Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Rand Paul says 'at least' 10 GOP senators are ready to vote against Trump's emergency declaration
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SimplyMe" data-source="post: 73733467" data-attributes="member: 9588"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SimplyMe, post: 73733467, member: 9588"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Rand Paul says 'at least' 10 GOP senators are ready to vote against Trump's emergency declaration
Top
Bottom