McConnell says Trump will sign funding bill, declare a national emergency

[JasperL]

Prepare for the courts to bog this down...

McConnell says Trump will sign funding bill, declare a national emergency

President Donald Trump plans to sign a compromise border security measure in conjunction with declaring a national emergency to secure funding for a border wall, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, McConnell sought to reassure lawmakers unsure of the President's position before taking a vote on the plan, which falls short of providing the $5 billion in border wall funding the President had demanded.

"He has indicated he is prepared to sign the bill. He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time," McConnell said. "I've indicated to him that I'm going to support the national emergency declaration. So for all of my colleagues, the President will sign the bill, we will be voting on it shortly."​

Just when I thought it was impossible for me to have hit bottom in my lack of respect for a politician, which was with McConnell, McConnell lowers the bar even further.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I HOPE this gets shot down by the courts but I have a feeling it will ultimately be upheld by SCOTUS.

This puts the country in a dangerous place going forward.

 

[cpwill]

That's where you are wrong. If Obama did that, I'd be denouncing it.

Excellent to hear. Can you point us to you denouncing when Obama expanded Presidential Authority?

 

[Amelia]

POTUS has the authority (as I understand it) to declare what is and isn't an emergency. ....

Ask Truman about that.

Precedent is against Trump on this.

The lawyers have their papers drawn up. They will submit them to the courts the second Trump declares a national emergency, and the courts will issue an injunction, and even with Trump having stacked the courts with conservatives, the emergency order will stay blocked because there is no crisis, and not liking Congress carrying out its constitutional duties is not an excuse to declare an emergency to get the money Congress had the right to withhold.

 

[Erod]

Hands down the worst president In history!!!

This creates one of the most dangerous precedents in history...

You mean like the nuclear option and Harry Reid?

If liberals would grow up and quit fighting a national security plan, we wouldn't be here.

Every precedent has been set the past decade. There are no limits anymore. It's a free for all.

And you started this idiocy.

 

[cpwill]

It's not my justification. It is just how I see things possibly going down. Nor have I said that I'm "fine" with this.

Just out of curiosity, what was your stance when Obama came up with DACA as a response to Congress's inability to actually get anything of significance done on immigration reform? Is that too an example of the President bypassing Congress?

That exact same question entered my mind, as well.

 

[JasperL]

While we're giving Trump his deserved criticism, remember to save some back for McConnell's cowardice.

I agree, in fact in this case I don't even blame Trump. He's been up front about what he wants to do, and it should be McConnell who tells him if he does, if he tries to undermine the separation of powers between the Executive and the Congress, McConnell will oppose it and Trump will lose. That's his ****ing job.

Instead, McConnell is giving him an explicit blessing BEFORE he does it. And it's not cowardice - it's taking a deliberate wrecking ball to government. I really didn't expect McConnell could go this low, but I guess it's a fools errand trying to underestimate the depravity of that man.

 

[Mycroft]

So if government wants an easier time stealing land or spending taxpayer dollars, just declare emergency, huh?

lol

You big government types never tire of your excuses for government force against the People. I mean, y'all will be bitching when the pendulum swings and the Dems are doing it. But you'll lay out all the excuses for big government and big spending when it's your side.

And some people wonder why the Republic is dying.

The National Emergencies Act was proposed and passed by Congress and signed by President Ford in 1976. It's been the law of the land for more than 40 years. The pendulum swung a long time ago and every President has used the law since it was enacted.

Seriously...you think this is something new?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Giving amnesty for any person, illegal included, that will sponsor or is thinking about sponsoring an illegal child in the country is an outrage. It is a joke perpetrated by democrats who do not give a hoot about our country.

 

[JasperL]

Unforeseeable? What about it was unforeseen? He straight up said that declaring an emergency was on the table a long time ago. That if an agreement could not be reached that he would quite possibly declare a national emergency.

An agreement was reached. Trump will presumably sign that agreement into law, then crap on it before the ink is dry.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I'm thinking Trump should tall em to shove it. This bill has some horrible provisions in it and Republicans should be ashamed for signing it and letting those things be include in the bill.

 

[cpwill]

Ask Truman about that.

Precedent is against Trump on this.

I think you are overcounting the pushback against nationalizing the steel industry. Precedent is a good bit more muddled.

The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception. And while those exceptions have outlined important limiting principles, the outer boundary of the president’s constitutional authority during emergencies remains poorly defined.​

Especially given that it was after that decision that Congress granted the Presidency its' current powers in exactly this area:

More than two decades later, Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally. The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency” to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities” of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.”...​

So the argument that precedent is prima facie against Trump's authority in this case strikes me as similar to making the argument that the Constitution bans a federal income tax by carefully ignoring the 16th Amendment.

The lawyers have their papers drawn up. They will submit them to the courts the second Trump declares a national emergency, and the courts will issue an injunction, and even with Trump having stacked the courts with conservatives, the emergency order will stay blocked because there is no crisis, and not liking Congress carrying out its constitutional duties is not an excuse to declare an emergency to get the money Congress had the right to withhold.

I agree there is no crises. Unfortunately, in terms of authority, the person who has the authority to officially decide that is the President.

Maybe we should rethink this idea of granting sweeping power to the federal government in general, and the Executive in particular?

 

[MTAtech]

I HOPE this gets shot down by the courts but I have a feeling it will ultimately be upheld by SCOTUS.

This puts the country in a dangerous place going forward.

I would expect a 9-0 in the SCOTUS. If a president can simply declare anything an emergency, then Obama could have declared climate change an emergency thereby redirecting billions from appropriated defense funds for that purpose. Congress could never cut off funds for an unwise war, making both the War Powers Act and Article I appropriation authority meaningless. Effectively, the entire federal budget would be a lump sum, to be spent as the president directed.

 

[JasperL]

More like the obstructionist Democrat's cowardice. They've failed the country.

The GOP Senate will presumably pass this bill. Trump will sign it. Democrats have failed the country by negotiating a compromise with McConnell and the Senate?

 

[Amelia]

I agree, in fact in this case I don't even blame Trump. He's been up front about what he wants to do, and it should be McConnell who tells him if he does, if he tries to undermine the separation of powers between the Executive and the Congress, McConnell will oppose it and Trump will lose. That's his ****ing job.

Instead, McConnell is giving him an explicit blessing BEFORE he does it. And it's not cowardice - it's taking a deliberate wrecking ball to government. I really didn't expect McConnell could go this low, but I guess it's a fools errand trying to underestimate the depravity of that man.

The thing which occurs to be again is that there is no reason for McConnell's profile in depravity. He is past old enough to retire. If there was ever a time in his political career where he could afford to take a principled stand and say, "I'm doing this for the nation and for the Constitution", age 76 would be it. Could there be a lower risk time? If as a result he has to decide the time has come to retire, so what? He has nothing to lose by standing up against the Senate taking a knee to the Executive.

 

[JasperL]

No, it was the member I was responding to who started the "What About" nonsense.

Anyway, Trump already HAS the funds. You'll need to wait and see if the Trump haters can stop him from using them.

What funds? Where? How much is in this unknown piggy bank?

 

[j brown's body]

Trump hasn't bypassed Congress. He's been trying to work with them for months.

And that's the real emergency. He lost. It happens. But its only an emergency for him.

 

[tres borrachos]

After seeing the "deal" that was reached, of course I was. It was not what Trump wanted. That was obvious and many of you crowed at that fact and are still crowing about it. And he DID warn everyone that he would declare a national emergency if the border was not secured to his satisfaction. And that "deal" has nothing in it that will actually do what he wanted (quite the opposite really). And I'll bet that due to how things happened the courts are going to side with Trump on this one. Why? Because Trump is going to use this new "deal" as an example of why Congress is not fixing the problem by giving him the money required to fully enforce current law.

Do you believe that Trump not getting funds from Congress for the wall Mexico was supposed to pay for is a "national emergency", Kal?

 

[Mycroft]

How do you figure he already has the funds?

Here's some funds he has access to:

While President Trump is correct to remain committed to building a border barrier and has asked all Cabinet agencies for wall funding, he can fund the entire barrier without having to declare a national emergency. Instead, he can draw full funding for a complete border barrier from unobligated balances. Unobligated balances "are the amounts of budget authority that have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government." Former senator Tom Coburn described unobligated balances as "essentially money for nothing." While in 2012 there was an estimated $687 billion in unobligated balances, unobligated balances in federal and trust funds in FY 2019 is estimated to be a whopping $1,156,136,000,000 (See Table 1 on page 9). The total estimated unexpended end-of-year balance (i.e., the unspent balance including unobligated and obligated balances) for FY 2019 is $2,650,531,000,000.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...he_border_wall_with_unobligated_balances.html

There are other funds he can access, as well...money from various agencies. DOD, DHS, etc. According to some estimates, around $36 Billion.

That's all money he can spend...right now.

 

[tres borrachos]

I would expect a 9-0 in the SCOTUS. If a president can simply declare anything an emergency, then Obama could have declared climate change an emergency thereby redirecting billions from appropriated defense funds for that purpose. Congress could never cut off funds for an unwise war, making both the War Powers Act and Article I appropriation authority meaningless. Effectively, the entire federal budget would be a lump sum, to be spent as the president directed.

I agree with you. I would see a completely unanimous vote by SCOTUS, and not in Trump's favor.

I still can't believe Trump would be this stupid. Can he?

 

[JasperL]

After seeing the "deal" that was reached, of course I was. It was not what Trump wanted. That was obvious and many of you crowed at that fact and are still crowing about it. And he DID warn everyone that he would declare a national emergency if the border was not secured to his satisfaction. And that "deal" has nothing in it that will actually do what he wanted (quite the opposite really). And I'll bet that due to how things happened the courts are going to side with Trump on this one. Why? Because Trump is going to use this new "deal" as an example of why Congress is not fixing the problem by giving him the money required to fully enforce current law.

Until some time around December 2018, Trump said he needed $1.6 billion to fund 64 miles of wall to "fully enforce current law" and he got $1.375B and 55 miles. So is the $225 million and 9 miles the cause of this "emergency?" That's the difference between keeping us safe and a national emergency which requires him seizing DoD funds and repurposing them to the wall? Man, we're really on a razor's edge in this country if that's the difference. Who knew?

 

[Hatuey]

POTUS has the authority (as I understand it) to declare what is and isn't an emergency. A weakness in our system we should probably address, but both parties like it so long as "their" guy is in charge.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Except of course, the history of why they're used is pretty symmetrical and none include building a monument that Congress has already said no to...

... But you know this.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[j brown's body]

Trump has no choice but to go national emergency, the democrats put so many restrictions in the bill that it does no good for securing the border and pretty much prohibits any wall can get built. Dems didn't negotiate in good faith they just did and "end run" around the agreements in the bill.

It is a bill agreed to by a Republican senate. So it is disingenuous to lay Trump's problem solely at the feet of Democrats.

They could have let Trump veto it, and overrode his veto. But that, for all intent and purposes would have ended the Trump presidency and pretty much the Republican party as it stands today. But in the long run, it might have saved the party.

By supporting his emergency powers move, they have opened the door to more Trump shenanigans. It seems like it will be a disaster for them in the long run.

Senate Republicans who support this seem to be saying that they are irrelevant.

They allowed the government to shut down for 35 days for absolutely no reason at all.

 

[tres borrachos]

Excellent to hear. Can you point us to you denouncing when Obama expanded Presidential Authority?

Did I miss Obama declaring a national emergency so he could make good on one of his campaign promises?

Here's the list of the national emergencies declared by the last few Presidents.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/DeclaredNationalEmergenciesUndertheNationalEmergenciesAct_2.13.19.pdf

 

[Kal'Stang]

I think you are overcounting the pushback against nationalizing the steel industry. Precedent is a good bit more muddled.

The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception. And while those exceptions have outlined important limiting principles, the outer boundary of the president’s constitutional authority during emergencies remains poorly defined.​

Especially given that it was after that decision that Congress granted the Presidency its' current powers in exactly this area:

More than two decades later, Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally. The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency” to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities” of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.”...​

So the argument that precedent is prima facie against Trump's authority in this case strikes me as similar to making the argument that the Constitution bans a federal income tax by carefully ignoring the 16th Amendment.



I agree there is no crises. Unfortunately, in terms of authority, the person who has the authority to officially decide that is the President.

Maybe we should rethink this idea of granting sweeping power to the federal government in general, and the Executive in particular?

I hadn't known about that particular bit. If that is the case, then Trump does indeed have the authority to declare a national emergency on this issue and the courts will not go against him on this. Obama himself admitted that the executive branch does not have the funds or resources to handle all the illegal immigrants and as such made policy based on only going after those that have committed serious crimes. That in itself is sufficient to show "such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities” of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.”