I really want the Senate to reject this and have Trump veto it, with not enough votes for an override.

Let me just get one thing out of the way - the wall is just a MacGuffin. I would trade 1000 miles of wall for the repeal or rewriting of the national emergency act.

It seems to me that the best hope to stop the act is to have SCOTUS strike it down. It seems to me there would be no better setup for such an action by the court than an actual congressional rejection that is then vetoed by Trump.

Yes (Jon).

And then can we behead him?

MacGuffin, eh?

New to me!

Apparently there will be five. Mitt Romney joins the GOP group voting for the resolution.

quote:

Sen. Mitt Romney will vote for the resolution to block President Trump's national emergency.

"This is a vote for the Constitution and for the balance of powers that is at its core," he said in a statement. "For the Executive Branch to override a law passed by Congress would make it the ultimate power rather than a balancing power."

Romney noted that his vote is not one "against border security," and he said he agrees there needs to be a physical barrier on the border.

Here's his full statement:

“I will vote today for the resolution of disapproval. This is a vote for the Constitution and for the balance of powers that is at its core. For the Executive Branch to override a law passed by Congress would make it the ultimate power rather than a balancing power.

“This is not a vote against border security. In fact, I agree that a physical barrier is urgently needed to help ease the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, and the administration already has $4.5 billion available within existing authority to fund a barrier – even without an emergency declaration.

“I am seriously concerned that overreach by the Executive Branch is an invitation to further expansion and abuse by future presidents. We experienced a similar erosion of congressional authority with President Obama’s unilateral immigration orders – which I strenuously opposed. In the case before us now, where Congress has enacted specific policy, to consent to an emergency declaration would be both inconsistent with my beliefs and contrary to my oath to defend the Constitution.”

https://www.cnn.com/politics/l...emergency/index.html

Seeing the writing on the wall?

quote:

President Trump, in a reversal, said in a tweet Tuesday he would support future changes to the National Emergency Act.

"If, at a later date, Congress wants to update the law, I will support those efforts, but today’s issue is BORDER SECURITY and Crime!!! Don’t vote with Pelosi!” Trump tweeted.

....If, at a later date, Congress wants to update the law, I will support those efforts, but today’s issue is BORDER SECURITY and Crime!!! Don’t vote with Pelosi!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 14, 2019

What this is all about: Republican senators have attempted to get Trump to commit to a bill to limit the President’s authorities on national emergencies in the future, but he has rejected those efforts.

Had Trump agreed, GOP senators predicted Republican defections on the resolution to terminate the national emergency would drop significantly.

What it means: It’s completely unclear what, if any, effect the tweet will have on the vote total, which has been trending away from the President. The tweet, which followed a fresh veto threat on the resolution earlier this morning, caught Senate GOP aides off guard.

quote:

Originally posted by Amanda:
Yes (Jon).

And then can we behead him?

Sure, but this is *so* much bigger than Trump, or the wall, and so few politicians seem to get that.

And the Democratic leaders celebrities don’t get it either. They’re opposing this on the narrowest of grounds, while they compile lists of pet emergencies for which they’ll trash Article 1 at some future date.

Make no mistake - if this ends well the heroes will be those 5 republicans and, of course, SCOTUS.

I mean, sure, the dems voted solid against. But how many would have voted that way had this been President Harris and the emergency been climate change, or healthcare, or opioids, or whatever? Probably also a small handful at most.

Totally agree, Jon. Trump's move as longer-term constitutional balance of power implications.

There are already 12 GOP yes votes.

59-41

Perfect.

Yes,Jon and Nina, apart from Trump's getting his just desserts, I get it about the immensely high stakes in such precedent setting.

Seems the increasing polarization between the parties has contributed greatly to the POTUS (WHOMEVER!) to resorting to what should be the rarest of power over-rides. That undoes critical safeguards the Constitution was supposed to establish to protect against authoritarian power grabs.

Few (especially on the Left, of course) would blame Obama for invoking executive
orders - and a great many - given the Right's now admitted strategy of blocking his every initiative. (Don't remember the name of the whistle-blower who recently admitted that the
Right had agreed to block EVERY one of Obama's initiatives - Even, ones individuals or coalitions thought were good ideas. The priority being to render Obama as powerless as a statue.

It's undeniable, though, that the plethora of Executive Orders he signed, set a precedent for Trump (and subsequent Potuses - Poti?) to "get their way" by such dictates. Whatever were Trump's inclinations before entering the WH (unexpectedly, apparently, even by him and his minions), it's clear that once in office one of his primary obsessions was to reverse every change Obama had put into effect.

And Obama's reliance on Executive Orders became a blueprint for Trump, likewise encouraging future presidents.

Ironically, many of T's exec orders were specifically used to rescind Obama's.
In the use of emergency declarations, we see an even more dangerous example of allowing the POTUS to - rule. (What other word fits?). That's especially true, if G-d forbid, one were tested by SCOTUS and somehow passed muster.

Leaping onto slippery slopes permitted by the fine print defining presidential powers - ones intended to be one-offs in real emergencies - may be the best way to allow wannabee dictators to make their dreams come true.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
There are already 12 GOP yes votes.

It's a shame that of these "courageous" GOP dissenters only one, Susan Collins, still stands to brave a reelection campaign.

She's the real heroine here.

quote:

It would be nice to look on the bright side and celebrate the 12 Republicans willing to defy the president, and much of their base, to keep faith with the Constitution. But of those 12 only one, Susan Collins, faces re-election; for the rest, from Mitt Romney to Marco Rubio, it was an easier vote.

Twelve Righteous Republicans (and 41 cowards)

Wake me up when it's over. I'm rolling on 4 months without "news". I'm not turning back for some Rose Garden announcement with (no disrespect) a changable/ changing title.