Senate rejects Trump border emergency as Republicans defect

Go Braves said:

12 patriots willing to defend the honor of their country.

Click to expand...

12 Republican Patriots -- the Dems were far more united against this farce.

cow451 said:

We need the Wall to stop this kind of crime!
On Feb. 28, about 1.6 tons of cocaine, with an estimated street value of $77 million, was seized at Port Newark, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced in a statement. The seizure was the result of a joint raid by CBP, the U.S. Coast Guard, Homeland Security Investigations, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the New York Police Department and the New York State Police.
These criminals thought they’d better get their drugs in here before Trump builds the big beautiful Wall. The wall would’ve stopped these Mexicans from South America from pushing drugs into the country’s border at Newark, New Mexico. Mr. President don’t let the liberals.... what?..... hold on, folks.... I’ve got an update from the American Olfactory Committee (AOC)...
We’ve just been advised that many people are saying that Newark is in New Jersey and that a wall probably would’ve not made a difference there......

***cow451 is not responsible for any inaccuracies in this post.

Click to expand...

Trump has a golf club in New Jersey. Coincidence or conspiracy? ...

Interesting...

The original estimate is that 4 Republicans would ‘defect’...and they got 8 more...

Another 8 makes a veto-proof majority, yes...?

Politicians sure have a funny way of looking at things. Guns are bad, drugs and criminals ahh who cares.

Belk said:

Congress does not appear to agree with him.

Click to expand...

Polling numbers for it aren't so hot either.

cow451 said:

We’ve just been advised that many people are saying that Newark is in New Jersey and that a wall probably would’ve not made a difference there......

***cow451 is not responsible for any inaccuracies in this post.

Click to expand...

I think there would be overwhelming support for putting Newark behind a wall. Or all of New Jersey, come to think of it.

Allandavid said:

Interesting...

The original estimate is that 4 Republicans would ‘defect’...and they got 8 more...

Another 8 makes a veto-proof majority, yes...?

Click to expand...

Rafael Cruz has to have a bit of stored up animosity after all of those insults about his family. You figure he'd have the character to stand up for himself at some point...

com7fy8 said:

I think the rightful meaning of giving the President power to declare an emergency is so he can get things started, then have the support of Congress to keep things going - - for what is agreed to be a legitimate emergency.

Click to expand...

Yes. In a real emergency there's not time for Congress to meet, debate funding, etc so the president should have the flexibility to address that until there's been an appropriate amount of time for Congress to meet. Failure of Congress to discuss the issue could be taken as implicit approval.

In this case, Congress did meet to debate the issue and decided it was not worth putting money there. Failure of congress to agree with you after debate does not make it an emergency.

Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a US President is able to unilaterally declare an emergency and then is able to veto a bill from congress that says "no, it's not an emergency". They should not be veto-able; it's giving the president too much power.

But, for the long term, I think it would be good to start with putting walling where the main problem is. During his state of the union speech, Donald claimed that a wall was put up for one location and after that crime was reduced to almost nothing. If that is true, pick where walling could do the most good. Plus, prove its worth, with test locations. Let local governments decide.

Click to expand...

Except his example wasn't true. In the city in question (El Paso) the wall put up did not drive down crime. No, border barrier did not bring down crime in El Paso

trunks2k said:

Yes. In a real emergency there's not time for Congress to meet, debate funding, etc so the president should have the flexibility to address that until there's been an appropriate amount of time for Congress to meet. Failure of Congress to discuss the issue could be taken as implicit approval.

In this case, Congress did meet to debate the issue and decided it was not worth putting money there. Failure of congress to agree with you after debate does not make it an emergency.

Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a US President is able to unilaterally declare an emergency and then is able to veto a bill from congress that says "no, it's not an emergency". They should not be veto-able; it's giving the president too much power.

Click to expand...

Congress should have thought of that before they gave him the authority without specifying limits when they passed the bill.

Maybe Mitch can "mitch" the legislation and just allow it to sit on his desk, without sending it to Trump and it can become law by default??

Steve Petersen said:

Congress should have thought of that before they gave him the authority without specifying limits when they passed the bill.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But it probably didn't really occur to them that it would be used in this way.

Gigimo said:

Politicians sure have a funny way of looking at things. Guns are bad, drugs and criminals ahh who cares.

Click to expand...

Americans are an odd bunch. We have a Constitution that is hailed a model governing document, yet many seem to ignore it even when the POUTUS, and even worse, the Senate Majority Leader, blatantly disregard it.

Steve Petersen said:

Congress should have thought of that before they gave him the authority without specifying limits when they passed the bill.

Click to expand...

They did. That's why the law specifically calls for exactly the kind of action Congress has just now taken with a joint resolution to limit his authority if they think it's being abused.

KCfromNC said:

Rafael Cruz has to have a bit of stored up animosity after all of those insults about his family. You figure he'd have the character to stand up for himself at some point...

Click to expand...

To stand up, one must have a functioning spinal column.

Steve Petersen said:

Congress should have thought of that before they gave him the authority without specifying limits when they passed the bill.

Click to expand...

They did specify limits. He has to convince congress it is an emergency or else they can shut it down. That is the limit and they just implemented it.

EpiscipalMe said:

Trump has a golf club in New Jersey. Coincidence or conspiracy? ...

Click to expand...

Does it have a “Spa”? *wink*

trunks2k said:

Yes. In a real emergency there's not time for Congress to meet, debate funding, etc so the president should have the flexibility to address that until there's been an appropriate amount of time for Congress to meet. Failure of Congress to discuss the issue could be taken as implicit approval.

In this case, Congress did meet to debate the issue and decided it was not worth putting money there. Failure of congress to agree with you after debate does not make it an emergency.

Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a US President is able to unilaterally declare an emergency and then is able to veto a bill from congress that says "no, it's not an emergency". They should not be veto-able; it's giving the president too much power.



Except his example wasn't true. In the city in question (El Paso) the wall put up did not drive down crime. No, border barrier did not bring down crime in El Paso

Click to expand...

This is why we need an educated, politically active electorate.

Steve Petersen said:

Congress should have thought of that before they gave him the authority without specifying limits when they passed the bill.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Congress was under the impression that a serial-lying mountebank would never accede to the Presidency?

Silly congresscritters!

Steve Petersen said:

Congress should have thought of that before they gave him the authority without specifying limits when they passed the bill.

Click to expand...

They did actually. The bill as originally passed had a Congressional veto which was found unConstitutional, imo wrongly, by SCOTUS.

Pommer said:

Perhaps Congress was under the impression that a serial-lying mountebank would never accede to the Presidency?

Silly congresscritters!

Click to expand...

She didn't.