Ben Sasse

What the Heck, Ben Sasse?

Sasse tarnished his reputation as a thoughtful, independent, constitutional conservative by supporting Trump's emergency declaration.

|

Sipa USA/Newscom

When the Senate voted Thursday afternoon to block President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency on the southern border, most Republicans stood with the president and opposed the effort.

But none of those "nay" votes seems quite as loud, or discordant, as the one cast by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who is fond of talking about the importance of Congress as a check on runaway executive power but who declined Thursday to play his part in stopping exactly such a power grab. The joint resolution passed easily—59-41, with 12 Republicans supporting it—so Sasse's vote didn't change the outcome, but that really only makes Sasse's opposition more curious.

Even more curious is the statement Sasse provided about the vote.

"We have an obvious crisis at the border," he said, before defending Trump's authority to use the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (NEA) to address it.

"I think that law is overly broad and I want to fix it, but at present Nancy Pelosi doesn't," Sasse said. "As a constitutional conservative, I believe that the NEA currently on the books should be narrowed considerably."

His argument, essentially, is that it's more important to fix the many flaws with the NEA than to block a single instance of executive overreach made possible by the law—a law that he worries will be used by a future Democratic president in more and different ways to trample Congress.

But, c'mon, this isn't a binary choice. Voting to stop Trump's exective flexing doesn't prevent Congress from doing more to limit presidents' authority to use the NEA for politically-motivated national emergencies that really aren't. Sasse could absolutely vote for Thursday's resolution and continue advocating for further congressional action against the NEA—in fact, his position likely would only be bolstered by voting to stop Trump in this instance. That's exactly what a self-identified "constitutional conservative" should do.

Instead, his statement makes it sound like Sasse is in favor of checks and balances for partisan reasons only. That's a shame, because a vote in favor of the resolution would also fit with the concerns Sasse has (repeatedly) expressed about executive overreach and congressional complacency.

Here's Sasse last month in National Review talking about the emergency declaration:

"If we get used to presidents just declaring an emergency any time they can't get what they want from Congress, it will be almost impossible to go back to a Constitutional system of checks and balances. Over the past decades, the legislative branch has given away too much power and the executive branch has taken too much power."

And back in August, Sasse went on a lengthy stem-winder during the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, prompting me to praise him for calling out how Congress has abdicated its responsibility to be the nation's law-making authority by handing over power to the executive branch.

"Government is about power. Government is not just another word for things we do together," said Sasse. "Almost all the power right now happens off-stage, and that leaves people wondering 'Who is looking out for me?'"

On Thursday, Sasse had a chance put his vote where his mouth is. He didn't do it. His vote might have been due to fealty to the White House (he had dinner with Trump on Wednesday), or due to concern about future attack ads from a Trump-backed primary challenger (he's up for re-election in 2020), or simply a strategic blunder that was forced upon him by a president from his own party.

Regardless, it will make it more difficult to take him seriously the next time he talks about the dangers of executive power and it should be a blow to Sasse's carefully cultivated image as a thoughtful, independent conservative.

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.

120 responses to “What the Heck, Ben Sasse?

  1. Sasse wants to stay in office. He noticed that talk of a border wall helped 63,000,000 voters elect the darkest horse ever to win the US presidency.

    1. He will probably be in for a nasty shock. It was mostly the presence of Hilary Clinton on the other side of the ballot that provoked 63 million Americans to vote for Donny. The Wall is simply not popular.

    2. Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

      HERE? ? http://Www.Aprocoin.com

  2. One word and one word only: Russian Meddling.

    1. They have Kompromat on him.

        1. Thanks for making me hate everybody.

        2. Fuck. Lucky I bought a flex fuel car.

        3. I did not make that connection. I am ashamed.

          Ethanol is meant for drinking and wreaking havoc on the human mind and body. Fucking up the F150 in the drive way is just wrong.

      1. I earned $9000 last month by working online just for 7 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. GBd If You too want to earn such a big money then come?2019 news
        Try it, you won’t regret it!?..

        SEE HERE http://www.Aprocoin.com

  3. None of these fuckers even begin to approach the meaning of the word “principled”. They are too easily corrupted by the perks of their power. When it comes to politicians trust no one.

    1. Let’s hope he got something in return, like the elimination of the ATF or something.

  4. It’s strange to insist that Congress was left out of the loop on Trump’s move within the context of a congressional vote on whether to put a stop to it.

    Whatever strength the complaint about the lack of congressional input had before, it’s been largely diminished by Congress’ input.

    And, no, just because you don’t want the president running an end around Congress on this funding doesn’t mean you have to oppose funding the wall. That’s all in your head.

    1. P.S. There is someone in this very thread who both supports securing the border AND opposes Trump’s move to run an end around Congress.

      1. Congress passed a law authorizing this end run and has had 43 years to repeal it if they wanted to.

        1. Because something is legal and constitutional doesn’t make it right.

          I can oppose constitutional wars for strategic and moral reasons.

          I can think that prostitution is awful even while I think it should be legal.

          They should have revised it 43 years ago, and they should revise it now–the sooner the better.

          1. Of course there are bad laws, but disliking a law doesn’t invalidate it. We can squawk all we want, but the legislature or judiciary has to change the law or it stands.

            Write your legislators.

          2. If congress wants to repeal the NEA, so be it. Until then, opposing Trump’s use of a legally bestowed power is bullshit. Given how vicious and lawless the democrats behave, it makes sense to use every legal avenue to save this country from them.

            1. The NEA doesn’t need to be repealed.

              The bill under consideration in the Senate would have the president’s emergency declarations expire after 30 days unless congress votes to extend it every 30 days thereafter.

              1. I agree. the NEA need not be repealed. Though what constitutes an “emergency” does not to be better defined.

                I do believe the southern border should qualify as one, so I’m basically with Trump on this one. I do wish congress had not so bound themselves up in this #orangemanbad mindset. Its not helped america at all.

      2. And there’s still others who aren’t complete morons and realize Trump’s obnoxious wall and securing the border are unrelated things.

        1. That’s figuratively so stupid that people lose IQ points just reading it.

        2. Exactly this. One has nothing to do with the other.

    2. “And, no, just because you don’t want the president running an end around Congress ”

      There’s no end run around Congress.

      Trump is exercising explicit authority granted to Presidents by Congress.

      33 U.S. Code ? 2293 – Reprogramming during national emergencies http://bit.ly/2Gu5SPT

      50 U.S. Code Chapter 34 – NATIONAL EMERGENCIES http://bit.ly/2Gtkdfu

  5. “I think that law is overly broad and I want to fix it, but at present Nancy Pelosi doesn’t,” Sasse said. “As a constitutional conservative, I believe that the NEA currently on the books should be narrowed considerably.”

    I think we should be really clear about what Nancy Pelosi actually said about the bill that would have sunset the president’s emergencies by default after 30 days.

    “The National Emergencies Act, enacted in the 1970s, placed limits on presidential discretion and allowed Congress to terminate an emergency declaration. The proposal from Mr. Lee and other GOP senators calls for amending the National Emergencies Act to say that a national emergency would automatically end after 30 days unless Congress voted to extend it.”

    And

    “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said that the House wouldn’t consider the bill and that it was designed by GOP senators to “allow the president to violate the Constitution just this once in order to give themselves cover.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) called the bill “a very transparent fig leaf.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/pe…..552496270?

    1. Nancy Pelosi will not bring the bill to a vote in the House because it doesn’t contain a provision ending the wall funding–which if it were included, Donald Trump would not sign.

      Nancy Pelosi does not care about reigning in President Trump’s ability to invoke national emergencies in the future. She only cares about stopping funding for the wall today.

      This bill that Sasse voted against was not about any constitutional issue regarding emergency powers. It was about cutting off funding for the wall. The bill that would reform the president’s ability to invoke emergency powers will not be brought up to a vote in the House because Nancy Pelosi said “no”. Let’s not conflate those two two bills in our minds. This bill Sasse voted against did nothing to curb the president’s ability to invoke and sustain emergency powers. In reality, it was just about funding for the wall.

      1. Nancy Pelosi does not care about reigning in President Trump’s the next Democrat president’s ability to invoke national emergencies in the future.

        1. +100

        2. I don’t think we should brush over the fact that she doesn’t care about reigning in Donald Trump’s emergency powers either.

          She only care about defunding the wall.

  6. Considering the libertarian position on immigration and border security is hardly set in stone, I fail to see how one libertarian disagreeing with another libertarian makes one a sell out.

    It would appear that Sasse is being quite principled on this in his pursuit to make more libertarian or constitutional law, and sensible in not participating in a legal dog and pony show that does nothing to actually prevent such things in the future.

    1. Trump has explicit statutory authority for this. Sasse says the invasion is an emergency. On what grounds would a constitutionalist vote against Trump?

      If you don’t like the National Emergencies Act, and want to play the part of a “principled constitutionalist”, you bring a bill to change the law. Which Sasse has.

      Naturally Reason condemns Sasse when he actually upholds the Constitution and doesn’t open the further open the floodgates to Invasion USA.

      Reason is Open Borders Uber Alles. The Constitution and the rule of law generally will always take a back seat to Open Borders.

  7. When pressed for details on what led to the termination, the organization declined to elaborate.

    “As a civil rights organization, the SPLC is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world,” Cohen said in the emailed statement. “When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action.”

    Molesting little boys, revelations of audio-taped racist rants, or sudden interest in multi-million dollar Cayman Island bank accounts?

    1. Holy shit. Morris fucking Dees got fired?

      1. About 20 years too late, too. The SPLC is proof of the rule that the first priority of any organization is to perpetuate itself and for any good they did in the civil rights movement it’s long been undone by the evil they’ve done in the “hate watch” business. Mo Dees and the SPLC is purely a scam at this point.

        1. It sounds like a black thing. POCs that’ve worked there hate the crusty old man.

      2. He probably wasn’t corrupt enough for today’s SPLC.

    2. “As a civil rights organization, the SPLC”

      The SPLC is a hate group, engaged in defamation against the Right.

  8. Can it really be called a ‘grab’ if it was thrown at you?

    1. “It’s only bad when Trump does it”

  9. Poor Boehm, writing about constitutional principles he knows nothing about and hates.

  10. “Sasse tarnished his reputation as a thoughtful, independent, constitutional conservative by supporting Trump’s emergency declaration.”

    So Sasse is not independednt be cause he did not do what you wanted him to do? We’ll, at least Sasse is independent of Eric Boehm.

    1. Sasse did the right thing. Boehm is just pouting because he loves open borders and is against Trump’s agenda to prevent that.

      1. +10

  11. Imagine the type of person who would choose to go into, or stay in, politics knowing that their whole career requires them pandering to the most ridiculous yahoos in the country–people who think Donald fucking Trump can do no wrong. It’s not the cream of the crop you’re getting over there. It can’t be.

    1. Yeah but imagine a type of person who votes for a barista with near zero experience in government or private sector, thinking that it’s sustainable for the government to take 90% of everything rich people make to fund every social program imaginable.

      Imagine a nation like Venezuela or Greece swept up in social upheaval because they spent like drunken sailors on free education, healthcare, poverty programs, pension, etc. These things already happened, but…… just imagine.

      Then, imagine a type of person who thinks all airplanes, cars and fossil fuels should be reduced to the point of being nil. Imagine a society where people get basic income doing nothing.

      Imagine. Be drawn to its restorative and life giving power. But do it quickly, before the SJWs declare it an exercise in white privilege.

      1. Well said XM.

      2. Worse, imagine if every other first world country on Earth already had most of those programs and has sustained them for decades! Horror! Obviously those programs are impossible and the rest of the first world is a figment of the left’s imagination.

        1. Some serious numbers.

          Most of these wonderful welfare states you’re talking about are poorer than the majority of US states, per capita.

      3. I realize that any minor figure in the party elected in some lefty enclave will serve as a representative of the entire party as is necessary for you to get your political zings in, but Trump is the president of the whole country.

    2. Even The Bay City Rollers changed their tune, Tony. Change it up a little. You’re shtick is stale.

      1. your

      2. Took the words right out of my mouth, Rufus.
        With the exception of the bay city rollers thing

    3. Yahoos. Occasional Cortex will drop a turd on them as she flies between coasts.

    4. Tony|3.14.19 @ 10:16PM|#
      “Imagine the type of person who would choose to go into, or stay in, politics knowing that their whole career requires them pandering to the most ridiculous yahoos in the country–”

      Yeah, that pathetic hag who lost, along with you, did exactly that. And somehow ended up a millionaire on a government paycheck!
      Fuck off, scumbag.

    5. “politics knowing that their whole career requires them pandering to the most ridiculous yahoos in the country-”

      Haters of Americans gonna hate Americans.

      Not that it’s any surprise coming from Tony. Commies hate human beings generally, and Americans most of all, for thwarting their rule.

  12. The whole idea of letting the President declare emergencies which last until Congress (subject to Presidential veto) passes a law against that particular emergency – it’s BS.

    What makes an emergency an emergency? Presumably, that there’s not enough time to get Congress together to pass the needed laws and appropriate the needed money to deal with the situation, so the President must act now – like Lincoln right after his inauguration in securing Washington. Or if you don’t like the Lincoln example, a sudden storm or invasion.

    So Congress should provide that a Presidentially-declared emergency can only last until Congress has had the chance to deal with the issue. A 30-day deadline is a start, though it would still let the President renew the emergency each month indefinitely. It would have been better to propose a bill that there can only be one emergency declaration per emergency, and the declaration would last only 30 days unless Congress has been vaporised in a nuclear blast or what have you.

    But even the 30-day renewable emergency power seems to be too much for the worshippers of Presidential authority.

    1. No, they want the Pres to be able to issue emergency declarations which last indefinitely, unless Congress overrides a Presidential veto and undoes the emergency. That lets Congress avoid its responsibilities, which is probably why they allowed the President this power in the first place.

      And having a kabuki vote on overruling a specific emergency declaration, which probably isn’t even the worst declaration he’s issued – that’s a piece of theater I don’t blame Sasse for opposing.

      1. Bingo. Delegation is the path to reelection

    2. What makes an emergency and emergency?

      Emergency?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3buQlW0Ums

      Or. Just saying the world will end in 12 years.

    3. “What makes an emergency an emergency?”

      Living in a banana republic where the ruling Globalist Uniparty defies the rule of law and orchestrates a foreign invasion of the US to destroy the Republic.

      Import Not Americans
      Become Not America

  13. Sasse hit it exactly on the head. This was not the proper venue to oppose presidential emergency powers, it was strictly a vote on whether there is a border emergency. If you don’t like him having the power, which Congress gave him, oppose the NEA, or the other two pieces of legislation giving him the authority, not this declaration. Anything else is grandstanding.

    1. oppose the NEA, or the other two pieces of legislation giving him the authority, not this declaration

      Why not support the declaration AND oppose the NEA?

      1. er, rather, support the vote (oppose the declaration), AND oppose the NEA

        1. Why not oppose illegals AND pedos?

          1. Oh look the gnat is back.

            Shoo.

            1. You’re a sick piece of shit Pedo Jeffy,

        2. Well, for one thing, he agrees with Trump that there’s an emergency.

      2. “We have an obvious crisis at the border,” he said, before defending Trump’s authority to use the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (NEA) to address it.

        “I think that law is overly broad and I want to fix it, but at present Nancy Pelosi doesn’t,” Sasse said. “As a constitutional conservative, I believe that the NEA currently on the books should be narrowed considerably.”

        Sasse believes that there is a crises at the border that justifies an emergency declaration by the president. He also believes that the NEA needs to be revisited by congress. You can disagree with him on either point but his vote is logically consistent. Boehm has completely missed the point here.

        1. Misconstrued is more like it.

          1. It’s always hard to tell how much the Fake News believes their own propaganda.

            I tend to think it’s DoubleThink. They both know they’re lying and believe their own lies all the same.

  14. Well, the only good thing to come of this is that Trump has exposed what a horrible law the NEA is.

    A commenter at Volokh had it right: the NEA is basically the American version of “Reichstag Fire Emergency”.

    What a completely fucked up mess.

    1. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, the NEA also happens to be an organization that stands in the way of school choice and insists on defending even the most egregiously incompetent teachers.

      I realize that’s a different NEA, but the it suggests the acronym itself is cursed. It’s high time the plug was pulled on both NEAs.

      1. Hey, what do you have against New England Anime?

  15. So, if illegal immigration is an emergency requiring military resources, then what is the argument against treating illegal immigrants as if they were enemy combatants? You know, detain them in secret prisons, etc. Why not?

    1. If hurricanes are an emergency requiring military resources, what is the argument against locking up people in the hurricane zone without trial?

      1. Well for one thing, the people in the hurricane zone would be the victims, not the invaders.

        But it doesn’t really address my point. The illegal immigrants aren’t devoid of sentience like a hurricane. And the Trumpers around here routinely refer to them as invaders. If they really are invaders, so much so that a national emergency requiring a military response is justified, then why not treat illegal immigrants like enemy combatants?

        1. You’re the one trying to make that case, jeff.
          So make it.

          1. Are illegal immigrants invaders in a military sense, or not?
            If they are invaders, what is your argument for not treating them like enemy combatants?

            1. They are invaders in a colonial sense.

              They are moving from their nation into someone else’s nation much the same way the Spanish moved into THEIR nation in the 1500s.

              They intend to stay here and send money and goods back to their homeland.

              They are literally trying to do to us what the Aztecs attempted against the Navajo and the Hopi, and what the Spanish succeeded in doing to them.

              We are perfectly within our rights to stop them.

              1. They are moving from their nation into someone else’s nation much the same way the Spanish moved into THEIR nation in the 1500s.

                So these Mexicans and Guatemalans, they are coming here to kill our king/god, enslave our people, and plunder the land? Like the Spanish did in the 16th century? Is that what you are saying?

                This comparison is a bit ridiculous. The only way migrants could be considered “colonial invaders” is if they were substantially more powerful than us. They aren’t. The power differential goes explicitly in the other direction. They are closer to refugees, than invaders.

                1. Pedo Jeffy, this bulkshit screed of yours has been addressed many times. So stop and go back to your child porn videos.

            2. Are they invaders? Yes
              Are they a hostile invading force seeking to over through the US government and/or attack its citizens? No.

              Hence, no reason to lock them up in “secret prisons” or whatever. Just deport them.

              1. “Are they a hostile invading force seeking to over through the US government and/or attack its citizens? ”

                Yes. They are an invading force of people who support bigger US government, which overthrows the Constitution and attacks US citizens.

                Open Borders Libertarians are a hostile *native* force which overthrows the Constitution and attacks US citizens.

        2. “The illegal immigrants aren’t devoid of sentience like a hurricane.”

          What if the military encounters looters in a hurricane zone? What’s the argument against treating these looters like enemy combatants?

          1. The emergency is “the hurricane” not “looters after a hurricane”. Trump and his minions constantly refer to the illegal immigrants themselves as invaders who require a declaration of emergency, one that necessitates a military response. They aren’t a natural disaster. I realize you are just playing games and trying to have a chuckle at my expense with your bad faith argument. But if the illegal immigrants really are invaders in a military sense, then why can’t they be treated as enemy combatants, emergency or no emergency?

            1. “I realize you are just playing games and trying to have a chuckle at my expense with your bad faith argument.”

              Glass houses…

            2. They can be, and should be.

              1. Should the military be in charge of immigration generally?

                Should association with an illegal immigrant be regarded as treasonous?

                1. Should the military be in charge of immigration generally?

                  No.

                  Should the military be in charge of repelling colonial invasion generally?

                  Yes.

                  1. Should the military be in charge of immigration generally?

                    No.

                    Should the military be in charge of repelling colonial invasion generally?

                    Yes.

                    What is the definition of “colonial invasion”?

                    In your view, what is the difference between ordinary immigration, and “colonial invasion”?

                2. In charge of Immigration generally? No.
                  In charge of border security? Absolutely.
                  Association with illegal immigrant treasonous? Hardly. However harboring one should, and i believe actually may be, a crime.

                3. “association” is rather vague, as befits Mr. Muh Feelz

                  More precisely, aiding and abetting illegal immigration is a crime.
                  It is a crime to knowingly employ illegals, bring in illegals, induce illegals to come or remain here, transport illegals, and conceal, harbor, or shield illegals from detection.

                  8 U.S. Code ? 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

                  Treasonous in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense, which is overly narrow.

          2. Are they invaders in a military sense, or not?
            If they are, then what is the justification for not treating them the same as soldiers not in uniform?
            If they are not, then what is the argument for using the military to stop it? Because illegal immigration is a ‘natural disaster’ like a hurricane? That seems rather far-fetched.

            1. Your initial comment suggested that an “emergency requiring military resources” implied the military putting people in secret prisons, etc.

              So I replied to your initial comment. I pointed out some logical flaws with your remarks.

              Fortunately, you have moved a bit beyond the simple-mindedness of your initial comment.

              In general, as far as asking me to justify emergency declarations on immigration, I’ve been *criticizing* the idea of open-ended emergencies such as this one, though I’m not going to blame Sasse just because he wouldn’t go along with the kabuki now that any general reform of the President’s emergency powers is apparently off the table.

              1. I know you have been critical, my questions were mainly directed at the Trump bootlickers around here.

                1. Better than you licking some illegals ass while he abuses children. Now go away Pedo Jeffy. You have no point and are a sick fucking idiot.

            2. “If they are, then what is the justification for not treating them the same as soldiers not in uniform?”

              Because they’re invading but not soldiering.

              If they start invading in tank columns, we should treat them as invading soldiers and not just invaders.

        3. They are economic invaders, they mean no ill-will (for the most part) to america. Simple (not so simple really) deportation is good enough.

          1. Do people who want to impose bigger government on America “mean no ill-will to Americans”?

    2. Why “secret” prisons? There’s no reason POW camps have to be secret.

      1. POW? So you think the US is in a de facto state of war with Mexico?

        1. No, Jeff, he’s pointing out that ‘secret prisons’ generally aren’t the place people are put in these situations.

          They’re not secret.

          Also, if invading is an act of war, then various groups from central and south American countries have declared war on the US–even though governments have not.

          THEY are in a de facto war with us. The US is currently simply trying to get them to obey the procedures we have set up for this.

          1. THEY are in a de facto war with us.

            Then in your view, should the US formally declare war on them?

            1. Mexico facilitates the illegal immigration of millions of people into our country against our will.

              Should we formally declare war on them? No.

              Should we absolutely treat them as a semi-hostile power? absolutely.

              We should cut foreign aid to zero. build the wall, and arm it. We should change our laws substantially by disallowing ANY immigration along the southern border at all. I’d even advocate closing the southern border completely.

    3. If your serious, its overkill.

      Merely deporting them is sufficient. They are civilians. If it turned out that they were military personnel, that would substantially change things.

    4. “You know, detain them in secret prisons, etc. Why not?”

      Because we don’t wish to detain them, secretly or otherwise, we just want them out of the country.

      Hence we build a wall to keep them out.

  16. The vote was not about this declaration being constitutional or legal. It was about whether Congress agreed that there is an emergency or not. You can believe there is an emergency, believe this is the best legal shot at addressing it, AND still prefer this not actually be an option because of the possibilities of this power being used poorly.

    Just because a president has too much power does not mean all uses of power are therefore in excess and thus illegal. In fact… the only way this is illegal is if he actually has LESS power than we act like and he is therefore trying to go beyond that limit.

    And he isn’t doing an end-round of Congress. He is operating within the limits of the law THAT CONGRESS WROTE! AND… this whole vote is the very definition of Congress having input on the whole ordeal.

    The bias in the writing here at “reason” is… unreasonable.

    You can object to Trump and his policies without making crap up. It would be nice to have at least ONE place on the net that could manage that.

    1. It’s a fake emergency-Trump himself even said it wasn’t necessary- that was only declared because Congress refused to give him his wall money. So yes he is trying to circumvent the will of Congress here and he shouldn’t be applauded for it. Congress should refuse to grant him his emergency declaration if for no other reason than to enforce its will on the wall money that they just voted on a few months ago.

      1. Its not fake in the slightest. What is happening at the southern border is real, and its bad. You may not think the way Trump is handling it is correct, thats fine.

        But it is absolutely an emergency.

      2. The emergency is that the ruling class is orchestrating a foreign invasion of the country, and when given a chance to work to end it in Congress, they refused yet again, as they have for decades.

  17. “His argument, essentially, is that it’s more important to fix the many flaws with the NEA than to block a single instance of executive overreach made possible by the law.”

    Actually, he was explicit about thinking there actually is a crisis on the border in need of being addressed. Which made this particular emergency declaration a worse than usual occasion on which to do something about the NEA.

    Not that the resolution did anything about the NEA. That’s worth underscoring: It left the NEA intact, it only reversed this one particular use of it.

    Which means the vote wasn’t about the NEA. It was about border security.

    1. Well, no.

      It doesn’t reverse this use of it.

      Because it’s getting vetoed.

      The only way it gets reversed in the courts is if the courts ignore the law and rule, as so many do these days, on TDS

      1. Brett is, however, correct in pointing out that this was a vote against border security rather than presidential emergency declaration

  18. “Sasse tarnished his reputation as a thoughtful, independent, constitutional conservative by supporting Trump’s emergency declaration.”

    Guys, I hate to break it to you, but he tarnished that reputation a long time ago. I’m sorry some of you are just catching on now.

  19. I get paid over $180 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8550 in my previous month It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it.
    ?????AND GOOD LUCK????? http://www.Theprocoin.com

  20. Its a tough call for conservatives.

    The Question:
    Is there an overwhelming exponential growth in illegal immigration across the southern border.
    Answer:
    Yes.

    The 2nd Question:
    Is Trump’s response the way it needs to be handled.
    Answer:
    No.

    So what do ya do. Stick head in sand and hope the poor of South America just kinda…stop coming? Cause that AINT gonna happen. I hate that the democrats and repubs have put this nation in a situation where Trump has to play this card. I just dont see he has many other options. The #orangemanbad movement is just never going to acknowledge anything Trump does as allowable.

    1. Which would be ok if they only did it with some semblance of honesty and integrity.

      Instead we get Boehm pretending to be an arbiter of “constitutional conservatism.”

      Yeah, sure.

    2. “Is Trump’s response the way it needs to be handled.”

      It needed to be handled, and this was *a* way to handle it, in our current lawless, banana republic, rulers betray the people state.

      Trump had all the authority he needed on day one to build the wall and deport the invaders. Should have handled it that way starting on day one of his presidency. He is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He should have commanded them to protect the US from invasion.

      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.

      The Constitution obligates Trump to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, including immigration laws.

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

      He didn’t just have the constitutional authority to do it, he has explicit statutory authority.

      33 U.S. Code ? 2293 – Reprogramming during national emergencies http://bit.ly/2Gu5SPT
      50 U.S. Code Chapter 34 – NATIONAL EMERGENCIES http://bit.ly/2Gtkdfu

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.