Lots of “breaking news” updates popped up from the media this morning on Twitter about a development we all saw coming for a week. Nancy Pelosi scheduled a vote on congressional disapproval of Donald Trump’s emergency declaration for Tuesday. Politico, NPR, ABC, and even the Women’s March all attached “breaking” tags to the news.
At least Bloomberg’s Nancy Ognanovich only prefaced it with a more accurate “NEWS.” Pelosi laid out the order of business on the bill, and concluded her call with reporters by declaring that Trump can’t act as though he’s “above the law”:
NEWS: #Pelosi says the resolution aimed at blocking #Trump #emergency move will go to House #Rules on Monday night and will be on the floor Tuesday. The House will vote on matter Tuesday, she says. `The president is not above the law in any way,' #Speaker tells reporters.
— Nancy Ognanovich (@NOgnanovich) February 22, 2019
“Above the law”? That’s not the problem here, and Pelosi knows it. The issue here is that Trump acted within the law Congress passed in 1976, the National Emergencies Act, that gave presidents the authority to do exactly what Trump has done here. Part of that law allows Congress to revoke the declaration by passing a bill to do so, which as most media outlets state will likely sail through the House, at the very least on a party-line vote. It might even pass the Senate, too:
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), who authored the one-page resolution, said he had gathered at least 226 co-sponsors for his measure — more than enough to guarantee House passage. But only one Republican, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, has joined the bill so far. …
While House passage is all but assured, it is unclear whether a disapproval resolution can pass the Senate, where Republicans enjoy a 53-to-47 majority. Only one Senate Republican publicly offered support for a disapproval measure, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), though several other GOP senators have signaled discomfort with Trump’s declaration.
Pelosi and other Democrats have tied to couch their arguments against the emergency declaration in constitutional and institutional terms, arguing that Congress cannot stand idly by while a president usurps the legislative branch’s powers — hoping to win over conservatives who have been critical of the expansive use of executive powers in the federal government.
“We have a separation of powers in our country,” Pelosi said. “We battled against a monarchy; we did not intend to establish one in our country.”
Not to be too harsh, but that’s horsecrap. Not only did Congress clearly intend to pass this buck to the president, they have not once in 43 years ever bothered to follow up on emergency decrees, nor to limit the power they hand to presidents. I covered that in my column at The Week and have noted it multiple times here this week, but it’s worth making the argument again briefly:
Until now, Congress not only hasn’t objected to the use the NEA for purposes that could easily have been addressed under normal conditions — such as applying sanctions in Belarus in 2006 — it hasn’t had much interest in using its authority to close out emergencies and restore its own standing. …
Of the 59 national emergencies declared by presidents since 1979, more than half remain in effect today. The still-extant “emergencies” include:
- Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with respect to Cuba (1997)
- Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (1995)
- Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (1997)
- Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (2001)
In all, we were living in 31 concurrent states of emergency even before this latest declaration. Of the 28 emergencies no longer in effect, not a single one was revoked by an act of Congress. Successive Congresses have been content to let presidents decide when to surrender their increased authority … or let them keep it. Why? Because members of Congress find it easier to punt this responsibility to the executive branch than roll up their own sleeves to deal with mainly mundane issues.
The NEA is an abomination that should never have passed in the first place. Congress should have taken an interest in it long before now by demanding an end to the 31 emergencies still in place. They’re only interested now because Trump and his attorneys read the law carefully and discovered the authoritarianism Congress fully authorized within it.
By the way, this bill is doomed anyway. Being a bill, even a privileged resolution that avoids the filibuster and must get a Senate vote, it’s subject to a presidential veto. Good luck storming that castle, The Hill warns Pelosi, and don’t even count on it getting that far:
First, let’s point out the obvious: Pelosi and Schumer were lying when they said their opposition to securing the border was about “wasting money” was nothing but a lie. Of course, duh. But, now they basically come right out and say it.
The money Trump is using is already appropriated. It is already designated for national defense, border security and drug interdiction, which is exactly what Trump is using it for. So, the Democrats are now shouting out loud that what they oppose is securing the border.
Next, let compare this to Obama’s EO to enact the Dream Act. The Dream Act was TWICE voted down in Congress; the representatives of the People did not want it. However, appropriating money for a WALL has been voted FOR numerous times; Trump is merely doing what no one has apparently had the guts to do, even though it HAD been approved.
Pelosi calls this an “applause line”. Well, that may be all it was to Democrats when they, one by one, declared illegal immigration a scourge that must be stopped, but OBVIOUSLY it was more than that to Trump. To Trump, it is securing the border, stopping illegal immigration and protecting US citizens. That’s the difference; Democrats talk about ending illegal immigration just for applause and votes; Trump intends to do something about it and that is the LAST thing Democrats want to happen.
Graham: ‘Handful’ of GOP senators will vote to block Trump’s emergency declaration
A “handful” would suffice. What he’s predicting is that a majority of the people’s elected representatives will oppose Trump’s overreach.
In our constitutional system of government, majority is a word that can matter more than any partisan labels. The Constitution doesn’t even make reference the concept of political parties.
The Constitution established safeguards against leaders like Donald Trump. That’s what the system of checks and balances is all about. We’re going to see it in action.
@Greg: Wont matter will meet a big fat VETO then they will need a super majority.
You know its all for show and tell the big kindercongress that cant legislate.
Big crying fit, we dont want you to go to work.
@kitt:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/19/10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-presidency/
Greggie was quiet then, but now…………………but, but, Trump.
I’m looking forward to hearing Michael’s Cohen’s upcoming sworn testimony before Congress. Cohen knows plenty about the inside workings of the Trump organization, and Trump has given him every possible incentive to talk about it. The U.S. District Court prosecutors will listen attentively to the man who would once have “taken a bullet” for his former boss, and will then follow the money trails to corroborate what he says.
Who knows… Maybe Roger Stone will get a second tattoo.
@Greg:
It’s an “overreach” Congress gave him and previous Presidents… which no one had a problem with until Hillary was defeated.
Graspin’ them straws. Maybe what you need is quality candidates?
@Deplorable Me:
Yep. Greggie Gullible will believe any liar; Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Brennen, Shillary. He loves them all.
@retire5: Well, hell, only liars will tell him what he wants to hear. That should be a clue, but it isn’t.
@Deplorable Me: Just Greg trying to drag the thread off subject AGAIN.
@retire5, #7:
Everybody is a liar but Donald Trump and his associates? Everyone in the media who criticizes him lies? All of our traditional governmental intelligence and law enforcement institutions are filled with liars and fools? But he thinks Vladimir Putin is telling him the truth? About North Korea not having ballistic missiles with the range to hit targets in the United States, for example. Soon he’ll be off to buy little Kim another ice cream cone. In return, he’ll make concessions and get more empty words that look good when he adds them to his achievements list.
I would laugh, but it isn’t the least bit funny. It’s unbelievably tragic how far this charlatan has led his long parade of true believers down the garden path. Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran actually got verifiable concessions and results. What single verifiable result has Trump had from North Korea? He’s only taken the pressure off. Meanwhile, they quietly continue their programs. According to our own “lying” intelligence community.
@Greg: still off topic pathetic realllly you are.
How many are left on the 7th floor FBI again?
I said what I had to say about the topic in #2.
Nobody surrendered a damn thing 43 years ago. The office of the president was provided with a tool that could be used when a rapid response is needed in a time of national emergency.
Indeed, the use of that authority was never challenged by Congress, until now. That was never previously necessary, because no president has ever tried to use it as Trump is attempting to use it.
Exactly. He has methodically used his power of office to remove those who threaten him. It’s part of a pattern that adds up to obstruction of justice. He’s the one that needs to be removed. His own behavior will provide the means to do that. Such hubris never ends well.
@Greg:
And how is Trump’s use so radically different?
@Deplorable Me, #13:
He has declared a national emergency for the sole purpose of sidestepping the constitutional budgetary authority of Congress.
This is a precedent that must not be set, as I am quite certain you would acknowledge if a Democratic Party president gave a Republican-majority House the finger in the same fashion and grabbed $8.7 billion for some pet project that couldn’t be successfully undertaken by way of proper legislation.
There are no “emergency” circumstances on our southern border. As of 2016, the number of undocumented aliens living in the United States had been steadily declining for over a decade. That trend has not reversed. Further, the number of new arrivals each year has also been declining.
@Greg:
Well, that’s totally wrong. The funds he will be using were designated for national defense, border defense and drug interdiction, so it has been appropriated for EXACTLY this purpose.
Though the amount of money might vary, Obama did it numerous times, as has been documented above. Further, do you think all the EO’s Obama executed got enacted for free? Where did all THAT money come from? Who authorized the money to stash weapons at the US consulate in Benghazi?
Wrong again. Not only is it a dire emergency, it has been considered an emergency for some time, under Bush and Obama. That’s why money for a wall was authorized under THEM. More, it is a more dire emergency now because Democrats refuse to address it and take steps to make it worse by assuring illegal immigrants that if they pull certain strings in crossing the border, they get released. Thanks to Democrat intransigence and left wing aid, we now have MASSES of illegal immigrants threatening our border. About 400 deaths are year are a result of rifles of all kinds, nationally. In Texas alone, almost 700 homicides are committed by illegal immigrants each year. Yet, “assault weapons” are a crisis and illegal immigration isn’t?
Initially, Trump’s tough stance on illegal immigration caused illegal immigration to fall. This should be a sign of how important law enforcement is. However, once it became clear that law enforcement can be hamstrung by liberal courts, illegal immigration picked up. The only reason we don’t have them swarming across 10,000 at a time is because Trump sent troops to the border, something liberals (including YOU) strenuously object to. And, as Obama showed and all the Democrat Presidential candidates make clear, we cannot rely on liberals to enforce immigration laws and keep citizens safe. They all have a far different agenda and a physical barrier is absolutely necessary.