Speaker Pelosi has one policy and one policy only. If President Trump is for something, she’s against it. She can only see one strategy and that is “Stop Trump”. She is driven by personal animosity towards the President.
It would be constructive if Speaker Pelosi would formulate some policy initiatives that would help the country and also help the Democrats in the elections of 2020.
2
Pres. Trump is not usurping the power of Congress. We have equal branches of government. The executive branch has its constitutional part to play should Congress fail to act to the satisfaction of the executive branch.
1
The lawsuits against the president’s right to declare a national emergency will be held up in court for a long time. This will still end in Trump saying he won even if he loses. But the wit and wisdom of the Pelosi strategy will force Republicans, who know they don’t want the wall and that the president is overreaching, to go on the record with their vote.
2
If Trump loses in 2020, will he declare a "national emergency", mobilize the military, and declare the elections null and void?
2
Thank goodness for Pelosi. If she has time to read these comments, I appreciate the work she is doing.
1
Trump has it all wrong! The real national emergency is cyber security-all kinds of “aliens” feel free to hack into our information and into our power grids.They have successfully influenced one election and are hard at work trying to influence the next.We do not need a physical wall at the southern border, we did a safe “cyber wall “ to keep out unfriendly governments who wish us ill and could easily wreck havoc with our communications and electrical power.Five billion could go to real protection of our way of life.
3
I taught Social Studies, including geography, for many years to English Language Learners. According to the most recent maps published, South Carolina does not border Mexico. Lindsay Graham should focus his attention on the real issues that impact the well-being of the people of the great state of South Carolina, not a useless wall.
2
Madame Speaker for whom I have utmost respect - is making this a grudge map.
Perhaps, she is playing to her base.
But she should know that she did her utmost to give "not even a dollar" for this immoral wall.
Her House rejected her stance and has moved on.
Madame Speaker - there is a much bigger vote coming in less than two years.
Please move on.
1
Ha! The House of Pelosi plays the chess. Wear off the opponent, Donald and Mitch, to blunder moves. Then, it will be end game. ACA, deficits, nasty Donald's tax legislation, climate change, renewable energy, and be world leader again will be taken cared off appropriately. To top it all like icing on the cake, Donald will be at the mercy of SDNY.
It will be interesting. Trump has made this the campaign issue for all Republicans. Whether they want it so or not. Does Congress really think 'maybe' protecting their chances for reelection is less important the not allowing a campaign issue to be what a national emergency is? I guess we will see. And if so and polls show them likely to lose what may the next emergency be?
3
Schumer would need to get enough Republican votes to override the expected veto by the President. And the chances of that is remote.
The lawsuits by the States will eventually end up in the higher courts where it will die. The simple reason is there is an existing mechanism to deal with emergency declarations.
(The one Pelosi is now pursuing, actually)
The law leaves it to the President and Congress to determine a national emergency, not the courts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-34
4
The point is that they can tangle Trump up in legislative and legal knots until the election, at the very least. Nice try, though.
The GOP is so stupid they will completely miss the obvious, that this vote is their best bet to take back their party from a madman who has no interest in the country OR them. Join fellow Congressmen in asserting Congress's power and responsibilities re: the Federal checkbook and do it in sufficient numbers to override a Trump veto, because if you don't, GOP, you are lost. The future will find you going the way of the Whigs.
11
Go Madam Speaker!
13
Mr. Mitch McConnell has committed perjury of oath to his sworn vow as a Senator to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is considered a high crime or misdemeanor and the House would be within it's rights to Impeach him. Mr. McConnell's delineation of what is political versus his duty to our Constitution as a Senator has reached past the line of honor, into debasement of the office he holds.
13
@Scott "Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." Too bad Democrats don't have the 2/3's to do it. Historically, the charge for expulsion has been "Support for Confederate rebellion" or treason. Both apply to McConnell .
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Expulsion_Censure.htm
Its all good, let him waste a few billion on a worthless wall/fence. We can always tear it down in a few years. Then when democrats take control the next president can declare a national emergency on pollution,climate change,gun violence, campaign finance reform, overpopulation and fox news.
14
We are living in an era of overreaching and asserting your power for your own good and not the national interest.
Pelosi wants to show her power- she uses the power of purse. She is not denying the border crisis but using her power to score.
Trump wants to take care of this with executive power. Which by the way was weaponized by no other than Obama - how much that squeezed the purse? Neither media nor democrats rallied against it. But now it is an executive overreach.
7
Do the right thing. Restore the balance of power. The president in not a sovereign. The president is bound by the constitution, just like everyone else. If you allow the executive to successfully claim the power of the purse, congress will likely never get it back. The only national emergency is this wannabe king.
11
Nancy Pelosi is a paper tiger, this is just theater.
6
Trump is already bleeding from serious wounds inflicted by your supposed "paper tiger."
Every member of Congress should vote against Trump's assault on the separation of powers.
Why would Republicans even consider voting to weaken their Constitutional authority?
Wake up GOP!
10
A leader. How we’ve yearned for this since January, 2017. Etta James, we can all sing “At Last” - yes we can.
5
When this bill hits the Senate it will force every single Republican to declare their allegiance, either to the Constitution and the rule of law or to Trump.
It's about time we find out where they really stand.
11
It is particularly gratifying that, in the twilight of her career, Speaker Pelosi is giving Democratic politicians the template for standing up to Donald Trump. May they pay heed.
6
The wall was a pillar of Trumps election campaign. Whilst many people disagree with it, the people’s vote should be respected.
5
Opposition to the wall was the pillar of the Democratic wave in 2018.
The will of the people should be upheld.
10
The Congress is also an elected body, and they are there to represent their constituents, which is what they are doing. When Presidents have an opposing congress their agenda is often stymied, which is what is happening here. This is exactly how the system was designed to work and it’s the reason congress serves 2 years to the presidents 4. The National Emergency Act was implemented in order to give the president the ability to respond quickly to threats to US security. There are, in the act, provisions for congressional oversight. Ms. Pelosi is doing her job.
6
The majority of Americans citizens oppose the building of the wall. The majority of politicians do as well. Trump should follow the wishes of the public and his government.
6
The history of the Emergencies Act shows that the congress clearly intended for a simple majority to be sufficient to block or terminate a declared national emergency. This was changed to a 2/3 supermajority by a subsequent court decision and amendment. The failure by the congress was their failure to remedy the problem by amendment or superseding legislation in the many years they have had to do so. Unfortunately, the congress caused its own loss of power.
6
Speaker Pelosi has stood up to President Trump so far. She has taken all the right steps to confront Mr. Trump’s unique style that has been enabled by the current senate majority leader and the former speaker Mr. Ryan
9
The only place I see meaningful bipartisanship is on the topic of Congressional recesses. If Congress would turn up to work every day like the rest of us are expected to, maybe it wouldn't be delegating and relinquishing its powers to presidents who have long since gone off the rails. There would be no need for an "Emergency Powers Act" or a "War Powers Act" or any number of other laws enacted to divest Congressional authority and power in a president. But no, they have a week off here, a month off there, and they open on Tuesday and adjourn on Thursday. They travel the world on "fact finding" missions (read paid vacations) and to supposedly meet with their "constituents" (read wealthy donors) so they can buy ad time on television, radio, internet, and mailings about what a great job they are doing. So I propose, again, Congresspeople: show up at work. You were elected to represent us, not your donors, not the tv networks, not the internet providers, not the oil, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies. Show up. Introduce legislation. Debate. Filibuster, as in the original intent of "filibuster", (which was a speech, not a vote count of people who are currently out of town on vacation and begging expeditions), vote and pass legislation. Override or sustain vetoes. It's all written down, right there, in the Constitution, which you all purport to hold so dear. Do we need a Constitutional amendment to require Congress to actually do its Constitutional duty?
6
A writer for the Brennan Center for Justice recently weighed in w/an article arguing that, under current law, what constitutes an 'emergency' is largely left to the discretion of a President - meaning a President can get away with anything.
cc of my letter to her:
Dear Ms. Goitein
As I understand it from your article, the prob' w/current legal challenges to Trump's declared national emergency is this: the Executive has great powers under the National Emergencies Act, w/so much leeway given to 'discretion as to what is an emergency' as to let a President do anything.
In connection w/your article, could you please comment on the legislative branch's current "resolution" re Trump's declared emergency.
Is this the right path, or - alternatively or concurrently - should it be presenting revised "emergency" legislation that requires Congressional approval to renew emergency act funding after a short time?
As you can see from attached NYT link, I raise this question w/you because of an article in the 2/21 NYT - and am hoping you can respond to the question on that website.
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/courts-will-likely-let-trump-declare-emergency
Pelosi knows exactly what to do and when to do it. Trump is playing chess with Bobby Fischer here and like Fischer, Pelosi is going to beat him. No draws. I am certain Pelosi has four or five places already considered, where Trump's National Emergency declaration will crawl to, crippled and then die. He is out of his playing class here; all the lawyers in the world will not be able to turn this stunt into an actual wall. He has already been advised he alone cannot will a wall to be built. Which is most likely Trump's plan- he wants to be able to say he did all he could to fund the wall. I can already see the commercial.
12
Except Trump doesn’t even know the names of the pieces.
3
The Founders made Article I about Congress, reflecting both their view that it came before the President, whose job is to execute the laws of Congress and wars they declare, and the origin of our government as the Continental Congress years before there ever was any President. Presidents from Washington to Truman did not see their office as supreme leader. (My, how things have changed.)
In particular, they made their point by assuring that Congress must authorize spending of our tax dollars before any president could spend those taxes and tariffs. That was the basis of the Boland Amendments that led to the Iran-Contra affair. The idea that a president who does not understand such things can therefore do whatever ever he wants is unconstitutional.
8
And how many votes does Mrs. Pelosi have in the Senate?
2
I think republicans will still cave in for trump.
6
Dear Republicans,
We all know you like to play the long game when it comes to holding power, so we understand why you’ll vote to support your President in his Faux National Emergency Declaration. We respect that, and appreciate that you’ll have “smoothed the path” for us Dems when the new President declares a Climate Emergency in January 2021, shortly after inauguration. Thanks!
It makes things so much easie.
7
This has nothing to do with a wall — this is all about eminent domain and oil distribution...remember the State Of The Union:
“We have unleashed a revolution in American energy -- the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy,”
Follow the politics and money...
#UnderHisEye
1
Pelosi is doing the republicans a favor: giving them a chance to go on record objecting to presidential a power-grab, in advance of there being a Democratic President.
7
The fact that only one Republican on the House side signed on to the tells us all we need to know about what Senate Republicans will do when faced with having to decide whether to block Trump's declaration of an "emergency" on the southern border.
But the next time there's a Democrat in the White House, you can bet the ranch a Republican-controlled Senate will do everything it can to proclaim "executive overreach," just like they did when Obama was in the WH.
Same script. Different day.
14
Come on new Republicans! The old ones are lazy and skurred, show 'em how it's done.
It won’t be long before this ploy by the President (alias 45 for those who cannot bear to utter his name lest it normalise and dignify his ideology and corruption), will if unimpeded, further degrade an almost irrelevant function of the once proud and unique feature of the American system of checks and balances. There will be little point in voting for state,representatives if they refuse to represent the will of the people and courageously stand up to the current slide to presidential fascist oligarchy. God bless those of our people’s reps (regardless of party) who are pursuing this approach. Go America!
2
Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders are about the same age.
So much for being too old.
1
Republicans will support this in sufficient numbers to pass the resolution. Contrary to popular belief, and excepting Mr. McConnell, Senate Republicans really do care about preserving dignity and stability in our government. I mean, we’ll see, but I hope they still do.
2
Pelosi has not worked with Republicans in any fashion, it's ironic that she expects them to vote with her. She would not give $1, I would not give her 1 vote.
3
I don't think she expects them to vote with her. This would show that the Republican leadership is willing to turn the country over to authoritarian rule just to protect their seats. This is the party that screamed about presidential overreach when President Obama was in office but now, a few peeps, the rest is crickets.
12
To be clear: Not giving $1 to the wall is not working with Trump. Republicans don’t support his single-minded, myopic vision, either.
It’s irresponsible to think that good policy can come out of campaign rallies. It’s even more irresponsible of Congress, on either side of the aisle, to support it.
1
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109–367), also labelled H.R. 6061, is an Act of the United States Congress which authorized and partially funded the construction of 700 miles (1,125 km) of physical fence/barriers along the Mexican border. It was signed into law on October 26, 2006, by U.S. President George W. Bush, stating "This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."
What has changed since 2006? Open border advocates in Congress have stonewalled funding this law.
3
I appreciate your argument but there are no open border advocates.
9
There are no "Open Border" advocates.
9
What has changed?
The fencing got built, it didn’t do much, and it cost an extra bundle, is what changed.
4
And Trump will simply exercise his veto power.
Meanwhile, THIS Democrat supports every effort by our government to fulfill its obligation to defend our sovereignty and stop the brazen exploitation of our porous borders, our public services, and our birthright citizenship by millions of foreign trespassers (now numbering over 20 million, according to a recent Yale study)...at a cost to American taxpayers in the $Billions, year after year.
5
@Michal
More "birthright" citizenship is by rich Chinese (and some others) flying in, not poor Guatemalans walking miles fleeing violence that this country has not witnessed in over 100 years. They want to work and would accept a job most of us would not take. Your opinions do not sound like any Democratic party member I have heard before. I believe that the study you cite mentions "anchor babies" as a major factor to account for the difference between the 11M gov fig and the 22M Yale fig. Were our parents or grandparents "anchor babies". That is a dog whistle phrase and any member of the Democratic Party would see that for exactly what it is.
7
The study didn’t say that, it used a mathematical model of the very type climate change deniers sneer at, and please stop claiming you’re a Democrat.
2
@Michal - Why do people think that claiming to be a Democrat will give credence to this kind of drivel?
3
Since Trump was inaugurated in January, 2017 much effort has been expended on each side in undoing the efforts of the other. In particular Trump has sought to undo much of the work of Obama, and the Democrats are currently focused on undoing the emergency border-wall declaration of Trump. I look forward to a time (hopefully soon) when we will have a competent president who will work with Congress in a constructive way. The Trump presidency has been a multi-year nightmare.
11
The only question Speaker Pelosi needs to ask Republicans is, if the president were a Democrat, how would they vote?
I may be naive, but I believe this is the difference between Democrats, Independents and Republicans: Democrats and Independents will vote to protect our democratic institutions even if it hurts their party whereas Republicans will vote to protect their party even if it destroys our democratic institutions.
29
I like this. We need the Republicans that enable Trump to put their names on record so that they cannot evade the coming judgement of history. Not that Republicans anymore feel any sense of shame but at least the American people can judge them on their actions.
26
This would set a bad precedent. Republicans need to ask themselves: what if Obama had declared greenhouse gasses to be a national emergency? I have a feeling most Republican representative think Trump's "national emergency" is a bad idea, but are afraid of their constituents. On the other hand, most Democratic representatives think cutting greenhouse gasses is a good thing, and so do their constituents. Unless Republicans fully expect (for nefarious reasons) Obama to be the last Democrat president, ever, they have to realize this will be used against them in the future.
10
"This issue transcends partisan politics," Ms. Pelosi said. "It's about patriotism." I don't want to accuse Speaker Pelosi of being naive but has she met any patriotic Republican counterparts in the last ten years? I thought not.
19
What. A. Mess. In all honest, I think we need to rebuild our government from the ground up and get rid of every single official from both parties. The rule of law should apply to everybody - even if it's inconvenient for them. Yes, that applies both to the illegal immigrants that Democrats are helping avoid the consequences of violating our laws and the President and his GOP cronies who don't want to follow proper legislative procedures to secure the money to enforce immigration law.
3
Now, when it seems people have such little faith in government it is very good to know Congress can work the checks & balances that reign in the abuse of power by the Executive branch. The last time I looked we are not a monarchy, yet. Trump's abuse of the "power of the purse" is also matched by his abuse of claiming "A National emergency"..
The REAL National Emergency was the day trump was selected! Americans should applaud Pelosi at ever turn!
9
Relax, unwind all is well.
Nancy Pelosi is going to stop the wall from being built. Now we can all relax at night knowing our private security guards are watching over us. Thank you Nancy for thinking of US.
2
@Tom ,Retired Florida Junkman - I don't need anything to protect me from hard working immigrants.
3
@DR
Those aren't the ones that you should worry about. It's the uninsured, the desperate, the addicted, the sick. Those are the folks that might cause me concern.
1
The issue needs to be raised since it overturns the traditional balance of power. One would think that all members of the House and Senate would support the power of the purse bill. Hoping more come to their senses instead of rolling over to an obvious power grab.
7
GOP forced to vote yes or no on Trump blowing his nose on the Constitution. Democratic President in 2020 can now declare National Emergencies on Climate; Voting Rights; Gun Control and More. Thx GOP; gift that keeps on giving. Ray Sipe
27
“This issue transcends partisan politics” Really? Will anybody in politics ever tell the truth?(rhetorical question). Obfuscation of the truth seems to be major politicians' stock and trade.
1
No Mrs Pelosi, this is entirely about partisan politics.....
4
Actually, JAC, it's about the Constitutional separation of powers that the republic was founded on.
The Republicans controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House for two full years and could have funded all the border wall their phony hearts desired.....but suddenly....magically....out of nowhere....an emergency southern border crisis emerged when a Democratic House was elected in November 2018 ?!
The irony, ignorance and hypocrisy of your baseless comment are rich.
41
@JAC No. This is about the power mad GOP using any and all means to turn America into a whites dominated Dictatorship.
5
exactly, sokrates. i have been wondering all along why in no encounter with the press i saw or read about trump has been asked why the wall has not been an emergency for two years of pure republican „governing“ and now all of a sudden it has become one.
1
And did you Republican Congresspeople understand why Trump originally scheduled a massive military parade on your streets just a few days following the last election? I did.
I think it's best you now recognize the danger Trump poses to our form of government and help the Democrats put a lid on the excessive power grabs of the past and yet to come. We did come close to a collapse of America.
Pelosi did extend a peace overture upon start of this Congress and before Trump did this. Bi partisanship works both ways and I think you have it in yourselves to keep the peace, a necessary function.
9
Good for Speaker Pelosi for acting quickly to call out this outrageous presidential over reach.The Republicans are going to have to do some serious soul searching, something they are not good at, to decide to set a precedent that a Republican can call a national emergency to grab more funds .Republicans have been alarmed when Democratic presidents misused their executive powers and have fiercely defended their Congressional prerogative to allocate funds in the budget.Their votes will tell just how hypocritical they are about “ executive over reach” - they pretend to be passionate about it.
11
" 'We prepared for the worst, because the president right now is engaged in the worst,' said Ms. Pelosi ..."
Exercising oversight and protecting their power of the purse is what the Constitution requires all of them to do. Speaker Pelosi would be remiss were she to do anything else. It doesn't matter whether or not they have enough votes to override a veto. It's what we call protecting and defending the Constitution. Mr. McConnell's reputation is in tatters. Where did the "fierce defender of Senate prerogative go?" Was that ever true? All I see now is an immoral opportunist of bottomless bad faith. And a ferocious bootlicker.
21
it's in the Republican's best interest to shut the President's proposal for an emergency down for all the obvious reasons.
hypocrisy is a staple of the political process: from McConnell saying the #1 priority is to shut Obama's agenda down {how patriotic] & the President's continuing obsession with destroying all things Obama while whining about the absence of his Nobel.
Mr Trump is not a politician. he is a malignant narcissist that is taking us all on a path that may take generations to repair.
i love this country.
i served in the navy during Vietnam & i won't go into Mr Trumps comment re: John McCain.
Trump should stick to what he does best: exaggeration & philandering & hopefully, therapy.
10
I do not believe GOP ever stood for morality! But the good part is that we can use us technique to close the open issues like Dreamers and universal health care once "Trump" has done the irreparable damages to US democracy way more than Putin ever dreamt of from "Him"
5
It will be an enlightening crescendo to years of aberrant Republican Congressional actions if they vote down any legislation that chooses our enduring Constitution over the wrongly instituted and unjustified Emergency Declaration by Trump. It is a temporary abuse of power versus fealty to our nation's Constitution by Trump.
2
We are witnessing the return of checks and balances that Trump and the rubber stamping GOP congress ignored the past two years. Even if SCOTUS eventually rules in Trump's favor, by that time Trump will be so weakened by investigative revelations, his wall will be forgotten.
9
The National Emergencies Act provides that Congress can revoke a presidential national emergency declaration by passing a joint resolution. As the just-introduced resolution affirms,Trump’s national emergency declaration doesn't circumvent Congress or usurp the constitutional separation of powers. The only thing the declaration circumvent is Nancy Pelosi's ability to shut down government a second time. Justice Department lawyers will point this out in defending the national emergency declaration in federal courts.
If the joint resolution fails in the Senate, the Justice Department will counter lawsuits by pointing to it as proof Congress supports Trump's national emergency declaration.
If the both the House and Senate pass the resolution but cannot muster enough votes to override a president veto, the Justice Department will argue that the constitutional checks and balances system has run its course.
2
It's hard to imagine such arguments by implication would carry much weight when the Congress already had been asked expressly to fund the wall and had declined to do so.
2
I quite frankly ask you Republicans; Do you support the United States Constitution, or a power hungry unconstitutional action by Trump who is clearly a Supremacist? You do do understand that simple truths make public opinion, don't you? I know you do.
14
Montesquieu gave modern civilization the separation of powers principle in 1748:
"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.
There would be an end of every thing, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals."
— The Spirit of the Laws, 1748, Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu.
Nancy Pelosi understands the separation of powers principle that made America great.
Republicans apparently do not.
Grand Old Phonies 2019
79
@Socrates be sure to email this great comment to McConnell. he clearly needs a refresher course in american government.
5
I have written here before that it would be politically expedient not to impeach Trump and just him self destruct. Use him as a poster boy for 2020 to retake the Senate and White House. But this has got to stop. Trump is threatening the very foundations of our republican democracy. He is shredding the Constitution. He is making a mockery out of our laws in order to enrich his family.
Because of the danger Trump poses and the damage he is inflicting, I now believe that impeachment proceedings are necessary. The Senate will not vote to impeach no matter what Trump has done. But an impeachment is an open trial where all of the evidence can be aired in public for all to see.
We already know that Trump and his minions will do everything they can to squash the Mueller report. They will squash any report they don't like. They are even going so far as to create a climate change report to falsely disprove climate change. Trump will stop at nothing that helps Trump.
No president has behaved anywhere near what Trump has done, and that includes Nixon. Trump must be fully exposed. No more closed door investigations.
This move by Pelosi must be the first act in a coordinated campaign to rid us of Trump. We can't wait two more years. We can't allow Pence to grab power either. But we can expose him and reveal to the world his criminal activities and show that no one is above the law.
108
@Bruce Rozenblit. We We We - you are speaking for yourself only. This will keep Nancy tied up for weeks so she wil not be governing. Do explain what damage he is inflicting.
3
@Jackson
He is also speaking for me.
I assure you that Speaker Pelosi is still performing the Constitutional responsibilities of the office she holds. The House of Representatives has a full agenda, and will be working very hard at the people's business. Two years have lapsed with the republicans doing absolutely nothing that would identify them as legislators.
28
@Bruce Rozenblit
Wow! I respect your opinions, Bruce Rozenblit, and I am so glad to see you have changed your mind about the need to press for impeachment. Circumstances have changed, too, since you and the rest of us first entertained the idea of impeaching our president. Trump seems to be more emboldened than before, and thus more dangerous. He thinks he has no one to fear, but he should fear Nancy Pelosi. And the wrath of us blue voters in red states, the American citizens he is absolutely NOT working for--whether inside or outside of his "executive time."
14
The obvious question is, "Why is Pelosi doing this"? It has nothing to do with money. After all, California just wasted 10 times as much on their failed high-speed rail project--and they don't even have the sense to be embarrassed about it. The real answer is simple. So simple:
Democrats want open borders. They think it helps them with the Latino vote.
--Why else would they offer in-state tuition to illegals?
--Why else would they want to give them drivers' licenses? ---Why else would they want to give them free health care?
--Why else would they want to shield criminal illegals from prosecution and deportation?
--Why else do they not care that millions of illegal students are crowding into our public schools?
--Why else do they want to omit the citizenship question on the next census?
This is all designed to attract illegals--not to discourage them.
Democrats want open borders. Repeat--they want open borders. They are the party of open borders, illegal immigration and crime. They should just admit it--but for some reason, they don't quite dare to.
7
@Jesse The Conservative, The question you left out is, "Why do I believe this?"
4
Are the DNC / Democrats now fully for open borders and even taking any wall that is currently there down?
Under 44, I was told for 8 years, 44 has deported more people than any other president. Now under 45, the DNC / Democrats want this to fully stop and now even added sanctuary cities and States.
Were the years before 45 a lie, was this what Democrats believe in?
Polosi and others are on record supporting the wall and even voting for it in the past before 45, now its no wall, walls are bad, and walls are immoral?
So, under a Democrat President, will we see all walls removed and all borders open?
9
@Questions That is a lot of straw men in one post. Well done.
10
@Questions I suspect you and I are not on the same political page, but your comment points out a debilitating weakness of the Democratic position here: they are perceived as being champions of the status quo, when it comes to immigration policy.
US immigration policy is broken, the voters know it and have made their attitudes clear, and it's high time the Dems begin communicating that they perceive and accept the problem. "We don't need a wall" may be true, but it is not a solution, nor a plan.
2
@Questions, Anatole France famously said, "If 90 million Frenchmen say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
I would paraphrase to say: if millions of Republicans insist on missing the point, they have still missed the point.
This is not about "open borders" this is about the powers of government unambiguously stated in that same constitution that guarantees the right to bear arms.
Congress has been given the right to determine how money will be spent by the government. This cannot be superseded by the whim of a sitting president.
This is not about a wall, or the number of deportations, or even Republican or Democrat. This is about the proper exercise of executive power and the proper exercise of congressional power. Both are defined in the constitution.
Emergencies do exist. Hurricanes and fires devastate whole cities, terrorists fly airplanes into skyscrapers. These are met with rapid and agreed-upon responses.
Donald Trump's failure to build his wall does not meet any criteria of an emergency.
And it certainly does not mean there are open borders.
9
Abuse of power. Let's remember that "Abuse of Power" was the title of one of the three Articles of Impeachment brought against Richard Nixon. Trump has blatantly misused "national emergency declaration" powers to try to do an end run around Congress on a matter that is not a national emergency. If he does this once, he'll do it again unless stopped in his tracks. Let the Senate vote on the forthcoming House resolution to void the declaration. That will take apparently only four Republican votes in the Senate to pass. I hope it will get well over that number of Republican votes. Then, let Trump doubly abuse his powers via a veto of the joint House-Senate resolution, relying on the notion that it will take two thirds majorities in each body of Congress to override him. More abuse of power evidence. This time we need not wait for the Mueller Report, although that is coming soon enough. Abuse of power is already starkly evident for all to see, and grounds for impeachment on its own.
18
Where is the drive for impeachment? Where is the drive for Climate Change work? A dead horse give a better response than the Democrats.
3
This bill will not pass the Senate. No way. No how. Pelosi is posturing to make Trump look bad and to make it even clearer that Democrats oppose the wall. After the bill dies, the Supreme Court will take up a number of cases on the wall. And the wall will remain a prominent issue for at least another year. Then, we’ll have an election where the wall will be debated. Meanwhile, the environment is going to pot, universal health care is up for grabs, and our whole tax system is hotly disputed.
What I think about the wall is that it’s getting way too much attention.
49
@michjas It just may pass in the senate. After all, Congress made a funding decision for part of a wall, and it is congress in the USA that gets to make decisions on the allocation of funding. Trump signed the budget bill, which included the amount of funding Congress allocated, and to increase the funding beyond what congress decides is clearly un-constitutional. Some Republicans still care about the rule of law.
20
@michjas Two things.
First, illegal immigration and "the wall" are political footballs that BOTH parties like to kick around but cannot take any "effective" action on because that would anger their donors, especially GOP small business donors that benefit from cheap illegal labor. Trump himself was an "illegal employer".
Second, even if the bill does NOT pass the Senate, GOP Senators will be on record "for" or "against" ceding more power to this President. Then we can see how well that sits with their voters in 2020.
23
@michjas - You miss the mark if you think this is just about the wall. This (the push to overturn President Trump’s emergency declaration) is about stopping an unconstitutional power grab by the president.
Stop Trump now - or slide down the slippery slope to "illiberal democracy" (or worse) and a loss of rights and liberties. Trump may be an ignorant and buffoonish menace, but he is a menace nonetheless.
21
I don't see how legal efforts can work if any cases work their way to the Supreme Court. There is a clear legislative path to follow and unless Congress uses their power to override the president's decleration then the president has authority to act. The representatives of the people are the method of stopping him.
Not only is trump driving our society of a cliff, members of the GOP are locking us all in the bus
8
"And with a number of Republican senators voicing discomfort over Mr. Trump’s use of executive power, it is likely that the resolution will pass the Senate.
An effort to override a presidential veto on the measure, however, is unlikely to pass."
So it is likely that Republican senators will vote to make what the president is doing illegal, but they won't vote to override his veto? How cowardly do you have to be?
22
This is leadership. Something the United States has not seen since January 20, 2017.
This is a functioning house of congress. Something the United States has not seen since Jan 3, 2011.
51
Put up or shut up, Republicans. All your talk of patriotism and freedom over the years has now come down to this - do you truly stand for and believe in representative democracy or an oligarchic autocracy? It shouldn't have had to come this far, but now that it has, we're watching and ready to take to the streets.
53
We now live in a dictatorship, where legislators and judiciary are merely rubber stamps for the dictator. If the resolutions can’t override the dictator’s veto, what good is the Constitution? Especially since the resolutions are about his violation of that Constitution!
43
Holding Mitch McConnell accountable to bring a vote to the Senate and forcing Republican Senators to place a vote regarding this issue cannot be overstated. Mitch McConnell has 'protected his caucus' too many times, when he knew he could not muster the votes to support Trump. It is now time for the members of the Republican Party in both the House and the Senate to decide which side of history and the constitutional protections afforded the Legislative Branch they will side with.
Trump will veto this legislation and it may or may not be overridden. That very process itself will force the Republicans to vote twice on this critical issue. I suspect the pressure between the first vote and the override vote which will inevitably occur may cause further fractures in the Republican Party as we race rapidly toward the primary season for the 2020 elections.
Nancy Pelosi is not just Donald Trump's worst nightmare right now. She is now rapidly becoming the entire GOP's worst nightmare.
219
@Bryan "now rapidly becoming the entire GOPs worst nightmare" I surely hope so.
30
@Bryan her and Elizabeth Warren. I say the latter because she's very good at pointing out their financial lies. I do like her that way.
10
@Bryan
Thanks to the Electoral College, We the People can't stand up to the minority President we didn't elect. Nor can we stop the Constitution rewriting Mitch McConnell who is elected by one of the lower population States.
We should be the GOP's worst nightmare. But until 2020, Nancy and her crew are all we have.
20
There is an interesting aspect to Trump's presumed veto, assuming that the Senate will also vote to block his (mis)appropriation of money to build part of his treasured wall. Normally, a president uses a veto to block Congress from doing something that he disagrees with, but in this case, the roles are reversed. Congress will likely vote to block the president from doing something that it disagrees with, and the president will then use his veto power to allow himself to proceed. This is not how the Founders designed our government
100
@Padfoot
Correct, it is not how our Government was designed.
Congress should never have passed the original emergency powers act giving the Executive this authority and ability to veto their 'disapproval'.
8
@JustThinkin
Congress didn't actually give the Executive authority to veto their disapproval. The Supreme Court granted that authority to the President in 1983. The Emergency Powers Act was signed into law in 1976. Congress never intended the EP Act to require a veto proof majority. Reagan forced that change through the bench.
Food for thought.
2
@Padfoot
The Senate will not back the House. And even if it does there will not be enough votes to override a veto.
1
How do we get Nancy to run for President? She could again wipe the floor with Trump and we'd be rid of a plague on democracy and we'd have an outstanding leader in charge getting us back to the right track and she'd do it with the same dispatch she's always shown.
Despite her good efforts, Trump may still succeed with his Emergency Order and that another nail in our coffin.
6
@MaryO
Why don't you ask a brain surgeon to become a lawyer? She is an expert legislator. Why would she want to become a newbie executive? Granted, she would do the job better than trump or any of the other republicans that seem to be eyeing the position, but there are other people in the Democratic Party who are willing to make the sacrifice and would do an outstanding job.
It's very sad that devotion to party would override devotion to principle. We really need to take a step back from our deep trenches and think about the kind of democracy we want, and then fight for it. For instance, call your representatives and denounce this circumvention of normal checks and balances. It takes constant maintenance and clear-headed thinking to keep this ship afloat especially considering the pervasiveness of today's single-sided media that is fine-tuned to tweak our instincts like never before. Switch off your screens, talk to your neighbors and other Americans with respect, and decide together what changes we are going to need to tweak and protect our democracy.
59
@Bill Johnson I agree with the first sentence of your post, but you must also agree that the liberal/democratic party has been guilty of this as well, never more so than the past two years.
1
@G G Absolutely. Takes two to tangle. Everyone is afraid of their base, especially losing the support of their base, and their base (ie, all of us) prefers to keep with our tribe. Both tribes respond strongly to fear mongering pedaled by social media and one-sided news. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and limit campaign contributions by corporations as well as people (see 28trh amendment) and we will put a good dent in fixing this mess.
@Bill Johnson We're just not as intelligent anymore. The Founding Fathers didn't have "smart"phones and the loud dumb voice of the internet to distract them. Democracy will fail before our eyes because of a lack of education and the slow but sure dumbing down of society brought to us by the internet. That failure will present itself as a bold font in italicized Times font on a 3X5" screen in the palms of 300 million dumbfounded descendants of Founders that had a vision too good to be true for very long.
"“This issue transcends partisan politics,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters..."
Wrong. In today's world almost nothing transcends partisan politics. This is simply more political theater. 60 votes against Trump in the republican senate? I am laughing so hard my sides ache.
This is going to be decided in the SCOTUS. A republican Supreme Court.
1
Old fashioned Horse trading is the way ahead for democracy. Give Trump the wall and get Medicare for all. Add a sunset clause or two. Term limits for Congress - get some new fighting men and women there. Shift power to the states. The alternative is to continue with the paralysis of the last 30 years and American exceptionalism would bring exceptional decline.
2
The wall in exchange for Warren's proposed tax on the assets of billionaires.
1
That the new, younger members of Congress wanted to defeat Nancy Pelosi boggles the mind. She is masterful.
48
@Cassie Eckhof
They're idealistic and untutored in politics. They'll learn.
“If the president’s emergency declaration prevails, it will fundamentally change the balance of powers..."
And it will prepare the ground for a Democratic president to declare a climate change national emergency. "Nice coal mine you got there. It's a national monument now to the vociferous greed of the past. Have a nice day."
If the GOP wants a dictatorship, I much prefer it be one on the left.
30
I am glad there is one leader who is willing to fight to protect the Constitution and the purpose of Congress in making budgetary decisions.
54
Any Republican who sides with Trump will never, *ever* be able to "rally around" the US Constitution again, without being laughed off the stage.
That's why it's important to get them all on the record, for eternity.
79
Pelosi is a champion for Congressional prerogative. Congress has allowed Trump to flout the Constitution as he strives to gather more power to the Presidency presumably to become the dictator he wants to be. It now evident that Paul Ryan was a patsy to Trump as McConnell is in the Senate.
35
The Madame Speaker’s heart—bless her—is in the right place but I foresee a very heavy lift—if not an impossible one—for both houses to vote for her bill to end the president’s end-around Congress.
The fly in the ointment, of course, is Mitch McConnell. Before the president’s declaration, the Senate Majority Leader counseled Donald Trump ahead of the date for a second shutdown that a “national emergency” would be politically risky and widely unpopular.
But, of course, where expedience pokes its snout above the weeds, anyone can change his mind. Now, McConnell simply can’t lose face. He will ride hard over any wavering Republican in the Senate. He’s thrown down his glove for the president and he won’t retreat. What’s America to him? Or to the president? We can expect a presidential veto—the first for Mo. 45—and McConnell will crack the whip, now that he’s crossed that particular Rubicon. McConnell and Trump answer to the same base—the shadow donors and think tanks.
The SCOTUS will have to decide this case, and the five right wingers have probably already decided on limitless executive powers. That’s the genuine emergency here.
11
There is no way that the Senate overrides a Trump veto. Don’t get your hopes up.
1
@michjas You are missing the point.
1
It's not even about patriotism. It's about protecting the Constitution and the balance of powers. If the Republicans refuse to back her on this, they have completely lost the plot.
61
@Alexandra protecting the constitution is in itself a patriotic act
5
The GOP stands ready and eager for the opportunity to bravely turn their backs on Trump's countless attempts to claim the Constitution as now under his total control and the Bill of Rights as optional, depending on your skin color. .
8
I guess the big question I have is what if he's right. Sure there's the vanity wall argument and so on but not long ago Obama and Pelosi were in support. So again for the sake of a rounding error and putting a bunch of people to work, what if Trump is right. Is there any logical reason to deny this. Secure borders are not a bad thing and their is a solid case for what Trump is proposing. However if denying Trump his wall is more important then so be it, fight the good fight.
1
@Kelly You may have missed a crucial point, Kelly. Secure borders are not attained by a wall. Ports, airports, shipping access have made our borders not secure. There are now technological devices/methods to secure borders. So to answer the big question you have, "No, he's not right."
5
Here, take it. Take it all and do with it what you want. Music to Donald's ears. Thanks Mitch.
1
We simply cannot let this breach of our Constitution take place. Trump and future presidents will use it as a convenient monetary cookie jar to raid for their own selfish reasons. Republicans in Congress may grumble but will not defy Trump because they fear him. Democrats and anyone else who values our system of government must stop it any way they can. Would the Supreme Court go along with Trump? Let's see.
118
@Martha Carter
Lol, why weren't you saying that for all the other dozens of "emergencies"
It is telling that congress is trying to go after this specific use, instead of rolling back the entire concept of national emergencies.
Congress has successfully bamboozled all of America into thinking that they have no responsibilities.
1
@Martha Carter
The Article III judiciary is the least democratic branch of our divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states. Nominated by the Electoral College majority President of the United States with the advice and consent of Senate that is the 2nd least democratic branch with every state having two Senators regardless of population for lifetime appointments.
There is nothing that the Supreme Court of the United States to impeach, indict or remove Trump. There is a Republican Party majority on the Supreme Court of the United States and the Senate.
1
@Peter, when did Obama declare that his excruciatingly embarrassing failure to convince Congress to fund a vanity project amounted to a national emergency?
2
The real responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in rests with Congress.
The Congress passed an incredibly horribly crafted law that GAVE the Executive Branch this power.
It should have been written in a way that allowed the President to declare an emergency but then require to APPROVE any spending of funds within 20 days with simple majority and no veto override.
27
Other than the obsequious Lindsay Graham, I haven't heard any Republican senators who strongly support building a wall, buy into the "border crisis," etc. What they are, is afraid of Trump's base.
Three remedies: (1) Tie the wall up in court and through various types of legislation (2) Investigate Trump and Comp. to death (3) Win back the Senate and the White House in 2020, so the Republicans finally get the message that kowtowing to the Con Man Don won't keep them in power.
51
@Philip S. Wenz And Trump's base exists, if you ask yourself the question: "why"? What is it about Trump that he requires such devotion and faith from these people?
It doesn't seem to be connected only with his policies promoting whites over the rest or largesse for billionaires: it is something about his strenuous efforts to turn himself into a "prophet" -- like a televangelist--the kind that bilks people of their money while demanding that they believe only in HIM.
7
In all of my American history and government classes from elementary school through college the principles of separation of powers and Congressional power of the purse were presented as foundational. Their survival, slightly eroded, is a wonder to me, given human weakness and power politics. Now comes another test. Every member of Congress must recognize that their vote is not just about personal political survival, but about the survival of one of the most glorious political experiments in human history and their place in it.
121
Under McConnell and Ryan, rolling over and playing dead became the modus operandi of Congress. The Republicans have been courting the Russiafication of America.
We're fortunate to have Pelosi leading the pushback against Trump's unconstitutional maneuvering. McConnell could learn a thing or two from her.
157
@Suzanne Moniz
Do you know how many things Donald Trump can do without the advice and consent of Nancy Pelosi?
1
@Blackmamba, a great many things, I would imagine, considering that it is the SENATE that is supposed to provide "advice and consent."
At least if the Constitution is to be believed.