Senate votes to block Trump’s “National Emergency”

[reo]

What this ends up being is a check on the constitutionality of the law allowing the president to declare a national emergency. 

 

Essentially the law needs to be struck down until it more clearly defines what constitutes a national emergency. 

[Starkiller]

5 minutes ago, reo said:

What this ends up being is a check on the constitutionality of the law allowing the president to declare a national emergency. 

 

Essentially the law needs to be struck down until it more clearly defines what constitutes a national emergency. 

There’s probably no real problem with the idea that a president can simply declare something to be a national emergency. That’s pretty well established at this point.

 

The problem is in stealing federal funds to put towards it.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Starkiller

[reo]

6 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

There’s probably no real problem with the idea that a president can simply declare something to be a national emergency. That’s pretty well established at this point.

 

The problem is in stealing federal funds to put towards it.

That's what the law is for iirc so he can quickly gets funds. The problem is that what constitutes a national emergency isn't clearly defined allowing for abuse. 

[Btowner]

This National Emergencies Act was enacted in 1976 and it took this lying, narcistic, conniving POS to abuse it. Just par for the course with this administration.

[Justafan]

50 minutes ago, Rogue said:

What is the argument that he wouldn't have the authority to veto it? 

 

The original bill that allowed Congress to overrule a national emergency was explicitly written as a check against the President's power to declare a national emergency.  The interpretation basically is that the President doesn't get to check Congress's check.  That's no longer a balance of power but instead a way to circumvent the check.

 

Of course, there is a counter-argument as well and multiple rulings and interpretations and to be completely honest I don't remember everything but I remember them saying that it could be challenged in court and they had no idea how that would play out if it made it to this supreme court where they seem to lean more in favor of executive power now.  

[Starkiller]

39 minutes ago, reo said:

That's what the law is for iirc so he can quickly gets funds. The problem is that what constitutes a national emergency isn't clearly defined allowing for abuse. 

No president has ever used it to steal money from the budget

[9 Nines]

2 hours ago, Legaltitan said:

whoah, 12 Republicans voted for it? That's more than I thought would.

I guess Republican were being honest this morning - around 12 to 15 was the prediction. Many thought they were possibly over-predicting so they could claim a victory when it was half that. 

[9 Nines]

1 hour ago, Justafan said:

Now comes the constitutional argument over whether Trump has the authority to veto this.  

 

It's a pretty interesting debate.  There are several lines of thought on this and a veto could get challenged in court.  I have no idea how solid the legal arguments are but I heard a great debate on this on a podcast a couple of weeks ago.  

That law was originally set-up so that concurrent passage by the Senate and House would be all that was needed, then later changed to join resolutions, which would require the signature.  It makes no sense that the change would be made.  If Congress were questioning a declaration of the President, it seems Congress would want the law's requirement to be concurrent passage so that the President could not override Congress's override. 

I tried researching but could not find an answer:  was the law changed to joint passage, requiring the President's signature, because it would not be valid without that because generally concurrent bills are not designed to be laws. 

[Justafan]

1 minute ago, 9 Nines said:

That law was originally set-up so that concurrent passage by the Senate and House would be all that was needed, then later changed to join resolutions, which would require the signature.  It makes no sense that the change would be made.  If Congress were questioning a declaration of the President, it seems Congress would want the law's requirement to be concurrent passage so that the President could not override Congress's override. 

I tried researching but could not find an answer:  was the law changed to joint passage, requiring the President's signature, because it would not be valid without that because generally concurrent bills are not designed to be laws. 

It wasn't changed.  There was a separate bill that they were saying Trump's admin was using to interpret so that it gave them the power to veto.  The podcast I was listening to was saying both arguments were flawed and that was why it could be challenged.  Sorry, I don't remember all the details.  It was on the politics guys about a week or two ago with a libertarian political scientist from a Christian university and a liberal constitutional scholar if people are really interested.  They aren't the normal hosts, they switch out sometimes.  

[9 Nines]

3 minutes ago, Justafan said:

It wasn't changed.  There was a separate bill that they were saying Trump's admin was using to interpret so that it gave them the power to veto.  The podcast I was listening to was saying both arguments were flawed and that was why it could be challenged.  Sorry, I don't remember all the details.  It was on the politics guys about a week or two ago with a libertarian political scientist from a Christian university and a liberal constitutional scholar if people are really interested.  They aren't the normal hosts, they switch out sometimes.  

In the 1970s when it first passed, it was concurrent and it was amended in mid 1980s to be joint. 

 

Here and this also answers my question about why it was changed:

 

It originally allowed Congress to end an emergency by concurrent resolution (that is, if majorities in both houses voted to end it). But in 1983, the Supreme Court declared this sort of legislative veto over presidential action unconstitutional. A 1985 amendment to the act now requires a joint resolution to end the emergency, meaning that any Congressional vote to end the emergency is subject to the president’s veto, which may be overridden only by two-thirds majorities of both houses.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/emergencies-without-end-primer-federal-states-emergency

[9 Nines]

Just now, ben4titans said:

 

Nothing unconstitutional about what Trump is doing.

What is your legal rate for your practice of constitutional law? 

[Justafan]

3 minutes ago, 9 Nines said:

In the 1970s when it first passed, it was concurrent and it was amended in mid 1980s to be joint. 

 

Here and this also answers my question about why it was changed:

 

It originally allowed Congress to end an emergency by concurrent resolution (that is, if majorities in both houses voted to end it). But in 1983, the Supreme Court declared this sort of legislative veto over presidential action unconstitutional. A 1985 amendment to the act now requires a joint resolution to end the emergency, meaning that any Congressional vote to end the emergency is subject to the president’s veto, which may be overridden only by two-thirds majorities of both houses.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/emergencies-without-end-primer-federal-states-emergency

Yea, but there was another element that's missing.  They discussed all of this.  I'm too lazy to look it back up.  Whatever. 

[9 Nines]

Something of note I read recently, the law allows the President Emergency Declaration to be challenged every 6 months.  So unless President Trump ends this national emergency, the House can start the process over every 6 months, forcing the Senate to make this same vote every 6 months, which would put Senate republicans, many more running for reelection in 2020 than Democrats, under much pressure.   Many will have to decide if that want to upset general election voters (vote against the resolution, supporting Trump), or anger Republican primary voters, risking a challenge (vote for the resolution.)  Also, if any weigh one group more a risk than the other, if they change their vote on later resolutions, acts of them vote flip-flopping might be worse. 

 

Reports are that Senate Republicans are trying to come-up with some way to get Trump money for the wall, outside his emergency, so he can end it to keep the 6 months vote processes from happening.    They were huddling together on a plan this week but it fell apart yesterday. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by 9 Nines

[9 Nines]

 

2 minutes ago, ben4titans said:

There is no debate, read the law. 

While debating, person X declares there is no debate.  Later that day, a man watching television declares he doesn't watch television. 

[Rogue]

14 minutes ago, ben4titans said:

 

Nothing unconstitutional about what Trump is doing. The Constitutional thing to do would be tighten/abolish the Emergency Powers legislation. Of course the Left won't do that, because they usually benefit from Executive power.

 

But do tell, how is it Unconstitutional?

I didn't say it was Unconstitutional.  It's not even mentioned in the Constitution.  However, it is specific in saying Congress appropriates funds, and it doesn't say the executive can go all grade school and appropriate funds because he lost the legislative fight.  

 

Now does it?