Senate rejects Trump's border declaration

1. 87

   IslandBitesposted 11 months ago

   Senate passes resolution to overturn Trump's national emergency declaration
   
   The Senate delivered a high-profile rebuke to President Donald Trump over his signature agenda issue Thursday when 12 Republicans joined Democrats to overturn the President's national emergency border declaration.
   
   The vote was 59-41, an overwhelming vote against the President's executive action.
   
   The 12 Senate Republicans who voted in support of the resolution were: Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Mitt Romney of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Mike Lee of Utah.
   
   The resolution now heads to Trump’s desk, where he is expected to use the first veto of his presidency to defeat it. Neither chamber has the votes to override the president, who tweeted shortly after the vote was closed:
   
   
   Donald J. Trump
   @realDonaldTrump
   
   VETO!
   
   What now? Is he going to veto? Do you think this and yesterday rebuke by GOP members will have any negative consequence for Trump? For them?

   replyreport
2. 87

   IslandBitesposted 11 months ago

   He just tweeted:
   
   Donald J. Trump
   @realDonaldTrump
   
   I look forward to VETOING the just passed Democrat inspired Resolution which would OPEN BORDERS while increasing Crime, Drugs, and Trafficking in our Country. I thank all of the Strong Republicans who voted to support Border Security and our desperately needed WALL!
   
   We'll see.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      He done dunnit, as many of his supporters would say. No if, ands, or buts about it. Speculation ended.
      
      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … nd=premium
      
      The question needs to be updated to "since the Congress allegedly doesn't have enough votes to override, what will his opposition do?"
      
      At this point, that seems to be up in the air.

      replyreport
      1. 43

         Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

         Hi,  all, I am a Nigerian, and lives in Nigeria. OnTwitter, I am one among many who vote for the building of the wall. 
         
         Later, I read an article by Rupert Taylor on HubPages.That offers much information as to the pros and cons of building a border wall in all countries in the world.
         
         Now, I am inclined to think according to constitutional rules that the president has the last card to play. Any right thinking person may correct me if I am wrong. Thank you. Wishing you all a great weekend.

         replyreport
3. 81

   Live to Learnposted 11 months ago

   I have no problem with the Republicans who voted against the declaration of the national emergency. I don't see it as a denial of the problem with illegal drugs flowing unfettered across the border. I don't see it as denying the problem with out of control illegal border crossings.
   
   The vote reflected a question of whether or not the move was within the power of the office of the President. A fair concern. There has been great debate about that. No matter how much of a crisis may exist, if this is beyond the bounds the power of the office it will be a dangerous precedent to set.
   
   Just different opinions on what a president can and cannot do. If you let one president you back do what you see as an abuse power then you run the risk of the next you don't like doing the same.

   replyreport
   1. 43

      Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Hi, live to learn, every American President has the veto power constitutionally. Yeilding it for good is not an abuse of power. Whether the fence boarding is debated or not by the public or the House, one thing is clear. Senate does not want it to pass into law. The President acting for good of the public can veto it.
      
      Now, if this happens, and the public did not like it, they have the right to throw President Trump out of office sooner, or later.  This is a basic constitutional principle.
      
      Senate Opposing the passage of the bill have a hidden agenda. Some of these lawmakers may be protecting their drug cartels. Thank you.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Live to Learnposted 11 months agoin reply to this

         I'm certain all people have different motives, some good some bad. However, constitutional scholars are in disagreement on the president's power to bypass Congress on funding this project.
         
         I am firmly in support of a border wall, however, I also question the act of allowing a president to claim an emergency in order to bypass Congress. Is it a danger to the separation of powers? I have no problem with a process which would probably end up in the Supreme Court, in order to get clarification on the constitutionality. If Trump moves forward, unchallenged, I can assure you future presidents will use that as a precedent. Perhaps, for things I don't consider an emergency.
         
         No one is questioning the veto power of a president, nor should any question Congress's right to attempt to over ride that veto. That's our democratic process.
         
         I do think implying that anyone in favor of the Republicans voting with the democrats in this are somehow in league with drug cartels is a bit asinine and libelous. The question at hand is much larger than border security.
         
         Again, although I support the purpose of a wall I also understand why some who support the idea can't support the manner the President is proceeding. What cost are we willing to accept in order to get our way? What would the long term ramifications be of allowing a president such power, if such power is ultimately deemed unconstitutional?
         
         Getting your way is not worth the cost of fundamentally changing our structure of government. We need clarification on this issue. Without it our country will remain divided. 
         
         My personal opinion is if the Supreme Court were to judge Trump's action unconstitutional the right would accept that graciously. If it deems his action constitutional the left will go bonkers. But, we'll have to watch the water under the bridge rise higher, in the later scenario. The constitution should take precedent over those who think the constitution only has power if it pushes their own agendas.

         replyreport
         1. 43

            Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Hi, live to learn, if the matter is challenged in the constitutional court, and the court gives the green light, what is the take then as regards to the public, the Senators, and the the the precedent any future president will copy? Thank you.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Live to Learnposted 11 months agoin reply to this

               Let's think. The majority in Congress disagree that an emergency exists. If it is considered constitutional for a president to declare a national emergency and act on that declaration, what else could a sitting president deem a national emergency, without congressional agreement? Anything? Everything?
               
               Presidential powers under the auspices of a national emergency include (but are not limited to) martial law, shutting down the internet, spending federal funds. It is dangerous and would be a nightmare if the wrong people were in power. We could find ourselves under the jack boot of a tyrant.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  "The majority in Congress disagree that an emergency exists."
                  
                  Do you think this is actually true?  Given that some in those hallowed halls actually ARE promoting nearly unlimited immigration of anyone at all, do you think there is a majority that find no problems with millions of illegal aliens violating our laws every year? 
                  
                  Or are they just toeing the party line in order to keep their job while giving a slap at their current nemesis - a President of the wrong party?
                  
                  In general, I don't think those people are stupid - IQ less than, say, 80, which means they KNOW there is a crisis whether they will say so or not.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Live to Learnposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                     Of course it's political posturing. They're fishing for votes. But, the majority do stand against him.

                     replyreport
                     1. 43

                        Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                        live to learn, you are welcomed. It borders much on self centered-ness I think.

                        replyreport
                  2. 43

                     Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                     @ live to learn & wilderness, this is a highly sensitive issue. Challenging, opposing, and dividing. The human aspect is what seems most difficult. And, it seems now boarders more on logic than reasoning. Every thing can now be a state of emergency. Boarder + Fencing =Emergency (financing); Education + Financing =Emergency, and so on.
                     
                     What worries my mind much is this is a nation I respect much. It sets the precedents for democracy, and its structure is now at logger head. Gods own country, God forbidden! Thank you.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Live to Learnposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                        I guess we are at loggerheads now. We'll muddle through. We always have.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                           I tend to think the the biggest emergency of all is that our legislators have lost sight of what our country is and what it needs.  Not positive, at all, that we are able to muddle much more without losing everything.

                           replyreport
                           1. 43

                              Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                              Hi, wilderness, very true, and very correct. Such is the human nation. I think there must be a correct solution to this border fencing problem. Instead of ganging up against the President, all hands must be on deck.
                              
                              Thank you, and enjoy the day.

                              replyreport
                              1. 88

                                 MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                 Miebakagh, the solution isn't as cut and dried as Republicans would lead you to believe. In the Eastern part of the border, the Rio Grande River meanders like a several hundred mile snake. The government would have to exercise its power of eminent domain and take miles and miles of land from many landowners, the farmers and ranchers, just to build this ultra expensive mileage of wall. It will block their cattle from their supply of drinking water and other uses these owners have by accessing the river.
                                 Many will go broke and ultimately be put out of business. Do you think this is fair just to stop people from crossing the border illegally when we have the technical ability to detect them and send out authorities to stop them? Oh, sure, the authorities might miss a few, but probably no more than will tunnel under or find some other way to circumvent the wall. That's something the pro-wall people, the blind followers of our President, aren't telling you. In all fairness, many of them don't believe that just as they don't believe in climate change.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 43

                                    Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                    Hello, Mizbejabbers, thanks for this information. Also thanks for reminding me that the United States has the arsenals to detect border infiltrators. Like as you say, only a few can be missed.
                                    
                                    But I will not support any move that will bring hardship to the economic well being of a person, or group of persons. My question is: how can these persons be compensated adequately in relocating to a better premise? Does such a location exist? Thank you much.

                                    replyreport