Rand Paul says 'at least' 10 GOP senators are ready to vote against Trump's emergency declaration

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) said Monday that "at least" ten of his fellow GOP senators are prepared to vote for a resolution blocking President Trump's emergency declaration at the southern border.

“By my count, I’ve had at least 10 people coming up to me saying they will vote to disapprove on this,” Paul told reporters, referring to GOP colleagues...

Dr. Paul's vote will be the 4th Republican vote to block the emergency declaration. Which is all that's needed for it to pass. 10 Republicans voting against the President seems high to me. Anyone think that'll happen?

Of course, it's more symbolic than substantive. Donald Trump will veto it. And there aren't even close to the 67 Senate and 290 House votes it'll take to override a Presidential veto. But it's a noteworthy symbol. I can't remember the last time the Senate was under the control of one party, and voted against the President who was of the same party. During the Nixon/Watergate episode? Or maybe the LBJ years on a Vietnam war vote? Anyone know?

This is a demonstration of what I've believed since DJT was elected. His most formidable political enemies aren't the Democrats or the media. They're his fellow Republicans.

Rand Paul says 'at least' 10 GOP senators are ready to vote against Trump's emergency declaration
 

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,022
23,930
Baltimore
✟551,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I think it's ridiculous that the president is able to veto something like this. A congressional override of emergency order that he unilaterally issued should not be something he can just veto.

In that case, veto power would basically cease to exist, because a simple majority could overrule the president.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,074
5,940
Nashville TN
✟631,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
In that case, veto power would basically cease to exist, because a simple majority could overrule the president.
It's also a singular decision of the president being overridden.
Requiring a super-majority to override one person, in our system of government, seems a bit odd.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,330
the Great Basin
✟325,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm seeing where this could be important when it comes to the courts. Let's not forget that the "Emergency Powers" is not something granted by the Constitution, rather it was a bill passed by the Congress so that the President could respond to threats in the case of an emergency situation.

In this case, even Trump admits there is no real emergency -- he just wants to do it faster than Congress has approved. Despite it not being a "real emergency," most legal scholars believed that the courts would side with Trump, since Congress gave the President these powers.

However, if Congress passes this resolution -- even if Pres. Trump vetoes it -- the though is it could likely cause the courts to side with Congress. The idea is that Congress, through the budget, gave the President the funding they felt was needed. And by now passing a resolution denying the Emergency, Congress is clearly stating they disagree with the President, and they gave him the funding they felt was appropriate for the situation.

The argument here is that, constitutionally, Congress is responsible for creating and passing the budget. With the resolution, the Congress has clearly stated what they have budgeted, and that it is then unconstitutional for the President to ignore Congress' direction and give additional funding to a wall.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,802
36,097
Los Angeles Area
✟820,294.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
S 10 Republicans voting against the President seems high to me. Anyone think that'll happen?

Since they apparently don't have the numbers to override a veto, I doubt we'll see 10 Republicans stand up to Trump. As long as there are the 4 who have already gone on record to get to 51, I doubt the spineless silent Republicans will unnecessarily arouse Trump's ire by going against him.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
I can just picture Mitchy McConnell trying to sway Congress to pass laws limiting this power if a Democrat wins in 2020. He'll be decrying the terrible Democrats grabbing power... even if the Democrat isn't in office yet. It's a beautiful thing. I don't like what's going to come of this emergency power nonsense, but the tears. Oh the tears.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Requiring a super-majority to override one person, in our system of government, seems a bit odd.

It’s one of the checks and balances the Constitution builds into our government. It keeps the legislative branch from becoming too powerful. Also, the possibility of a veto and a veto override are supposed to encourage compromise. Though that’s a total fantasy in today’s political climate.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In that case, veto power would basically cease to exist, because a simple majority could overrule the president.
Only in the case of an emergency declaration. If the president unilaterally declares an emergency (especially one that specifically alters spending), he should not be able veto a bill approved by congress that cancels that emergency.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I still want to see it up for a vote in the Senate on the record, because this will be a very big deal in 2020 for the Senate race. 34 seats are up in 2020 and democrats are going to be beating this one to death, undoubtedly to great effect. The Democrats only need a couple of seats and the prospect of Democrats taking total control are looking ripe. Trump is handing the Democrat party a hard left, progressive agenda on a silver platter. Trump himself is extremely vulnerable to being voted out and then he will likely face the SDNY (Southern District of New York) where he fired Preet Bharara along with 47 US Attorneys. Trump's not scoring a victory here, he's digging his own political grave.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) said Monday that "at least" ten of his fellow GOP senators are prepared to vote for a resolution blocking President Trump's emergency declaration at the southern border.

“By my count, I’ve had at least 10 people coming up to me saying they will vote to disapprove on this,” Paul told reporters, referring to GOP colleagues...

Dr. Paul's vote will be the 4th Republican vote to block the emergency declaration. Which is all that's needed for it to pass. 10 Republicans voting against the President seems high to me. Anyone think that'll happen?

Of course, it's more symbolic than substantive. Donald Trump will veto it. And there aren't even close to the 67 Senate and 290 House votes it'll take to override a Presidential veto. But it's a noteworthy symbol. I can't remember the last time the Senate was under the control of one party, and voted against the President who was of the same party. During the Nixon/Watergate episode? Or maybe the LBJ years on a Vietnam war vote? Anyone know?

This is a demonstration of what I've believed since DJT was elected. His most formidable political enemies aren't the Democrats or the media. They're his fellow Republicans.

Rand Paul says 'at least' 10 GOP senators are ready to vote against Trump's emergency declaration
I certainly agree with your inference about Trumps greatest road blocks were people like Bob Corker and Jeff flake, and McCain were Trumps biggest detractors. Further the tea party who I personally love opposed his just handing the Dems everything they wanted on the first biennium budget. But Rand is a libertarian at heart. He is opposed to big government and big spending and the move in the last 50 years to an extremely powerful executive branch as opposed to a more powerful legislative branch, for those reasons he is against the executive order. We should have limited the power back in the 1970s when they first passed a bill outlining executive emergency powers.

I'm for a wall, but I'm also for requiring an civics exam and an IQ exam before allowing someone to vote. Just like we don't let children vote because of their lack of judgement. Why let someone vote just because they age? Why are we assuming that becoming a citizen (granted automatically to those born to an American citizen) should confir voting rights?

I would like people to take Paul's arguments for smaller Government and less executive power more seriously, especially after 8 years of executive abuse under Obama!
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm seeing where this could be important when it comes to the courts. Let's not forget that the "Emergency Powers" is not something granted by the Constitution, rather it was a bill passed by the Congress so that the President could respond to threats in the case of an emergency situation.

In this case, even Trump admits there is no real emergency -- he just wants to do it faster than Congress has approved. Despite it not being a "real emergency," most legal scholars believed that the courts would side with Trump, since Congress gave the President these powers.

However, if Congress passes this resolution -- even if Pres. Trump vetoes it -- the though is it could likely cause the courts to side with Congress. The idea is that Congress, through the budget, gave the President the funding they felt was needed. And by now passing a resolution denying the Emergency, Congress is clearly stating they disagree with the President, and they gave him the funding they felt was appropriate for the situation.

The argument here is that, constitutionally, Congress is responsible for creating and passing the budget. With the resolution, the Congress has clearly stated what they have budgeted, and that it is then unconstitutional for the President to ignore Congress' direction and give additional funding to a wall.
He isn't just declaring an emergency, he is taking funds that the Congress has appropriated for other puropses. Neither the Constitution or the bill you speak of, gives any President this authority. He has to ask the Congress to divert those funds to his purposes.
That is why Rand Paul is voting with the Dems. He knows if Trump is allowed to do this without a fight that a Dem. president could divert funds under an emergency declaration for say climate change or single payer health insurance.
If Reps. don't vote against Trump on this, even against a veto, they will pay the price, and some of them are smart enough or gutsy enough to vote in their own interests.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
He isn't just declaring an emergency, he is taking funds that the Congress has appropriated for other puropses. Neither the Constitution or the bill you speak of, gives any President this authority. He has to ask the Congress to divert those funds to his purposes.
That is why Rand Paul is voting with the Dems. He knows if Trump is allowed to do this without a fight that a Dem. president could divert funds under an emergency declaration for say climate change or single payer health insurance.
If Reps. don't vote against Trump on this, even against a veto, they will pay the price, and some of them are smart enough or gutsy enough to vote in their own interests.
I'm thinking sure, he can declare an emergency but that kind of work doesn't happen over night then there is all that money sitting in a pot until he loses in 2020. Then the Democrats can take all the money and spend it on health care and global warming because those are bigger emergencies. Madison once commented on the ability of governments to use every contingency to accumulate power, albeit, few so clumsily as Trump. But the control of power ebbs and flows, I'm thinking he just created this big fat contingency fund that is going to be like Christmas for incoming Democrats in 2021. Trump has done more for the Democrats then anyone since FDR, I think we should give him a parade and send him brownies and post cards when his antics end him up in a federal prison in upstate New York.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm thinking sure, he can declare an emergency but that kind of work doesn't happen over night then there is all that money sitting in a pot until he loses in 2020. Then the Democrats can take all the money and spend it on health care and global warming because those are bigger emergencies. Madison once commented on the ability of governments to use every contingency to accumulate power, albeit, few so clumsily as Trump. But the control of power ebbs and flows, I'm thinking he just created this big fat contingency fund that is going to be like Christmas for incoming Democrats in 2021. Trump has done more for the Democrats then anyone since FDR, I think we should give him a parade and send him brownies and post cards when his antics end him up in a federal prison in upstate New York.
I hadn't thought about those funds still being unused, which is possible, and the Dems. using them for a different proclaimed emergency.
Are the Reps. in Congress thinking about these outcomes or are they just kicking the can down the road, like they did on financing the wall when they had full control. I understand why Trump didn't push it, he wouldn't have considered that he/the Rep. Congress, could loss in 2018, but the Rep. Congress should have known better.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I hadn't thought about those funds still being unused, which is possible, and the Dems. using them for a different proclaimed emergency.
Are the Reps. in Congress thinking about these outcomes or are they just kicking the can down the road, like they did on financing the wall when they had full control. I understand why Trump didn't push it, he wouldn't have considered that he/the Rep. Congress, could loss in 2018, but the Rep. Congress should have known better.
I think it comes down to balance and while we give our government great room for discretion, the only cure for abuse is balance. If Trump seems excessive in his attempts to build a wall it seems to pale to insignificance what can happen should the Democrats take control, with full control and a progressive agenda, amplified by focused competence. I have thought all along that Trump could empower the Democrat power far more then their own efforts and his antics with the wall do nothing but confirm that theory. You have to ask yourself, will his efforts result in a wall or something else because his reelection chances are becoming increasingly small, although admittedly, I have given up underestimating the guy. It's a powerful base, it comes down to the old school conservatives and how much of this guy they can actually support.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Since he wrote an op-ed he might actually do it this time, but Rand Paul always says he is going to vote a certain way and then does the opposite.
What a concept.... Congress with some bipartisan backbone.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,802
36,097
Los Angeles Area
✟820,294.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
  • Informative
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0