It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP decides to vote to stop Emergency Declaration on the Border

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The Rinos are exposing themselves. Anyone voting against border security is part of the problem. This is why both parties are scum. They never put the well being of our great nation over their Globalist agenda.
edit on 2019/3/14 by Metallicus because: Sp




posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, it can.



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

The 12 Republican Senators that voted against this should be called "The Protectors of the Constitution" from now on. It took balls for all these representatives to go against a burgeoning monarch and risk their re-elections in order to uphold the constitution.

I am not a Republican but I salute these representatives today... we are observing first hand how the checks and balances system works when one branch exceeds its mandate.

The terrible fact still remains that 41 Senators disregarded their oaths and their duty, but there could be a light at the end of the tunnel: 59 is only 1 away from 60. And 60 is needed to overturn a veto.





edit on 14-3-2019 by Duderino because: words



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

I'm sure you loved John McCain after circa 2016 as well, ya?


You know, we've heard for over 2 years about how "Unconstitutional" some of this Admin's policies have been... where are the SCOTUS cases supporting that noise? You do realize the SCOTUS is the Constitutionally recognized body tasked with determining the Constitutionality of any law or policy, yes?



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Duderino

I'm sure you loved John McCain after circa 2016 as well, ya?


Nope. Wanna go 0 for 2?


You know, we've heard for over 2 years about how "Unconstitutional" some of this Admin's policies have been... where are the SCOTUS cases supporting that noise? You do realize the SCOTUS is the Constitutionally recognized body tasked with determining the Constitutionality of any law or policy, yes?


Unless they get 60 senators to overturn it. You know, the other branch of the government that has the same power as the "king". If it is overturned, there is nothing to send to the SCOTUS.

I'm not worried, looks like we have patriots in D.C. still.


edit on 14-3-2019 by Duderino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Sure. Lol. The "wall" is a left thing. Perhaps you should go back and listen to his campaign speeches.
oh I'm sorry, you still hinged on the whole "Mexico will pay for it" deal?

Yeah, a bit over zealous on President Trump, but who cares? If he pulls that off, DAMN.

If not, meh, whatever just get me my wall 😌


Latest economic news from Mexico show a decrease in cars being exported to the US....Trump did scrap NAFTA and put USMC in place.



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   
The Republican Party did not/could not raise funding for 45’s wall when they controlled both the Senate and the House.

They could not do it after they lost the House, even after an historically long shutdown of the government in an attempt to force them to comply.

They would not do it to support 45’s FAKE “emergency”.

Is there Any reason to think that they’ll change their minds regardless of threats to veto their decision?

Is it just possible that the “silent majority” of the Republican Party has had enough of Trump, and are making it known (in terms possibly too subtle for Donny to comprehend) that they are ready with the long knives?

Recent testimony could very well be an indication that Trump’s much protected tax returns may very well be subject to release under House subpoena.

Pelosi has stated that impeachment proceedings are off the table, unless there is proof of serious misconduct resulting in bipartisan support for such action.

The Democrats now control the House, and now, apparently, there are at least a dozen Republicans in the Senate who may no longer be under thrall to Trump.



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   
The border situation actually is a matter of life and death for the banks -
- 1) Remember 2008? The market crashed over housing prices.
- 2) The entire market is propped up on loans made from the housing market.
- 3) Closing the border mean less people - less people means lower demand and thus prices.

It's all about keeping the banks from crashing again because these greedy fools monetize every last thing they can get their hands on, create money from it then make loans based on that perceived value. The bankers have a stranglehold on Congress and the American people and will destroy the country in their quest for plunder.



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar


In the interest of truth, that is not entirely accurate.

Bush and the House did pass the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing nearly a thousand miles of border to be installed.

But you're right, Trump is just continuing on the same path as Bush was on, except too many people don't remember that far back and think the wall is a new idea.

The fencing did pass, partially, by all Republican Washington D.C... Now that it is split, there is no way in this reality it will ever happen.



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

It takes a 2/3rds vote to overturn a veto... That's 67 votes, not 60. The dozen RINOs would have to shake out an additional 8 RINOs to reach that. Good luck with that, it's not happening.



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 04:32 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 14-3-2019 by ausername because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Duderino


59 is only 1 away from 60. And 60 is needed to overturn a veto.

67 is required to overturn a veto. 2/3 of Congress. The Senate has 100 seats, so 67 votes is required.

The House of Representatives has 435 members. A veto override would require 2/3 of those, or 290 votes.

It's in the Constitution.

You are probably thinking about the 60 votes needed to force cloture. That's a separate issue altogether.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Duderino


59 is only 1 away from 60. And 60 is needed to overturn a veto.

67 is required to overturn a veto. 2/3 of Congress. The Senate has 100 seats, so 67 votes is required.

The House of Representatives has 435 members. A veto override would require 2/3 of those, or 290 votes.

It's in the Constitution.

You are probably thinking about the 60 votes needed to force cloture. That's a separate issue altogether.

TheRedneck


It always amazes me how so many Americans don;t even understand their own govt's rules.
Yep - 2/3 required or Trump can just VETO .
Then it's in the hands of the courts and it will go to the SC - who will probably just side with Trump as he is using a law passed by Congress.

edit on 14/3/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


...as he is using a law passed by Congress.

That's another thing people just don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around. Congress passed this law, and Trump has followed the law to the letter. What Trump is doing is no different than they claiming the standard deduction on their taxes... the law clearly allows it.

If it is unconstitutional, that is another issue for the Supreme Court to decide. If they do strike it down, that's a lot of existing National Emergencies that would be immediately stopped.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Duderino

It takes a 2/3rds vote to overturn a veto... That's 67 votes, not 60. The dozen RINOs would have to shake out an additional 8 RINOs to reach that. Good luck with that, it's not happening.


Yeah, you're right it is two thirds, which is 66 or 67. That is my math error, thanks for the correction.

I do not think there are that many patriots left, the rest will only be thinking about their own seats.



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Cowards and sellouts, the whole lot. There are probably even more cowards who would vote against it if they weren't up for reelection in a tight district. Neither party has an ounce of integrity to spare.



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I love the Constitution and this plays out exactly like it should. It goes to Trump to sign and he veto it, then it goes back to Congress and can't get 2/3 votes and so we all win with the process working as intended.



posted on Mar, 14 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

Hmmm....the first line of the oath they take states...



“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;


So, there are foreign enemies coming over our border and they are not allowing the president to fulfill that obligation. I don't care if there are 200 kids, 145 moms and 3 felons. That is 3 felons too many and we give over billions each year to the countries whose people are coming here.



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

So....let me get this straight, the people voting against the best interest of American citizens and the sovereignty of our nation are "Protectors of the Constitution" and "patriots" in your eyes? HMMMMM...I guess we see things very differently. I was thinking traitorous scum myself.

Someday you'll probably get the government you deserve. I just hope I'm not around when you do.



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why is it a bad thing that not every member of Congress (let alone every member of a party) supports the President?


Prefreekinsicely. Are we hearing here a call for lockstep support just as is always claimed about the democrats? Tow the line or face punishment? '' This will come back on any GOP member who opposes and it should. '' AND IT SHOULD,,,,That at least is how it sounds to me.




Border security is an actual Republican cornerstone... so in this situation, yeah, lockstep is required or the rep gets outed as nothing but a RINO and should lose the support of the party.


So yesterday's hero becomes today's rino such as in the case of Paul. I can understand ''lockstep'' in the military as following orders is a paramount necessity for it to function. The military is not about compromise but top down directives.
This though is not the manner in which a functioning Republic is run. It is run on representitives of the people voicing and acting upon the vote of those people.

If those people hire a person to do the job for them because they trust that person to do their bidding, to use his own sense of pollitics because they believe that person is of like mind then that person should do that. Vote as a proxy for his constituents and vote his own conscience.

If in the practice of voting his or her own conscience that representative votes against the wishes of the constituents, they will vote him out. That person should not alter their conscience just to fit into ''a plan''. This is where ''puppets'' come from, where''tools'' some from, from good people allowing themselves to override their own best good intentions.


Your position seems based on a monolithic perception of the Republican Party. Even as many conservatives wail on about how the Democrat Party forces it's members into ''lockstep'' voting how is it then possible to demand this very kind of action from the Republican Party?

Maybe it is a mistake on your part to assume that those Rs who voted against Trumps plan are not as dumb as you would believe them to be huh? Maybe they weighed the information, evaluated their constituency and used their own judgment in their actions. Maybe the felt that this move would NOT jeopardize their future elections and that their people are not as ''lockstep'' as your monolithic belief in the Republican Party seems to be.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join