Rand Paul's vote likely gives Senate enough to oppose national emergency declaration

The Senate likely now has enough votes to pass a measure blocking President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration after Sen. Rand Paul signaled his support for the resolution of disapproval.

"I can't vote to give extraconstitutional powers to the President," the Kentucky Republican said Saturday, according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

"I can't vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn't been appropriated by Congress," Paul said at a Warren County Republican Party fundraising dinner, according to the newspaper. "We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn't authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it's a dangerous thing."

Rand Paul's vote likely gives Senate enough to oppose national emergency declaration

Senate Democrats need four of their Republican colleagues to vote with them for the measure to pass there. Along with Paul, Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina have indicated they'll vote in favor of the resolution.

So unless one of the Senate's 47 Democrats unexpectedly votes against it, the resolution now has enough votes to be sent to the President's desk, where it will face a promised veto -- Trump's first in office.

I hear the plan is to tell Potus it is the authorization for more McDonald's so he will sign it.

Liberals to Rand Paul: Welcome to the #Resistance

a reply to: r0xor

I wonder if one or more dem moderates will oppose it. One because they agree with it. Two because polusei and aoc threatened any dem who votes against what they want.

I hope some dems with a conscience take a stand against them. I believe polusei can't spell her name right and aoc crossed the line into tyranny.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

AOC and her illegal funds buddies love a good burger! I'm sure shes all for it!

He's voting against the precedent not the president.

It's a tough call for republicans in congress.

It's going to be an interesting battle, one I think the president can win.

TIME will tell...

Here comes the "Veeto Bandeeto" 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here comes the "Veeto Bandeeto" 😎

Indeed. The Senate and House waste what little time they're in Washington (only 147 days @ year) pursuing matters that will never become law..

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here comes the "Veeto Bandeeto" 😎

Oh you'll hear commies reee about those constitutional powers anyway.

originally posted by: ausername
He's voting against the precedent not the president.

Let the Supreme Court determine if every controversial National Emergency Declaration, is indeed a "National Emergency".

The examples Nancy Pelosi gave, like Taking Guns Away, will not be upheld by SCOTUS, when President Ocasio-Cortez signs that E.O. on 1.20.2025.

originally posted by: ausername
He's voting against the precedent not the president.

It's a tough call for republicans in congress.

It's going to be an interesting battle, one I think the president can win.

TIME will tell...

You are 100% correct, he IS voting against the precedent, not the president.

The precedent is the president acting outside of the confines of the constitution and the law, and if that is allowed then unconstitutional behavior has been allowed as a precedent.

And you are for this?

Time WILL tell. It will tell that dictatorial tendencies should be left where they are born, in their dreams.

I am a little confused here....

The President has veto power over any bill that makes its way to his desk. But a Congressional Resolution is not a bill. It is not a binding document, except in this case. The law that gives the President authority to declare a National Emergency (50 USC § 1621) specifies that Congress can be terminated by a Congressional Resolution. Does the President have veto power over a resolution? I was not aware he did.

But the news is saying he plans on vetoing the resolution. Am I just wrong about this? I can't seem to find anything expressly declaring the veto power over a resolution anywhere.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Duderino

The precedent is the president acting outside of the confines of the constitution and the law

Both President Trump and the Congress are acting in accordance with 50 USC § 1621. You really should try reading for yourself instead of listening to CNN.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ausername
He's voting against the precedent not the president.

Let the Supreme Court determine if every controversial National Emergency Declaration, is indeed a "National Emergency".

The examples Nancy Pelosi gave, like Taking Guns Away, will not be upheld by SCOTUS, when President Ocasio-Cortez signs that E.O. on 1.20.2025.

Why would the scotus get involved in a veto?
Is there precedent for that?
Scotus doesnt get to assist Congress if Congress can't override a veto.

a reply to: TheRedneck

McConnell said the first order of business after they returned from the most recent vacation, was to have a vote on the Green New Deal, so every Senator could make it clear where they stand.

What happened to that? He lose his nerve?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ausername
He's voting against the precedent not the president.

Let the Supreme Court determine if every controversial National Emergency Declaration, is indeed a "National Emergency".

The examples Nancy Pelosi gave, like Taking Guns Away, will not be upheld by SCOTUS, when President Ocasio-Cortez signs that E.O. on 1.20.2025.

Why would the scotus get involved in a veto?
Is there precedent for that?
Scotus doesnt get to assist Congress if Congress can't override a veto.

The Emergency Declaration is being challenged in the lower courts right now. If necessary, the Trump Admin will appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

When a Democrat President declares a National Emergency over a controversial subject, the same will happen. By then, the Supreme Court should be even more solidly conservative.

Rand Paul's concern over what the next Democrat President may do with his/her National Emergency powers, is far overblown, IMO.

I don't see how well this is going to be for Rand Paul, clearly Rand Paul is in favor of Open Border no doubt.

Joint Resolution

In the United States Congress, a joint resolution is a legislative measure that requires approval by the Senate and the House and is presented to the president for his approval or disapproval. Generally, there is no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill. Both must be passed, in exactly the same form, by both chambers of Congress, and signed by the President (or, re-passed in override of a presidential veto; or, remain unsigned for ten days while Congress is in session) to become a law.

😮

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
I don't see how well this is going to be for Rand Paul, clearly Rand Paul is in favor of Open Border no doubt.

I think he generally puts his interpretation of the constitution above all else.

He is mostly spot on but often alone.

a reply to: carewemust

Trump may not be worried about the National Emergency being terminated by Congress, as long as it takes long enough. Per 50 USC § 1622:

(a) Termination methods

Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter shall terminate if—

(1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or

(2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency.

Any national emergency declared by the President shall be terminated on the date specified in any joint resolution referred to in clause (1) or on the date specified in a proclamation by the President terminating the emergency as provided in clause (2) of this subsection, whichever date is earlier, and any powers or authorities exercised by reason of said emergency shall cease to be exercised after such specified date, except that such termination shall not affect—

(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;

(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or

(C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.

In layman's terms, if Trump puts out any contracts using the DoD moneys affected under the National Emergency, termination of that National Emergency will not stop construction from occurring. It will only affect monies which are not yet earmarked.

That DoD money is only about $3.5 billion of the $8 billion he has found. The rest is either appropriated directly or indirectly and can be accessed with a simple Executive Order.

TheRedneck