to specify that the military has toilets to crap out hunks of things like you.

        3. The wall is listed in the constitution right under jet fighters, tanks, and ICBMs.

          What a stupid argument.

      2. So I guess “protecting the border” is the Right’s version of “for the children” – it grants carte blanche authority to the state to do whatever they want it to do in the name of unicorns and rainbows.

        1. EL PRESIDENTE WANT THAT WALL NOW!

        2. Your ass it is a hurt-in.

          1. You seem obsessed with male asses.

            1. Ok I’ll switch it up your vagina- it’s full of sand.

              1. Were you born on the beach? A children’s playground? Why the obsession with sandy minges?

                1. I do admit, I am enjoying our Progressive (sorry, Democratic Socialist) contingent being so butt hurt over the wall. Seeing them sputtering away IS pretty entertaining!

        3. You meant for the children…that we don’t abort right?

  15. This is the line to draw, the hill yall wanna die on?

    The commander in chief using funds budgeted for the department of defense to build defensive fortifications on the US border for the purpose of stopping the unauthorized entry of hundreds of thousands of prohibited foreign nationals, per year, from joining the tens of millions of prohibited foreign nationals already dwelling within the US. Funds that amount to roughly 0.1% of the budget passed by Congress.

    Really?

    I guess the 58 previous instances of a presidential national emergency decree weren’t worth it, but now that the purpose is to use defense/military funds to actually defend the borders of this country it’s a bridge too far.

    And anyone who doesn’t agree that this singular decree, as opposed to the 58 before it at the time they happened, is a constitutional crises is just a “Trump humper” who hates the constitution?

    I get bitching about the 1976 law allocating emergency to the president, in general.
    But bitching about this one by this president, specifically, as if it were some terrible aberration, reeks of ulterior motives.

    1. So, which one of the other 58 was an emergency that was entirely manufactured by the President in order to create a justification for the decree?

      1. “chemjeff radical individualist|2.26.19 @ 10:12PM|#

        So, which one of the other 58 was an emergency that was entirely manufactured by the President in order to create a justification for the decree?”

        All of them.
        Your inability to understand the written word and the world around you is sad.
        Neither do you understand yourself.

        1. All of them.

          LOL really?

          http://www.govinfo.gov/content…..1-2140.pdf

          So Clinton deliberately created a civil war in Sierra Leone just so he could declare a national emergency and bend the government to his will. Really?

          1. Jeffy you little shitbag. Take your semantical arguments and sophistry the fuck out of here.

            Wortlesss disingenuous little progtard.

          2. So you like trade restrictions now?

          3. So you’re saying Trump directed tens of millions of foreign nationals to illegally cross the border over the last several decades, or even just recently, so that he could declare it a national emergency?

            Because my point was that yes, all national emergencies have been “manufactured” as emergencies for the US by presidents via presidents declaring them so.
            It’s the text of the law

    2. And:

      Illegal Immigration =/= Military Invasion

      Even if you don’t believe in open borders, illegal immigration has been a civilian law enforcement matter since forever.

      The Department of Defense is for *military matters*. Not for *civilian law enforcement*.

      Do you REALLY want to start going there? Hmm?

      1. Illegal entry into the USA is a fucking misdemeanor.

        FAKE-ASS LIBERTARIANS WANT MISDEMEANORS DECLARED A NATIONAL EMERGENCY!

        1. They want penniless Guatemalans equated with enemy soldiers, and they want to use the military to enforce civilian law. Yeah, that’s not even conservative, let alone libertarian.

          1. Too bad you weren’t strangled in your crib you little weasel. And everything you say is lying twisted bullshit. You belong in a landfill, with all the other subversives.

      2. “chemjeff radical individualist|2.26.19 @ 10:14PM|#

        And:

        Illegal Immigration =/= Military Invasion

        Even if you don’t believe in open borders, illegal immigration has been a civilian law enforcement matter since forever.

        The Department of Defense is for *military matters*. Not for *civilian law enforcement*.

        Do you REALLY want to start going there? Hmm?”

        You’ve added a word before ‘invasion’ that’s rather revealing of insecurity, but I’ll give you a chance.

        How do you fundamentally define invasion such that it excludes forced entry and occupation of sovereign territory by a foreign entity?

        Define ‘civilian’ and tell us how ‘civilian’ can be distinguished, a priori, from ‘foreign agent’, ‘spy’, or ‘colonist’.

        In light of the data regarding remittances, how are illegal aliens different from colonists?

        1. “Show me on the doll where the illegal immigrant touched you”

          I’M not the one who is insecure, you are. A migrant that you never see or know about, who does not harm you in any way, is threatening to you because that migrant doesn’t have the correct papers from the state. How sad is that.

          What is the difference between “migration” and “invasion”? Intent. Invasion connotes a sinister intent, which is why the closed-border crowd is so eager to use that term to describe it. You want to promote a narrative of sinister swarthy dangerous criminals raping Lady Liberty while ravaging the countryside. The data doesn’t support your narrative and I’m not going to play along with it. And I’m certainly not going to endorse declaring a fake national emergency in order to fulfill your narrative fantasies.

          In light of the data regarding remittances, how are illegal aliens different from colonists?

          Hmm. So when you show up to your job, and your boss pays you, and then you give some of that salary money to your family in the form of groceries, etc., have you “invaded” and “colonized” your workplace? Do you see how ridiculous you sound?

          1. ISIS hasn’t hurt me personally yet either. Should we let them immigrate here as well?

          2. I gave you a chance, jeff.
            You took the opportunity to rely on mind reading, emotional projection, and deliberate, and phenomenal, misreading.
            This isn’t even sophistry, it’s just stupid.

    3. 1) it was plain as day to see it was garbage when after announcing it was “an emergency”, he also announced “we didn’t need to do it” and could have been done in normal order. Sorry, your salesman, not mine. If he can’t himself sell it as an emergency as the salesman in chief, then I guess it isn’t an emergency.

      2) The national emergency BS in general is a joke, and anyone invoking it for their failed legislation is just using a backdoor because they can’t rally the country or their caucus to get legislation passed the way it should be. To watch all these “libertarians” on here just bend over for trump’s lil dick for whatever he wants is hysterical. You guys know there were Dems in the past you hated, and worse to come in the future that will use this to take as many freedoms and rights from you as possible right?

      I know, looking more than 1 move ahead is hard.

      1. I know, looking more than 1 move ahead is hard.

        Well, they think that the next D president would have declared a national emergency *anyway* in the name of climate change or gun control or something else. And who knows, he/she just might. BUT –

        1. Clinton had his chance, Obama had his chance, and they didn’t. Obama found ways to stretch his executive order authority but somehow it never dawned on him to declare national emergencies and use the military to enforce civilian law? Oh I’m sure it did, he just didn’t cross that line.

        2. As we now see, in the era of Trump, the argument of “because the other guy got to do it, that justifies MY GUY doing it” is an addictive and alluring argument.

        1. Many of them who declared “National Emergencies” used them for that purpose. Have you read them?

      2. The idea that progressives give any fucks about the constitution is laughable. If you think they needed Trump to make a move in order to power grab you’re out of your damn mind.

        Leftists gonna leftist, and their one and only goal is to control anything and everything they can.

        I don’t think the border is an emergency, but at least I’m not so blinded by TDS that I forgot what progressivism is all about

  16. I admire how the Con Man assured his greasy-ass minions that MEXICO WILL PAY FOR THE WALL and now they don’t have the brain cells to remember his grifty promises.

  17. See this feral impotent left wing. It means we are getting our big beautiful wall boys. Enjoying a nice steak at the Palm to celebrate. Pretty soon these busy boys will speak English. Wins all day

    1. You stupid fuckholes were duped when the Con Man loudly proclaimed that MEXICO WILL PAY FOR THE WALL – admit it. Man up for once.

      1. Lol this is what disoriented defeat looks like. I just finished a delicious steak and now I’m three brandies deep. You’ve shit yourself out of pure rage. Waiter I’ll take a fourth it’s a celebration after all.

        1. So wait…you are at a restaurant eating a wonderful steak drinking brandy, and you are drawn back to the reason comment board…

          Fuck most of us just come on here when we are at work, do that steak some fucking respect and put down your phone, queer

          1. Come on, poor Sam Haysom needs SOME company during a meal!

      2. moneyshot|2.26.19 @ 10:43PM|#
        “You stupid fuckholes were duped when the Con Man loudly proclaimed that MEXICO WILL PAY FOR THE WALL – admit it. Man up for once.”

        Tell us about your fave hag, turd. And tell us about ‘manning up’ you pathetic piece of shit.

  18. Yall. Or y’all All y’all.

    Southern man don’t need you around.

    The prep schooler heel spur from New York Jersey golden toilets better watch his self.

    In Vietnam now. Facing off that other pudgy guy. Best of luck.

  19. Notice House Democrats didnt repeal the National Emergency Act.

    They passed a less than veto-proof declaration wanting to stop Trump. The senate wont pass it or Trump will veto it.

    Haha. Trump is either getting more than $1.7 billion in wall funding or he is getting Congress to go back and repeal the Act. The Lefties actually think they will have one of theirs as President, so they wont repeal the Act.

    Thanks for playing open border people.

    MAGA

    1. This gets us one step closer to the public waking up to what democrats really are. When that happens, we can finally have the Red Scare 2.0 this country needs to survive.

      No one should EVER feel safe advocating for socialism in this country.

      1. No one here is, dumbfuck.

      2. +1000

  20. 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.GeoSalary.com

  21. For all the nonsense on this issue, a couple of basic questions and points:

    First, this is a resolution, not a bill. Bills go to the president for signature or veto. Congressional resolutions typically do not. And the other hand, bills when signed become law. Resolutions control the functioning of Congress itself and do not typically have the effect of law.

    Second, A question I have not yet seen addressed, and then I do not have the time to look up for myself: does the emergency powers statute allow Congress to “terminate” an emergency by resolution? It would be great if Congress retain that power for itself, but my strong suspicion is that Congress did not do this. But unless the statute allows Congress to terminate an emergency by resolution, the resolution passed by the house is an empty gesture.

    1. This is a Joint Resolution

      US Constitution, Article I, Section 7:
      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.

    2. To terminate an emergency action, a joint resolution is necessary…which means the president must sign it. The only way this emergency action can be terminated is with President Trump’s signature or a veto-proof 2/3 supermajority. So even if the senate passes it, it will be vetoed. The only way Trumpty Dumpty doesn’t get his wall is if the Supreme Court finds something unconstitutional in all of this, which is not out of the realm of possibility.

      1. So the emergency powers statute authorizes Congress to terminate the emergency by joint resolution.

        By as the constitution lover points out, without the ability to override a veto, the joint resolution fails.

        Question: could congress have given itself the power to terminate an emergency by resolution without allowing the president the right to veto? It seems inconsistent with The constitutional provision quoted above, but of Congress can delegate the power to declare an emergency, isn’t it free to condition or restrain that power as it sees fit?

        1. Correct. As far as I understand. Congress could’ve done that, I believe, in 1976 when they implemented the act. Why they didn’t is beyond me. They probably didn’t think any president would use it the way it’s being used today. They essentially neutered themselves and probably delegated too much power to the executive branch.

  22. No one has brought up Rand Paul’s name in all this discussion? He could be the fourth vote to get the bill over the line.

    1. Seems possible, although it will be vetoed by the president. It’ll be interesting to see if the senate has any spine at all left by this point. I wouldn’t count on it.

  23. “Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D?Mass.) suggested in an interview that while the lack of a border wall is not a national emergency, climate change, gun violence, and student loan debt are.”

    Same bullshit, different political agenda. Calling them national emergencies is as just as loony as calling the lack of a border wall a national emergency. Not getting you own way isn’t a national emergency, it’s life.

  24. I guess the irony is that now Congress has weighed in, that complaint ain’t what it used to be. How do we complain about Trump not taking Congress into account on this issue…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.