• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate rejects Trump border emergency as Republicans defect

Praxas said:
Sure thing. Just remember, Republicans held the congress for over TWO YEARS in the house as a majority and in the senate could have used the nuclear option to pass ANYTHING they wanted. So, what does that tell you that the majority of Republicans WHEN THEY HELD POWER couldn't pass **** on this? :lamo
Click to expand...

There are many republicans who hate Trump also. Americans don't hate Trump in the same percentages as politicians do, otherwise Trump would have never been elected.
 
marke said:
There are many republicans who hate Trump also. Americans don't hate Trump in the same percentages as politicians do, otherwise Trump would have never been elected.
Click to expand...

People are awake to the fact trump is a fake and incompetent fool. Only those who are un American and Satan worshipers still support trump.
 
Praxas said:
I guess you are having trouble reading as well since they could have used the nuclear option. So your post, much like most of your opinions, are bull**** and lies,
Click to expand...

The nuclear option isn't part of The Constitution. It was made up by Reid and the dems because they were tired of the filibustering GOPs did when BO judges were up for confirmation. In order to force cloture on a BO judge, the nuclear option of just 53 yes votes was made up by the dems. EDIT: This is unconventional legislation making.

GOPs have continued this Senatorial tradition of using the nuclear option for confirmation of judges but refuse to use this tradition for all other Senate votes, probably like you said, because it would backfire on them like it did dems.

Second EDIT: Do you suppose either party would create a 'double nuclear option' that would allow less than 53 votes to force cloture on a judge vote?
 
Last edited:
Praxas said:
People are awake to the fact trump is a fake and incompetent fool. Only those who are un American and Satan worshipers still support trump.
Click to expand...

Why do I bother debating you with all your rhetoric:roll:?
 
marke said:
There are many republicans who hate Trump also. Americans don't hate Trump in the same percentages as politicians do, otherwise Trump would have never been elected.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of gullible Americans, who couldn't be bothered to look at Trump's grifter past. I'm betting most are aware, so 2020 is going to give us those who are OK with a grifter as POTUS, and those who are not. I'm betting on the integrity of Americans, and expecting Trump to get booted as POTUS.
 
cabse5 said:
You're right, the president declaring emergency situations is authorized by congress with the National Emergency Act.

The type of response a president has to a national emergency may be deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. It seems the judiciary cannot decide the constitutionality of Trump's decision to declare a national emergency to build more border wall, for example.

I hope this is clearer.
Click to expand...

In what way would it be unconstitutional? Again, congress passed a law that the president could declare an emergency, and perform construction in response to an emergency. They should probably focus on tightening up the existing law for the future.
 
dcsports said:
In what way would it be unconstitutional? Again, congress passed a law that the president could declare an emergency, and perform construction in response to an emergency. They should probably focus on tightening up the existing law for the future.
Click to expand...

Congress could revisit the National Emergence Act. Congress could also revisit legislation for prosecution of illegal border crossings. Right now, the law spells out what to do with someone who crosses the border illegally but some congresscritters don't want to enforce the law....which is why Trump thought it necessary to build more border fencing and have the need to declare a national emergency.

If newer legislation doesn't prosecute illegal border crossings, then Trump, as executive, can still think he has a duty to prevent border crossings via Article 4 Section 4 of The Constitution where the executive is given the responsibility of protection from invasion.Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - Immivasion - Immigration Invasion

Unless Article 4 Section 4 dealing with a president's responsibility to protect borders is changed.
 
Last edited:
dcsports said:
In what way would it be unconstitutional? Again, congress passed a law that the president could declare an emergency, and perform construction in response to an emergency. They should probably focus on tightening up the existing law for the future.
Click to expand...

Trump's border wall isn't unconstitutional. Some have said Trump's declaring an emergency could create the precedent for future presidents to declare emergencies because of gun violence, for example, and confiscate guns which would be unconstitutional via the second amendment. It's not that a president declares a national emergency it's what he proposes to do to alleviate the emergency.
 
cabse5 said:
Trump's border wall isn't unconstitutional. Some have said Trump's declaring an emergency could create the precedent for future presidents to declare emergencies because of gun violence, for example, and confiscate guns which would be unconstitutional via the second amendment. It's not that a president declares a national emergency it's what he proposes to do to alleviate the emergency.
Click to expand...

It'll be climate change.
 
cabse5 said:
The second amendment would cause SCOTUS to prohibit the gun restrictions you hypothesized because those actions would be unconstitutional. Isn't this clear?
Click to expand...

not at all. as was explained, the restrictions would still enable citizens to exercise their right to bear arms. just not all arms. and not without a documentation trail
 
Praxas said:
People are awake to the fact trump is a fake and incompetent fool. Only those who are un American and Satan worshipers still support trump.
Click to expand...

Yada-yada-yada - democrat dumbbelly talking point absurdeum. Americans did not vote for Trump out of blindness and bias, they voted for Hillary for those reasons.
 
JustHanging said:
There were a lot of gullible Americans, who couldn't be bothered to look at Trump's grifter past. I'm betting most are aware, so 2020 is going to give us those who are OK with a grifter as POTUS, and those who are not. I'm betting on the integrity of Americans, and expecting Trump to get booted as POTUS.
Click to expand...

Democrats like to suggest republicans, conservatives, and Christians are ignorant hayseeds. That is only the stupid talking through deluded democrat lips. Most democrats don't really believe that junk because they have studied the facts on their own, but, instead, they they believe that crap because that is what their handlers have told them to believe.
 
Anagram said:
Thank you. Surprised to see Wicker and Blunt on there. And surprised Tillis reversed himself after writing a pretty strongly worded op ed detailing why it the emergency declaration was unconstitutional.

Edit: And very surprised to see Gardner and McSally not on there despite being up in difficult seats next year.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Tillis is my representative. So disappointed. I actually was very proud when I read that op-ed, thinking that he would show some cahones and break away. I will not be voting for him. Such a coward.
 
Roadvirus said:
And how many of these idiots have seen what's been going on at the border lately?
Click to expand...

Probably far more than those that voted with Trump on this, especially since the latest reports show that the majority of those crossing the border are giving up to our BP, which means all a wall will do is slow them down when it comes turning themselves in. It will not be cost effective when it comes to curtailing true illegal immigration and where the real problems are.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
They should leave this to the experts and the experts say barriers are needed. A barrier is need to slow down the flow of illegals crossing out Southern border everyday.
Are you saying you want shock collars on every illegal alien trying to cross the border? That is how an invisible fence works. Gues you don't understand the concept do you. A truly silly response!!!
Click to expand...

No they don't. Many of the experts say that a border wall would be a waste of resources.

Trump’s Border Wall Could Waste Billions of Dollars, Report Says - The New York Times

Why the Wall Won't Work | Cato Institute

Trump is unconcerned, asserting that “tunnel technology” will rule out any such subterfuge. Effective tunnel detection equipment is seen as the Holy Grail of Border Patrol enforcement, but the Homeland Security Department’s Science and Technology Directorate has so far concluded that no current technology for detecting tunnels beneath the border is “suited to Border Patrol agents’ operational needs.”
Click to expand...

But the biggest practical problem with a wall is its opacity. In fact, many Border Patrol agents oppose a concrete wall for precisely this reason (albeit quietly, given that they were also some of Trump’s biggest supporters during the election). “A cinder block or rock wall, in the traditional sense, isn’t necessarily the most effective or desirable choice,” Border Patrol agents told Fox News. “Seeing through a fence allows agents to anticipate and mobilize, prior to illegal immigrants actually climbing or cutting through the fence.
Click to expand...

Analysis: Economists say border wall is a waste of money

The economists found that for every 19 cents the government has spent building walls or fences on the border, the economy has declined and low-income U.S. workers have gained only a cent of extra income. Adding more walls, as Trump wants, appears unlikely to change the poor return on investment.
Click to expand...

Expert Says ‘There Are Better Ways’ To Solve Immigration Than Wall – CBS Boston

Trump cited UQAM prof to prove border walls work. She says they don’t | Montreal Gazette

"He was saying that those border walls are 100-per-cent efficient and he was using the argument that since other countries are doing it and it’s working, then why shouldn’t the U.S. do that. But the thing is, those walls are not efficient. Those walls are only serving public-relations purposes."
Click to expand...
 
marke said:
Yada-yada-yada - democrat dumbbelly talking point absurdeum. Americans did not vote for Trump out of blindness and bias, they voted for Hillary for those reasons.
Click to expand...

Nope Trump is a scam artist and now the people know him to be the incompetent fool he is. It's why he had to close his foundation and he got sued for Trump U and had to pay.
 
cabse5 said:
I'm not concerned with slippery slopes caused by national emergencies. The declaration of national emergency has to be constitutional...that's all. No doubt, every national emergency declaration will be met with judicial scrutiny which will slow down the abiltity for gov't to react in a timely manner to national emergencies.:(

Maybe the judiciary will place their national emergency examination at the front of the line of test cases so it can be dealt with in a timely manner? I hope.
Click to expand...

You're missing the entire point. Congress hasn't ever in history carefully considered the current state of affairs regarding some issue, spoke as one with a budget, and then POTUS says, "Oh, well, thanks but F YOU! I have a different opinion and I'm going to seize money you've appropriated for something else and spend it on something you just, today, denied funding!" It's never happened. I'm not aware of a case in decades where Congress even disapproved, because POTUS has declared emergencies in cases where Congress clearly believed he was using those powers as intended. This is a first!

But the issue is if the judiciary says, "Whatever the POTUS says is an emergency IS an emergency, and the courts have no power to review it," then any emergency declaration over anything is fair game. Why would the courts say we do not have a healthcare "emergency" if they can't review it - it is what POTUS says it is, period, full stop, the end.

Here's Sen. Cruz: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4377

“Indeed, it is easy to imagine a future Democratic president using this statute to try to implement a radical, far-left agenda over the will of Congress and the American people [like Trump is doing here]. A President Warren could declare climate change a national emergency and try to suspend offshore drilling. A President Sanders could declare a national emergency in the Middle East and try to freeze the bank accounts of Americans who do business with Israel. And a President Sanders, or Warren, or some other avowed socialist, could try to reallocate billions of dollars, without the consent of Congress [like Trump is doing here], to advance their socialist [right wing] policies to address those and other so-called emergencies [like the Great Wall of Trump].
Click to expand...

Language in [] my own.

And then comes the chicken-**** part of his statement:

That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee’s ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. This bill would end any new national emergency if Congress does not approve it within 30 days. Combined with a thorough review of ongoing emergencies, this proposal would reduce the danger of an abuse of national emergency powers by any of the dozens of far-left candidates seeking the Democratic nomination.

“And I am grateful that the President announced today—at the urging of many of us—that he will support our efforts to reform this law, and guard against potential abuse by a lawless future president [like Trump], Democrat or Republican.
Click to expand...

In other words, IOKIYAR, so after Trump gets his way, we'll prevent Democrats from abusing the same power Trump is abusing. Except he won't say that part out loud, it's just implied in his statement. Trump is reallocating $billions of dollars without the consent of Congress, in fact contrary to how Congress spoke the same DAY Trump told us he would declare an emergency.
 
Praxas said:
Nope Trump is a scam artist and now the people know him to be the incompetent fool he is. It's why he had to close his foundation and he got sued for Trump U and had to pay.
Click to expand...

I do believe Trump is not a Christian and has done crooked things, just like all non-Christians. But Trump is certainly showing more respect for God and Christians than Obama did and Hillary has ever done.
 
marke said:
I do believe Trump is not a Christian and has done crooked things, just like all non-Christians. But Trump is certainly showing more respect for God and Christians than Obama did and Hillary has ever done.
Click to expand...

All non-Christians do crooked things?

Let me guess...

Are you a Catholic?
 
pamak said:
All non-Christians do crooked things?

Let me guess...

Are you a Catholic?
Click to expand...

No. I'm a fundamentalist Bible believing Christian. Here is a typical passage from the Bible which I believe is God's Word applicable to us in these days:

1. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3. Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.


2 Timothy 3
 
marke said:
No. I'm a fundamentalist Bible believing Christian. Here is a typical passage from the Bible which I believe is God's Word applicable to us in these days:

1. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3. Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.


2 Timothy 3
Click to expand...


I could see that you were a fundamentalist the moment you tried to make the distinction between ALL non-christians who "do crooked things" and the christians who supposedly they do not. By the way, many of these Christians who are caught molesting boys supposedly profess their belief in the words of the passage you just posted. Others used the Bible to justify slavery in the past and so on...
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
I could see that you were a fundamentalist the moment you tried to make the distinction between ALL non-christians who "do crooked things" and the christians who supposedly they do not. By the way, many of these Christians who are caught molesting boys supposedly profess their belief in the words of the passage you just posted. Others used the Bible to justify slavery in the past and so on...
Click to expand...

Beats a socialist, any old day. So, there is that to consider.
 
PoppyCock said:
Beats a socialist, any old day. So, there is that to consider.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who trie to imply that all socialists are pious. Nor am I saying that all non-socialists do "crooked things". I am not making gross generalizations to depict a whole group of people with different beliefs as being morally inferior somehow...
 
pamak said:
I am not the one who trie to imply that all socialists are pious. Nor am I saying that all non-socialists do "crooked things". I am not making gross generalizations to depict a whole group of people with different beliefs as being morally inferior somehow...
Click to expand...

Whatever, I detest the failed Ponzi scheme known as "socialism".

The moment socialism is installed in the USA, start writing the history books, it's all downhill from there.
 
PoppyCock said:
Whatever, I detest the failed Ponzi scheme known as "socialism".

The moment socialism is installed in the USA, start writing the history books, it's all downhill from there.
Click to expand...
You do know that SS, Medicaid and care are "socialist" right?

You do know that the US military is a socialist organisation right?

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom