Border wall

12 Republicans Join Dems To Block Trump's National Emergency at the Border

A clear rebuke of Trump, though mainly a symbolic one


Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

The Senate voted Thursday to terminate President Donald Trump's use of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The final vote was 59-41 in favor of a joint resolution blocking Trump's emergency declaration, with 12 Republicans joining all 45 Democrats—as well as Angus King (I–Maine) and Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), who caucus with Democrats—in voting yes. The resolution, originally introduced in the House by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D–Tex.), is fairly simple. "Pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act," it reads, "the national emergency declared by the finding of the President…is hereby terminated."

The resolution passed the House last month in a 245–182 vote. Just 13 House Republicans joined the entire Democratic caucus to vote in favor of the legislation; only one Republican congressman, Michigan's libertarian-leaning Justin Amash, co-sponsored it.

Trump's national emergency seeks to redirect $3.6 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget toward construction of the border wall. He may have the legal authority to do so under the 1976 National Emergencies Act, which gives the president extremely broad powers, even if his reasoning leaves much to be desired.

Still, his use of emergency powers has raised concerns from those who are worried about the precedent of a president bypassing Congress, which only agreed to allocate $1.375 billion in wall funding, in order to accomplish his agenda.

"I have concerns about it," Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.) told Reason last month, referring to Trump's national emergency declaration. "I frankly think it's unnecessary, but we'll see."

The Senate's vote to reject the emergency declaration was not surprising. In the days and weeks leading up to the vote, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, all said they would vote to block it, citing concerns about Trump's action on constitutional grounds. Tillis reversed his stance from the Senate floor Thursday, though at that point enough Republicans had said they would vote yes to ensure passage.

"I can't vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn't been appropriated by Congress," Paul explained in a speech. Those four senators' public comments essentially guaranteed the resolution's passage, as Republicans currently hold just a three-seat majority in the upper chamber of Congress.

"What is clear in the Senate is that there will be enough votes to pass the resolution of disapproval, which will then be vetoed by the president and then in all likelihood the veto will be upheld in the House," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) said earlier this month, according to Politico.

Trump has indeed said he'd veto the resolution, reaffirming his intentions in a tweet Thursday afternoon:

Trump's tweet came hours after a plan by Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) to limit Trump's national emergency powers seemed to fall apart. On Tuesday, Lee introduced legislation that would have kept Trump's current national emergency intact, while automatically terminating future emergency declarations within 30 days.

Lee's bill didn't deal with the problem at hand, and it would still allow the president to re-declare a national emergency every 30 days. But both Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) opposed Lee's legislation, prompting the Utah senator to say he would vote to block the emergency declaration, according to The New York Times.

Later Thursday morning, Trump said in a tweet he would "support" congressional efforts "at a later date" to change the law regarding national emergency declarations. "But today's issue is BORDER SECURITY and Crime!!!" he said.

Lee's announcement, meanwhile, solidified chances that the resolution would pass in the Senate. Still, the Senate's move to reject Trump on this issue was largely symbolic. In order to override a presidential veto, two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress are necessary. The 59 senators who rejected Trump's declaration are far less than the 67 needed. It's also highly unlike that enough House Republicans will vote to override the veto.

"It's not like this signals some big break from the president going forward," one GOP senator told CNN prior to the vote. "But it is an example, one maybe we've avoided the last few years, that we can push back and send a message when we need to."

Before the Senate voted, Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) also said he would vote yes on the resolution. "This is a vote for the Constitution and for the balance of powers that is at its core," he said in a statement. "For the Executive Branch to override a law passed by Congress would make it the ultimate power rather than a balancing power." Sen. Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn) made a similar announcement from the Senate floor, and Sens. Pat Toomey (R–Pa.), Rob Portman (R–Ohio), Roy Blunt (R–Mo.), and Jerry Moran (R–Kan.) said they would vote yes as well. Sens. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) and Roger Wicker (R–Miss.) also voted in favor.

The White House, meanwhile, has continued to defend the emergency declaration. "What we want to see the Senate do this week is stand with the president, to stand with the president's declaration of a national emergency," Vice President Mike Pence said in a Fox News interview that aired Thursday morning. "A vote against President Trump's national emergency is a vote against border security. A vote against the president's national emergency declaration is a vote to deny the humanitarian and security crisis that's happening at our Southern border."

This post has been updated with President Trump's response to the Senate vote.

NEXT: Congressional Democrats Reintroduce LGBT-Protecting Equality Act

Border wall Donald Trump Immigration Senate Congress

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

200 responses to “12 Republicans Join Dems To Block Trump's National Emergency at the Border

  1. Poor Joe.

    12 RINOs side with Lefties to refuse to protect the USA.

    No 2/3 majorities in either house of Congress, so Trump can veto any resolution that passes on a simply majority.

    1. Nice straw man. The vote was to require more than just the President’s authority to declare national emergencies. It’s hard to imagine that the signers of the document you claim to love would agree with your position.

      1. The Founders would likely never have passed the NEA. Jefferson attacked the Barbary pirates without the NEA or a declaration of war. He did get Congress’ consent to fight back against demand for Tribute and attacks on US shipping.

        They were also part-time politicians.
        They also would have never passed ObamaCare, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

        I can go on, if you like.

      2. Leo dear… the emergency powers is statutory, not constitutional. Congress can repeal the act at whim. Okay hun? Thanks.

        1. Yet they only want to stop THIS. It’s bullshit. Either the statute stands or they repeal it. Period.

          Fuck the treasonous democrats and fuck the treasonous RINOs.

        2. I never claimed it was. You don’t think the founders would have an opinion a top powerful executive??? Try to pay attention.

          1. *too powerful

          2. They would… which is why they gave Congress the powers they did.

            It was modern progressives who cocked it all up by using the authory they were given to give away that authority.

  2. Simple solution. Repeal the National Emergency Act.

    Lefty liars won’t do that.

    Trump gets his money to fulfill a campaign promise and extend the border security or Congress repeals the NEA.

    Trump pawned you bitches again.

    1. I can’t decide if you’re tiresome or hilarious.

      1. Tony, you cannot decide because your mind does not work well.

        You have TDS and there is no cure.

        1. Trump just threatened to sic “his” soldiers, police, and bikers (yes, bikers) on liberals if we don’t get in line.

          You support a fascist. The only reason I’m not worried is that he’s incredibly stupid and nobody who matters likes him.

          1. The power of Rhetoric compels you!

            The power of Rhetoric compels you!

          2. Poor Tony.

            Hey Tony, did you see Mueller’s team is losing a few more people?

            That must be because all the Trump indictments are typed up.

            1. We shall see shan’t we?

              I’ll bet you ten thousand dollars that if the news is indisputably bad for Trump or his spawn, you’ll simply declare it a conspiracy and pretend it’s not real and that you’re the real victim.

              That is a sucker’s bet, by the way, because playing the victim of conspiracies is literally all you idiots ever do.

              1. The sub-text here is that even Tony doesn’t believe Trump will be indicted by Mueller at this point.

                1. I don’t know whether Mueller believes he can be indicted while president. None of us knows anything. I’m the one reserving judgment while all these idiots are prepared to do a big ol’ tomahawk dance if Trump is exonerated in any remote way or to deny the entire thing ‘s legitimacy if he’s not. It’s sick, sad, and ridiculous.

                2. JWatts|3.14.19 @ 3:58PM|#
                  The sub-text here is that even Tony doesn’t believe Trump will be indicted by Mueller at this point.


                  Tony tries to hide it well but he slips from time to time.

                  Democrats wasted 2 years with Mueller. Trump will also get a 100% innocent bump come election 2020 campaign time. Democrats re-elected Trump.

              2. 1) Tony you would never pay a bet, so no reason for me to accept that ‘bet’
                2) There is a conspiracy no matter what Mueller says. That is where your hedged bet is so transparent. You would never go against Team Blue. I will go against any Team.
                3) Even after 2 years and multiple bureaucrats lying and setting perjury traps, they have nothing on Trump. Nothing.

                Its almost like your jealous of Trump for being so clean. Hillary has her own skeleton army. You Team is bugged that Trump cannot be controlled because he has no skeletons that voters care about.

                Even worse is that future non-Lefty politicians will get elected with no skeletons and cannot be controlled either.

                1. They spent more time on Lewinsky and found a lie about a blowjob. They spent more time on Benghazi and found absolutely nothing. Why the rush?

                  1. Poor Tony. He still cannot admit that Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury.

                    He still cannot admit that Special Prosecutors can be used by Republicans too and Democrats cannot stop them since Mueller was not stopped.

                    Voters already decided for themselves about whose fault Benghazi was. Hillary lost partly because of it. Her incompetence led to 4 Americans being murdered.

                    1. If only the 4 Americans were journalist, there might have been more lefty outrage.

                    2. There was appropriate grief by “lefties,” but it was drowned out by righties trying to make Hillary Clinton personally responsible for their deaths for evil, ugly, cynical partisan purposes. Fuck you for that comment.

                    3. Poor Tony. No evidence but he FEELZ that Trump is guilty of something.

                      Nevermind that far more corrupt Lefty people have looked and found nothing.

                    4. The left demands an investigation into the journalist the Saudis kills and demands Trump do something about it. They rally against and ridicule the investigation for Benghazi.

                    5. Benghazi was just a smokescreen, for Da Witch’s real crime in Libya was lying about there being a humanitarian crisis there so NATO could invade & remove Qaddafi who wanted to create a Pan-African currency backed by Gold & the Powers That Be would have none of that….Also, longtime Clinton crony, Sid Blumenthal was on the ground in Libya looking for ways to enrich the Clinton Crime Syndicate once Qaddafi was gone…Also, weapons were ILLEGALLY being run by Obummy & Da Witch from Benghazi to Turkey & then on to Syria to arm supposed anti-Assad moderates to topple him…Such a shame they turned out to be ISIS & other radicals…It made Iran-Contra look like kid’s play….Read: Seymour Hersh: “The Red Line and The Rat Line”

                    6. +1,000!!!

                  2. “”They spent more time on Lewinsky and found a lie about a blowjob.””

                    It was about perjury and obstruction of justice.

                    1. Perjury and obstruction of justice are but drops in the bucket on the Trump investigation, so again, why the rush?

                    2. “”so again, why the rush?””

                      Who’s rushing anything? Who does comment even apply to?

                  3. There were a dozen felony convictions directly related to whitewater dumbfuck Tony.


                I seem to recall that being the mantra of team blue in the 90’s

                1. Well, it was true. The Starr investigation and impeachment are universally regarded as a partisan shitshow. As was Benghazi. As was Vince Foster. As was Pizzagate. Noticing a pattern?

                  1. Yeah, because dems didn’t have a problem with a misogynistic, lying, obstructing president back then.

                    1. Are we going to relitigate the 90s according to the #MeToo standards or according to Trump standards?

                    2. How about we use your standards.

                    3. I never supported or voted for Bill Clinton, and I don’t believe his wife is responsible for his dalliances. I don’t believe in impeaching Trump for being a man-whore either.

                    4. We’re you even old enough to vote in 1992 and 1996?

                    5. Nope but I was a declared Republican.

          3. “fascist” defined: government control of private means of production.

            I do not see what what Trump is doing is fascism.

            You are just picking up any think you see and flinging it into someone’s face.

        2. LC, I’ve been saying for along time that whoever is responsible for Tony needs to take him to the vet to be put down. Since he won’t drink his Drano

          1. Have you noticed how sad Tony gets because his partner Buttplugger is not around anymore?

            Tony cannot get the webtraffic he used to without a partner.

          2. Haha, you’re really LC’s bitch, aren’t you? Where’s the turd part of your gay triumvirate Tulpuppy? Haven’t seen him in a while.

            1. New troll.

  3. I will be honest, I am rather ambivalent to this whole thing. I don’t think that border security is quite the issue that Trump is making it out to be. However, I do believe that it is a legitimate function of government, particularly since Congress gave this power to the Executive Branch. I respect Rand Paul and Justin Amash voting for the resolution. But I also respect Trump using his established power.

    And the fact is, the amount of money we are talking about is small change when compared to the size of the federal budget.

    1. Ambivalence in world of Dunning-Kruger self-righteous certainty might not be a bad thing.

    2. Excellent post, Bear!….And also, Trump wanted to take most of this money from Pentagon funds….The same Pentagon that routinely can’t account for tens of millions of dollars a year, overspends on all kinds of things via corrupt deals with military contractors & executes IMMORAL & ILLEGAL wars!…I’d say using that money to build a wall that might mitigate a humanitarian crisis & protect our national sovereignty is a much better use than giving it to the Pentagon! The sad Truth is that BOTH SIDES, for their own cynical reason, have ignored an open southern border & drug smuggling & human trafficking * immigration law & Visa-Overstayers, etc for decades, enough so that this can legitimately be called a emergency!

      I respect Rand a lot & voted for him via write-in in 2016 & will do so again in 2020, but I think he is wrong here….That is why there are courts. I feel Trump is within his powers to try this & then let the courts decide!

    3. 1 million people caught this year isnt an issue? 50% response rate to immigration courts isnt a problem? 60% use of some welfare benefit by families headed by illegal immigrants isnt an issue? Nearly a third of federal prison population being here illegally isnt an issue?

      What is an issue?

      1. Trump’s tweets? He is a BIG MEANIE after all.

  4. While the proposed 30-day rule could have been easily evaded by routinely extending emergency declarations every month, it would at least have been something.

    As opposed to the nothing which Congress is going to end up doing now.

    Or, rather, casting a symbolic vote (with less than a veto-proof majority) to disapprove one specific emergency declaration, without registering any disapproval of the whole dubious principle of open-ended emergencies.

    I know I shouldn’t invoke this particular comparison, but a true emergency is like what Lincoln faced right after his inauguration in 1861, when he had to confront the Confederate threat to Washington, D. C. without any emergency legislation – which Congress started passing as soon as it was able to meet.

    1. What threat did the Confederate States of America pose to Washington D.C.?
      They just wanted to form their own nation and have the North’s troops leave their newly declared independent lands.
      They had done what the Colonies did in 1776, and were attacked, militarily for it, by Lincoln.

    2. the Confederates posed NO THREAT to Washington DC. Those sovereign states merely decided to leave the Union, their right as soveriegn states. What of the Union blockade of all shipping betweem that foreign nation (the Confederate States of America) and all other foreign nations? And what of the unlawful seizure and occupation of that territory belonging to that foreign nation, Fort Sumpter, in Charleston Harbour? That was a deliberate taunt to “come get us”, which the OCnfederates did. Never should have been there in the first place, let alone using that fort as the home base for the fleet to seek out and destroy/take captive all shipping between the Confederate States and other nations. And, of course, once the COnfederates took Lincoln’s bait and fired upon the Fort, Lincoln used THAT predictable and evoked response as “justifiation” to take full scale military action against the “attackers” (in reality, the rightful occupants).

      1. Fort Sumter was not seized. It was a federal coastal fort. Control of Sumter did not provide a naval base. The Confederates controlled Charleston harbor. Sumter was actually cut of from resupply. Multiple attempts to resupply and reinforce the fort were repulsed by Confederates.

  5. For literally Hitler and Republicans being complicit, Trump seems like the weakest executive of the last thirty years.

    Remember all those times Democrats joined Republicans in rebuking Obama over Benghazi, the IRS scandal, or DACA?

    1. Funny that isn’t it. Of course, Republicans are not really rebuking him. If they had wanted to do that, they would have insisted on language overturning the emergency in the spending bill. They didn’t do that. They are doing it now specifically because they know it won’t stop Trump and they won’t have to take any responsibility for their position.

      1. A rebuke would have been a 2/3 veto-proof majority in both Houses of Congress to repeal the NEA.

      2. Of course, Republicans are not really rebuking him. If they had wanted to do that, they would have insisted on language overturning the emergency in the spending bill.

        Now do Democrats and Anti-Semitism…

    2. I remember Obama using EOs to run around Congress enough that SNL did a School House Rock spoof.

      1. Your fallacy is two wrongs make a right.

        1. Go back and take a nap again, like you do whenever a Democrat is president

          1. Tony knows that a Democrat might never be President again.

            Team Blue is in real trouble.

          2. The whole reason I support Democrats as president is that I can take naps every now and then without worrying about the economy being destroyed in my absence.

            1. It’s more so you can finally enslave productive people so you can sit on your pimple riddled ass all day and take naps whenever you want.

        2. Dude, you are the last person on H&R that can call out anyone using fallacies.

          You use them constantly.

          I’m not justifying Trump’s actions so your claim is wrong.

  6. I opposed what Trump did (even if it was both constitutional and legal) because it seemed to be running around constitutional principles separation of powers. Now that Congress has weighed in on it, the argument that Congress hasn’t weighed in on what Trump is doing is hard to maintain.

    “Still, the Senate’s move to reject Trump on this issue was largely symbolic.”

    It’s revived public discussion about the separation of powers and given us a clear view to ridicule Nancy Pelosi’s horrifying attitude towards the separation of powers–refusing, the other day, to even bring a bill to the floor limiting the power of future presidents to declare emergencies.

    Nancy Pelosi has voiced her constitutional objections to Trump’s arbitrary use of emergency powers, and now she’s sold those principles down the river. There isn’t anything symbolic about that. It should be plain to see that the Democrats demonstrably don’t give a shit about the Constitution unless it translates into partisan gains for them in the short run. Anyone who votes for Democrats thinking that they believe in the Constitution or the separation of powers is an idiot.

    The other thing that may not be merely symbolic about this is the effect it has on the next round of budget negotiations. Trump has already asked for more than $8 billion to build the wall in the next budget. This “symbolic” bill may show him that his wall may not enjoy as much support in Congress next time.

    1. Trump has all the leverage. He and the GOP Senate might just shut down the federal government for more than 35 days this year.

      1. And Nasty Pelousy actively prevented legislation that would have paid government employees, while the government was shut down, so that they wouldn’t have to wait for the back-pay.
        It would remove the “poor government employees” argument that the feelz crowd used to get Trump to open up the government we all cannot possibly live without.
        She doesn’t care about anyone but the power of government, which is something libertarians should be concerned about.
        We shouldn’t also forget the “debt ceiling increase” is coming around.
        Trump’s going to have a field-day with that.

    2. separation of powers? IN what way is this relevant?
      The Constitution orders the President to “faithfully execute the laws” enacted.
      Constituton places responsibility for “a uniform rule of naturalisation” uooin the Congress.
      It places upon the Chief Executive the responsibility to “repel foreign invasions”. Congress, exercising the above authoirty, has placed upon the President the responsibility to control who does/does not enter our soveriegn territory.
      The Consittution places the President in the position of Commander in Chief of all military forces. That iincludes how military wil spend its budget.
      The law as written prohibits physical entry into the USA by those who do not comply with all laws relating to entry into our territory.

      Seems the separation of powers is working just fine.. the Chief executive is commanding military personnel and funds to be used to repel a foreign invasioni. If shiploads of Chinese soliders were to land i Long Beach Harbour, and Trump did NOT move th repel that invasion, he’d be derelict in his duty and subject to impeachment.

  7. A clear rebuke of Trump, though mainly a symbolic one

    Yep. As much as a bunch of the spineless shitweasels tried to spin this as defending the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers and protecting the privileges and prerogatives of Congress, there’s only a few who uttered a peep when Obama was pulling his pen and phone shit and telling Congress they had no authority to tell him who he could or could not bomb the shit out of. And, in fact, I remember there were plenty in the press who applauded Obama taking the law into his own hands and doing the needful things that Congress refused to do. So, no, there’s no principle involved in this, merely a “Fuck You” to Trump.

    1. It is not even that. It is a kabuki dance. They are only doing it because they know it’s meaningless. If this actually stopped him and meant taking responsibility for whatever happened as a result, no way would it pass

    2. As John says, this is a Kabuki Dance because anything less than a repeal of NEA for all Presidents is a nuthingburger.

      1. Nuthinburgers are the only beef we are going to be able to have during the reign of AOC.

        1. You’re welcome on my property. I will have hamburgers and BACON!

          My private army will be funded by real food.

          1. “My private army will be funded by real food.”

            And turned into hamburger in less than 2 seconds….but the why fuck should you care? Orange man win….for now.

            1. Poor mcGoop assumes the military would fight for Team Blue.

    3. I’m trying to understand you Jerry. You’re say Obama was imperial for using drones to kill terrorists.
      But Republicans are generally worse when it comes to drone war with a few notable exceptions. And I understand that Trump is the worst we have seen yet in this regard having given the military even greater freedom to drone people. Trump is worse then Obama on drones and a new whole level on this emergency power shit so Trump very much deserves this fuck you.

      1. Obama has the most drone kills including the killing of a us citizen and his son without judicial involvement… want to try again dummy?

  8. Try to imagine a progressive introducing legislation to curb the power of a Democrat president to declare emergencies in the future.

    Isn’t that hard to imagine?

    I don’t have to imagine Republicans introducing legislation to curb the power of a Republican president to declare emergencies in the future. I’ve seen them do it with my own two eyes. And the Democrat leadership refused to bring it to the floor for a vote!

    If the Democrats won’t vote for a bill to curb the the power of a Republican president to declare emergencies in the future, why should we expect them to do so once a Democrat is in the White House?

    As Democrats become more authoritarian and more socialist, honest libertarian capitalists really should become increasingly Republican–certainly so long as we have single member districts in this country.

    1. Some Republicans, hardly all, because the action was that egregious. Presidents with uncooperative congresses always push the envelope of executive power. This particular action was flagrantly anti-constitutional. Why don’t more Republicans reject it? Why not a veto-proof majority?

      I get defending a political party, but why that one? What good have they done in the past half century? Besides tax cuts for the rich and wars based on lies?

      1. “This particular action was flagrantly anti-constitutional”

        You mean “anti-constitutional” as opposed to unconstitutional?

        Maybe more Republicans didn’t oppose it for being unconstitutional because it isn’t unconstitutional. It isn’t even illegal. Because Congress never should have ceded those powers to the president doesn’t mean it was illegal or unconstitutional.

        I opposed it because it violated the principles of the Constitution–even though it’s both constitutional and legal.

        “Why don’t more Republicans reject it? Why not a veto-proof majority?

        You seem to be missing the point that there is a constituency for arguments based on constitutional principles within the Republican Party–and no evidence whatsoever of any such thing in the Democratic Party.

        1. Unconstitutional is determined by the judicial system. This was Trump claiming executive power to do something that he couldn’t get through legislation, which he admitted was not a national emergency, he was just calling it that.

          Vastly more Democrats voted for this than Republicans, so are you just lying to see if some of the more stupid residents here buy into your GOP sales pitch?

          1. Thirty million illegals already in the US. The influx rate is on pace for a million more in 2019.

            How many more does it take for Democrats/Republicans to admit that this is an emergency? I am asking for my poor, minimum wage earning cousin who must compete with the army of unskilled peasants marching ever northward.

            1. Give them citizenship and we solve the “illegal” problem and we have a whole class of legitimate people who help reduce the crime rate and who help contribute to the safety net.

              They will, however, remain brown.

              1. I don’t want brown in my part of town.

                You can count on brown making you frown.

                Brown is renown for tearing it down.

              2. The majority of the US states do not want illegals to get citizenship this way.

                1. Sounds like it’s their problem then. I’m sure all those freedom-loving small government types will be proposing a trillion dollar deportation program as soon as Trump declares it within his powers.

                  1. Freedom loving for Americans and visitors here on legal visas.

                    Law breakers GFTO.

                    1. GTFO too

                  2. I agree Tony. Give all thirty million citizenship. To pay for this, you and thirty million other progressives can forfeit all your money and assets to the government, plus you can all move to Central America. To make room for these new citizens.

                    Sounds good to me.

              3. “”Give them citizenship””

                Give. The mantra of lazy lefties.

                How about they earn it by following the lawful process.

              4. the law, per the Constitution, has established the pathway to citizenship. No single vote of Congress nor any act or edict of the President, can change that. :et the Congress enact a new law that removes from the President the authority to determine on what basis any individual may enter our sovereign territory, Then let that same Congress determine how that works. Further, let tthe congress extablish a new pathway to citizenship, one that applies uniformly to anyone seeking that status.

                Until then, the President has the authority to establish HOW a given individual must enter our territory, and the presently enacted uniform rule of naturalisation be upheld and enacted. The President is merely faithfully executing his responsibility to enforce the existing law of this nation. If you don’t go through the established pathways you mayn’t enter our territory. If you do not comply with the established pathway to citizenship, you cannot become a citizen. HOW is this “unconstitutional”?

                Now if COngress were to pass a law granting citizenship to these invaders, fine.. but let THEM also be answerable to the PEOPLE whom they supposedly serve.

            2. I am asking for my poor, minimum wage earning cousin who must compete with the army of unskilled peasants marching ever northward.

              Why should your cousin be entitled to be shielded from labor competition?

              1. Yeah!
                Lets’ get those lazy kids back into the workhouses.
                Then we’ll have some real “labor competition”.

              2. He’s a citizen and they’re here illegally in violation of federal law.

                This has been explained to you many times Pedo Jeffy. Maybe if you spent more time learning from us instead of jacking it to illegal alien kiddie porn. You wouldn’t be such a drooling idiot.

              3. Because the first and fundamental duty of any government is to defend the nation against invasion?

                1. no, but ONE of the eighteen or so functions of the federal government IS very clearly to “repel foreign invasion”. So Trump, in doing precisely that by noving to keep such invaders out is in fact fulfilling his charge as President to do just that. If they are not entering in full compliance with all established laws, they are invaders. Words have meanings, and meahings have consequences.

          2. Unconstitutional is determined by whomever we let determine it.

            Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional but was deemed constitutional by the SCOTUS. So what. That Court is wrong a lot. Not as much as lower court.

            The SCOTUS found internment of Japanese-Americans constitutional until almost 75 years later.

            I know you Lefties need the narrative from the mountain top but think for yourself sometimes.

            1. I can have my opinion, but whether a thing actually is or is not constitutional is not determined by my opinion, as I’m sure you appreciate.

              1. Poor Tony wont give his life for Liberty. No surprise there.

                I don’t need a court not doing their job to tell me what the Constitution says. Anyone can read for themselves.

                I have no problem dying for the ideals set forth in the Constitution and for Libertarianism.

              2. I can have my opinion, but whether a thing actually is or is not constitutional is not determined by my opinion, as I’m sure you appreciate.

                Was Plessy v Ferguson Constitutional?
                How about Kelo vs New London?

            2. Dred Scott?

              1. Can we learn the difference between “is” and “ought” on this site already?

                1. Tony is scared to defend what is right, if the government does not give him permission.

                  Some of us don’t care about government permission.

                  1. I guess Tony living during the time of Dred Scott ruling would just agree that slavery is constitutional but that it ought not to be.

                    1. Yes. Let’s not get bogged down by the precise meaning of words or anything.

                    2. Tony|3.14.19 @ 4:41PM|#

                      Can we learn the difference between “is” and “ought” on this site already?

                      Can you?

                    3. I’m the only one who can apparently, and it’s been going on for years.

                      If the legal system permits something under the constitution, it’s by definition constitutional until that legal system says otherwise. Obviously–painfully obviously–understanding that definitional reality does not mean I endorse every law ever made.

                    4. Tony, it’s oainfully obvious that you are a willfully, lazy ignoramus, and we are all far more intelligent and learned than you.

                    5. Coming from a psychopath who wishes death on anyone who disagrees with you politically on a daily basis, that really stings.

                    6. Its self defense tony.

      2. “This particular action was flagrantly anti-constitutional”

        LOL. Anti-constitutional is apparently something legal that a Republican does that Tony doesn’t like.

        1. It’s something that’s hostile to the spirit of the constitution. Whether it’s unconstitutional depends on what a a few political partisans in black robes declare.

          1. “Spirit” of the Constitution, while Tony hates the Constitution. Yeah exactly the type of unbiased opinions that should rule the USA.

          2. The NEA is not a constitutional clause.

      3. It’s a statutory issue dumbfuck Tony. Not constitutional.

    2. And I’m forgetting all those time Republicans rebuked W.’s many horrendous power grabs. I realize it was post-9/11 hysteria, but you need to be aware of the history you’re talking about before you give such bold orders to libertarians.

      1. You’re talking about what happened 15 years ago?

        I’m talking about what happened today.

        1. Okay. What happened today was not Democrats supporting more executive power.

          1. No, it was Democrats supporting excessive executive power as long as the executive isn’t Trump.

            1. I haven’t read the whole bill, was that in it?

              1. Tony, the de ocrats want to tie Trump’s hands but not a future democrat president.

                Your kind have no principles or integrity. Just admit it.

            2. Read my link below.

              The bill would apply to Trump’s future emergency declarations, as well–just not the current one.

              The Democrats refuse to curb the president’s ability to unilaterally declare emergencies–even though it applies to Trump.

              That’s how sick they are over $3 billion in border wall funding.

          2. “WASHINGTON?The Senate is set to pass a resolution Thursday rejecting President Trump’s emergency declaration to build more of the border wall, after the president poured cold water on a bill that could have peeled off some Republican votes.

            . . . .

            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.”

            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.”


            Short version: Republicans introduced a bill in the Senate to place limits on the president’s discretion to declare and maintain future emergencies, and the Democrats are so pathetic, they won’t even bring it to the floor in the House for a vote.

            1. Pelosi is right, of course. The Lee proposal basically acquiesces to the emergency declration’s constitutionality, which is what Cornyn and most other Republicans believe anyway. Are you for freedom or are you for twisting yourself in knots to defend a political party full of morons?

              1. “The Lee proposal basically acquiesces to the emergency declration’s constitutionality”

                I guess this is the fuck-brain offense?

                Tell everybody that, “Unconstitutional is determined by the judicial system” and then claim that you’re against Congress limiting the power of the president to declare emergencies because emergencies are unconstitutional?

                This is so stupid and self-contradictory in so many ways, there’s nothing left for an intelligent person to do but call you out on your stupidity.

                1. I’m not going to set my hair on fire over the differences in these two bills. Trump’s gonna veto either one, and you’re going to keep defending him and the majority of his party who want nothing to do with either bill anyway.

                  1. You are right Tony and Ken is wrong on this.

                2. Tony is right about that Ken. The bill does assume that the declaration is constitutional. And it is constitutional. The people who are claiming it is contrary to the Constitution don’t know what the hell they are talking about. The Constitution says you can’t spend money unless it is approrpiated by Congress. This isn’t spending any money that hasn’t already been appropriated. It is at most an issue of statutory interpretation. But it is not a constitutional issue.

                  1. John, I’m the one saying it’s constitutional.

                    As self-contradictory as Tony’s statements are, he’s actually saying that what Trump is doing is unconstitutional.

                    My point is that I oppose what the President is doing to fund the wall despite the fact that it’s constitutional.

                    Tony is the one saying that it’s unconstitutional.

                    I support restraining the president on declaring emergency powers despite the fact that what the President is doing is constitutional.

                    Tony is against Congress restraining future president’s ability to invoke emergency powers because he says invoking emergency powers is unconstitutional. Does that make any sense? It shouldn’t. It’s just Tony being irrational and stupid.

                3. Tony’s beliefs in Socialism do not allow serfs to consider the constitutionality of laws and only government can tell us what is what.

                  You can tell that Tony is sad, as he gives up quickly these days.

                  Mueller did not pan out.
                  Pelosi failed to stop the border fence.
                  Trump is still President.
                  Democrats didn’t win the Senate and cannot stop Trump appointments.

                  1. The thing about Trump and his FOX News tag teamers is that they can simply say something is true and then it becomes true for the audience they’re aiming for. And a nonexistent “real” wall doesn’t cost anything!

                    1. Poor Tony does not know who to give supported opinions with links.

                    2. I’m going to do something really out of character and quote Ann Coulter approvingly. Give me the precise latitude and longitude of the supposed wall Trump has initiated.

              2. Ooohhh…… Tony went and got himself some talking points from Media Matters.

  9. That was remarkably close. I had no idea that many Republican Senators were planning on retiring.

    1. +1000

      Nice one Brett.

      Yeah. Those RINOs are finished. Even Rand Paul is going to be under siege more than normally is.

      Every Congressmen who voted to not allow the President to improve border security is going to have that thrown back in their face big time this election cycle.

      This is the hill that these people want to die on. To quote Sun Tzu, “Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake”.

      1. Can I take your enthusiasm here to imply that you prefer Donald Trump to Rand Paul?

        1. I think it is obvious, that when it comes to protecting the border, Donald Trump is far preferable to Rand Open-borders Paul.
          Also when it comes to allowing the Senate to declare itself a “small business” so that it could avoid the Senators and all of their staff having to sign up for 0blamocare.

        2. I like Ramd Oaul, but I agree with Trump on this subject. If Ramd is serious about this, he should sponsor a bill to repeal the NEA.

          1. I like Rand Paul too.

        3. On border security, I prefer donald Trump to rand paul.

  10. The premise of the article is complete bullshit, but the author is surely proud his hit piece was published.

  11. I am going to explain this issue from a legal prospective to you clowns one time. Forgive the long post but this is a technical question that needs a technical answer.

    To understand the issues involved in Trump’s emergency declaration you have to first understand a few things about how the government spends its money. What is called “fiscal law” stems from Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution which states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”. This is what gives Congress the power of the purse. The government cannot spend money unless it is appropriated by Congress. From this flows all of government fiscal law.
    Appropriating the money, however, isn’t quite enough. Money can only be spent for activities that are authorized by law. So Congressional spending bills come in two types; authorization and appropriations. The authorization says what you can do and the appropriation tells you what if any money you get to do it. It is not uncommon for Congress to authorize or even require something to be done only to then refuse to appropriate or in some cases specifically forbid any money being spent to do it.

    1. What is often forgotten when talking about the spending power is what the Constitution doesn’t say. It only requires in the next clause that the Congress have a public budget. Outside of that and the requirement that Congress appropriate funds for the army and navy for no more than two years at a time found in Article 1 Section 8, the Constitution doesn’t tell Congress how it must do its budgets. There is no requirement that Congress specify a specific purpose for every dollar spent. Congress could conceivably pass a budget that, provided it didn’t exceed two years, said merely “$3 trillion is appropriated to the executive to be used for all authorized purposes during the next year” and it would be a lawful budget under the Constitution.
      Congress of course doesn’t do that. It exercises its spending power by restricting how money it appropriates can be used. This is what is known as “purpose” in fiscal law. For an expenditure to be lawful, it has be spent during the period it was authorized to be spent (time), for an authorized purpose (purpose), and in an amount not exceeding the appropriation (amount). Time, purpose and amount is the holy trinity of fiscal law.

    2. How specific Congress gets in telling the executive how it can spend appropriated money depends on the will Congress. Sometimes they get very specific about how money can be spent and other times not. They also allow the executive to change the purpose of how money can be used in some circumstances; a process called reprograming.
      Congress depriving the executive of any discretion of how it spends appropriated money was what the fight over earmarks was about. Earmarks were Congress telling the executive “here is so much money to build buildings and you must use it to build a building in Congressman Smith’s district”. All ending earmarks did was cede some discretion over how appropriated money is spent to the executive. When you understand that, watching all of these “principled Conservatives” who not ten years ago led the crusade against earmarks today claiming that Trump exercising discretion over how to spend appropriated money represents an assault on all that is right and good strikes one as a bit rich to say the least.

    3. With all of this in mind, the issues involved in Trump’s emergency declaration to build the wall becomes a lot clearer. There are two statutes involved in the decision; 10 U.S. Code ? 2808 and 33 U.S. Code ? 2293. Both statutes allow the reprograming of defense construction funds (? 2808 defense construction funds that have not yet been obligated and ? 2293 Army Corps of Engineers Construction Funds) to be reprogramed for a new projects that the President deems essential to national defense during times of declared war or when the President declares a national emergency under the National Emergency Act of 1976.

      Trump has declared that border security is a national emergency under the National Emergency Act of 1976 and reprogramed funds previously appropriated for defense construction and Corps of Engineers construction to construct a border wall that he deems essential to national defense. That is what this dispute is about; the President’s authority to reprogram previously appropriated funds consistent with the National Emergency Act of 1976.

      Understand what it is not about. It is not about the President impinging on Congress’s power of the purse, since the funds have already been appropriated. Whether and to what extent Congress restricts the President in how he can use appropriated money is a statutory and political matter. The Constitution only requires that the money be appropriated. It says nothing about who determines the purpose.

    4. Also Trump is not setting some horrible precedent that will be used by some future Democratic President to declare a national emergency to seize everyone’s guns or act on gays, whatever that means. Trump is invoking a specific authority to reprogram a set amount of appropriated funds for a specific purpose. Even under the National Emergency Act, the funds still have to have been appropriated for DOD of Corps of Engineers construction and the reprograming must be something that is deemed essential for national defense and otherwise lawful. The National Emergency Act doesn’t give the President the power to suspend the Bill of Rights or engage in otherwise unlawful activity. It just gives him the power, among other things, to reprogram money.

      Since he is only spending appropriated funds, Trump’s action doesn’t violate the Constitution’s requirement that all moneys drawn from the treasury be appropriated by Congress. Is he violating the statute? The answer to that is it depends. The statutes have two requirements; that the President declare a national emergency and that the money be used for a purpose the President deems essential to national defense.

    5. This leaves the issue of the project being essential for national defense. This is where I think as in a lot of debates, especially on immigration, the two sides of the issue are talking passed each other. Imagine if instead of a border wall, a President used these statutes to reprogram money to build homeless shelters because he believed homelessness to be a national defense emergency and building homeless shelters essential to national defense. It is safe to say any reasonable person would conclude the President was violating the law in that case. Suppose instead of a border wall or homeless shelters, the President reprogramed the money to build fortifications on the Mexican border to defend US soil from a hostile army based in Mexico. There, it is safe to say any reasonable person would concede the President was acting in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law. So, the question is whether a building a border wall is more like building homeless shelters or more like building fortifications to defend the country against a hostile army.

    6. The President’s defenders see securing the border against illegal immigration as no different or at least analogous to the example of the fortifications. They therefore assume building a border wall is appropriate under the statute. They see illegal immigration as a national security issue and the current rate of illegal immigration as an emergency.
      The President’s critics do not. They see stopping illegal immigration as a police issue and just another policy issue and certainly not an emergency. It’s not like the illegal immigrants are going to live in David French’s neighborhood or his kids are going to overdose on fentanyl. So how could this be an emergency or a national defense issue?

      Sorry for the long post, but that is legal answer that even the hacks Volkh refuse to give.

      1. Congress could choose to repeal the NEA, pass a veto-proof resolution ending the border emergency, and/or end the $1.375 billion appropriated for the border wall FY2019.

        Congress chose to give the Executive Branch $1.375 billion for a border fence, billions more in related agency funding, and pass a resolution without a veto-proof majority vote.

      2. +100 John.

        1. Thank you.

          1. Good post John.

            Did not know about the reprogramming issue. For that alone, it was worth the read.

          2. Well done John, thanks for taking the time

            1. Thanks. I see so many misstatements about this stuff. It drives me crazy.

      3. Could it be that the southern fence is just a perimeter fence protecting Ft. Hood and Ft. Ouachuca and other southwest military posts? Sounds like “military construction” to a lot of folks. Like a DEW line, just not at actual post perimeter.

      4. Good breakdown, John

      5. Where did you copy/paste that from, John?

        1. I wrote you fucking nasty half wit. Unlike you I actually know what I am talking about

      6. Thanks for the post John. Apart from the individual statues involved, this is information I was already aware of.
        A point of interest is that it is far more reasonable to conclude that a border wall is far more analogous to the building of a fort than a building of homeless shelters.
        In that regard, the fact that Trump is attempting to spend the already appropriated money on building a defence wall on the border is totally in line with the very purpose of defending the country. Anyone who believes that this wall is useless and that walls do not work are simply liars. Walls work everywhere on the border they have already been built.
        Any country with a welfare state, including America has an obligation to prevent welfare recipients from pouring over the border. They have an absolute obligation to the people who actually pay taxes toward the welfare state.

    7. Thank you so, so much for taking the time to refute an argument that wasn’t being made in the article or any of the other comments.

    8. I am going to explain this issue from a legal prospective to you clowns one time.

      Who are you responding to?

  12. Trump would support a change in the law at a later date? Doesn’t look that way to me one bit. Republicans should have changed it when they were fear-mongering about Obama. He would likely have agreed to a change.

  13. I don’t get it. Wasn’t the money already appropriated for some vague general “military construction”. What is to stop whoever was going to determine what the military construction project to say “I am directing this money to fencing tos top people from just walking in”

    “THE WALL” has become a political football just because Trump made it such a big part of his campaign

    1. Yes. As I say above and is worth repeating

      How specific Congress gets in telling the executive how it can spend appropriated money depends on the will Congress. Sometimes they get very specific about how money can be spent and other times not. They also allow the executive to change the purpose of how money can be used in some circumstances; a process called reprograming.
      Congress depriving the executive of any discretion of how it spends appropriated money was what the fight over earmarks was about. Earmarks were Congress telling the executive “here is so much money to build buildings and you must use it to build a building in Congressman Smith’s district”. All ending earmarks did was cede some discretion over how appropriated money is spent to the executive. When you understand that, watching all of these “principled Conservatives” who not ten years ago led the crusade against earmarks today claiming that Trump exercising discretion over how to spend appropriated money represents an assault on all that is right and good strikes one as a bit rich to say the least.

      1. Wasn’t there a case where Obama reprogrammed funds?
        I seem to remember that specific term being used, but don’t recall what for

  14. Either the National Emergencies Act is unconstitutional, since it allows the President to spend monies that Congress did not appropriate, or the President is violating the law by declaring an emergency when there is not one.

    If you say, “an emergency under the NEA is whatever the President says it is”, then the Congress cannot delegate its appropriation duties to the President.

    Since SCOTUS must attempt to construe each law in a Constitutional fashion, if possible, they will take the opposite tack: an “emergency” under the NEA is, you know, an emergency: a situation so dire and immediate that waiting for Congress to act would be infeasible. (The constitutionality of the law is still a little sketchy, but OK.) Obviously, waiting for Congress to act is feasible; Congress has acted, twice, and it denied the President the money he wants.

    1. Either the National Emergencies Act is unconstitutional, since it allows the President to spend monies that Congress did not appropriate,

      That is just not true. It allows him to change the purpose of money that has already been appropriated. It does not allow him to spend money that Congress did not approrpiate.

    2. Have you seen the standing (31) emergencies? I don’t think any of them were actual emergencies.

      1. Were they challenged? Probably not. This one is not quite like all the others.

        1. The not challenging them, however, creates a standard of what is an emergency. The fact that Congreww via its inaction on other “emergencies” created a precedent for a broad definition of emergency.

          If this is not an emergency because Trump could have acted sooner or whatever… then why has the very same Congress or treated other non-emeegencies the same way? Congress can not be taken seriously if they are claiming this is not an emergency.

    3. “Either the National Emergencies Act is unconstitutional, since it allows the President to spend monies that Congress did not appropriate, or the President is violating the law by declaring an emergency when there is not one.”

      I think this situation is an excellent example of people wanting to believe that the Constitution or the law prohibit things that we don’t like, when it’s entirely possible to do awful things that are both Constitutional and legal.

      One characteristic of libertarians is that we tend to see the difference between legality and ethics clearly. Just because cheating on your spouse or pay day lending is immoral doesn’t mean we have to pretend it’s ethical, but it goes too far to try to pretend that because something should be legal, that means that it must be ethical.

      1. The impulse that makes some libertarian feminists want to pretend that prostitution is fantastic because they want it to be legal is probably related to the same impulse that makes us want to think that misbehavior by the president is unconstitutional–because we don’t like it.

        I appreciate John’s explanation above, and I agree that what Trump is doing is both legal and constitutional. What I don’t think people are getting is that constitutionality and legality are not the end of the argument. I think what Trump is doing is wrong regardless of whether it’s unconstitutional. The president should not be able to do things like this under the auspices of a national emergency, and I want to see Congress assert some control here.

        . . . just like I’m not about to pretend that cheating on your spouse is perfectly ethical because it’s legal and constitutional. I didn’t have to pretend the Iraq War was unconstitutional just because I opposed it. I opposed it despite the fact that I thought it was unconstitutional. Likewise, just because there’s this constitutional loophole doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be closed–regardless of whether it’s unconstitutional.

        1. I really butchered that.

          “Just because cheating on your spouse or pay day lending is immoral doesn’t mean we have to pretend it’s ethical [illegal], and it goes too far to try to pretend that because something should be legal, that means that it must be ethical.”


          “I didn’t have to pretend the Iraq War was unconstitutional just because I opposed it. I opposed it despite the fact that I thought it was unconstitutional [constitutional].


  15. Anyone who knows their history (channel) knows “emergency powers” are bad fucking news. They are straight- up dictatorial powers, if the courts aren’t careful here…..

    1. Then why hasn’t Congress done something about the fifty-odd existing “emergency declarations”?

    2. So, you were, what, six years old during Katrina?

    3. I was there in 1992. It lasted for six days.

      Approximately 3,600 fires were set, destroying 1,100 buildings.

      12,000 arrests.

      The rioters shot up the hospital where I was working and burned the mall down.…..eles_riots

    4. Lefties lose to Trump…again.

      Wait until the federal shutdown for FY2020 over border wall funding.

  16. I find it both sad and amusing to see all the comments here both pro and con. As George Carlin once said; ” Forget the politicians, politicians were put here to make you think you have a choice you don’t you have owners” etc The real powers behind our former republic have succeeded in turning good well meaning people against each other while they slowly take more and more of our freedoms away. The intent of these ”owners” is world government under their control. And that ladies and gentleman would mean you would be a puppet / slave from cradle to grave.

  17. Good day for the country.

    Congress finally grew a pair.

    1. Except for repealing the NEA.

      1. New England Alliance?

        National Education Administration?

        National Endowment for the Arts?

        A neo funk band?

        A Finnish surname?

        Naval Exercise Area?

        North East Asia?

        Help me out here.

        Laws passed by congress to not need to be repealed so far as I know. It just needs a new law to change it. Congress enacts laws under the constitution they are not amendments to it as in this case.

        1. “Laws passed by congress to not need to be repealed so far as I know. It just needs a new law to change it.”

          That’s the kind of idiotic thinking that leads us to the land of countless laws and the inescapability of violations simply by existing.

          1. I am informed.

            What has happened over time is more spending power to the executive and less to congress.

            A minarchist can see that less power given tends to result in smaller government

            The president should never control spending to what we have now. Concentrating power to an individual is tyranny.

            This is a move in a better direction.

            1. Anarchists crack me up.

  18. The Borders are Open.

    Let everyone in.

    No passport are needed.

    Not even any immunization shots.

    And everything is free !!!

  19. INS/CIS should send all detained Illegals to the Home States of those 12 Senators – it’s what Obama would have done.

  20. I really have no idea why our CONgress bothers to vote on economic issues at all. They pass every stupid bill that comes along, but one that actually does something constructive and makes sense? No way. They have some ridiculous excuse for why they won’t fund a wall to protect us – – – but they’ll fund planned parenthood for abortions even after the baby is born? Yeah, we’re dealing with a whole boatload of rocket scientists there, including Rand Paul. I’m very very disappointed in him and will not support him in any cause ever again. He was the pack leader on this for the repuglicans who came on board, you can bet on it. Many won’t follow what he says if he’s FOR something but if he’s against something, they’re all in. It’s just insanity.

  21. 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!?..


  22. If illegal immigration is not just an “emergency”, but a *military* emergency requiring the use of *military* measures, then should illegal immigration be regarded as a military matter more generally? Are illegal immigrants, by their presence, no different than enemy combatants, at least as far as the laws of war go? And if that is the case, what is to prevent Trump, or any president, from invoking the AUMF and detaining illegal immigrants as enemy combatants, sending them to secret prisons without trial, and basically treating them as if they were accused terrorists? Do you think this would be an acceptable outcome?

    1. When the main display of the purpose for illegal immigrants is to “socialize” the nation (destroy the U.S. Constitution) by infiltrating it from within; then Yes, that would be an acceptable outcome.

      … and …

      Pretending that it’s a “humane” issue that needs subsidized as Pelosi’s stance is Treasonous.

      Pelosi…… summarized, “Its not humane to try and stop an invasion. We need to subsidize them so they can take over this country someday.”

      Article 1 Section 8:
      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and *REPEAL INVASIONS*

      1. Ok then. Forget babies in cages, you want to send babies to Gitmo. Should these enemy combatants have any rights at all, in your view?

        Should immigration be handled entirely as a military matter?

        Should citizens who associate with illegal immigrants be regarded as consorting with the enemy, akin to treason?

        Do you predict any negative repercussions when it comes to preserving the liberties of citizens?

        1. No Gitmo; just open the gate and shove them back onto the Mexico side.. No “comfy ride” arrangements.

          Well, federal border patrol IS national immigrant military but if border patrol isn’t sufficient then yes, bring in the tanks and put them on the border. Maybe the discomfort of such a thing mobilizing would get the Mexican government a little more anxious to address the problem.

          Yes, Citizens who knowingly and deliberately encourage the invasion and depending on their underground operations to promote communism – should be indicted for Treason (Trial by Jury).

          Depends on if said citizen thinks criminal law and punishment has “negative repercussions” or not will be the prediction. But no; I’d like to believe most citizens realize their “liberty” is dependent on such things as criminal behavior.

  23. Only boiling frogs can look at the state of the Nation and where it stands today and say, “Its not a national emergency.” We have a majority in the House of Representatives TODAY that is 13% Immigrant, 66% Feminist (i.e. sex-based “empowerment”) and close to 100% Socialist and not a single indictment of Treason on the table.

    I don’t support breaching the branches of government in this way BUT when its a breach in reaction to an INVASION of socialism; Then, Yes, I do.

    1. You tell ’em, grampa!

  24. 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? ?

  25. 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?????

  26. “though mainly a symbolic one”

    Is there any other kind? Let’s be real, you don’t exactly have Trump beat on policy. Despite the constant character assassination, he held Congress, will win 2020 bigly, and already permanently reshaped politics and placed it on the track to post-party politics by winning from the outside and transforming both parties to more accurately reflect the beliefs of their voters.

Comments are closed.