BREAKING NEWS: Rand Paul, R-Ky., signaled on Saturday that he will vote to block President Trump’s national emergency declaration to build a wall
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., signaled on Saturday that he will vote to block President Trump’s national emergency declaration to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border
“I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” Paul told Republican supporters at a dinner at Western Kentucky University, according to audio published by the Bowling Green Daily News. “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.”
By doing this, Rand Paul is showing his true colours-- the guy is obviously a blatant Socialist!
(And therefore a danger to America-- not as dangerous and immediate a threat as Hillary . . . but still...)
LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!
Nah, he's an ophthalmologist and can obviously see the long game better than others..../s
Nah, he's an ophthalmologist and can obviously see the long game better than others..../s
(He made a spectacle of himself!)
G1
It never ceases to amaze that when a Republican goes against Trump they get praise from the left.... until they vote for a conservative bill then they go back to being vilified.
It never ceases to amaze that when a Republican goes against Trump they get praise from the left.... until they vote for a conservative bill then they go back to being vilified.
Looks like you are fairly easily amazed.... (jus' sayin')
Yeah - Paul needs to read the LAW that Congress has passed - specifically 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) - Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Let's not forget that Congress in 1976 gave this power to the President. Just because you don't like something, because no one did it before, doesn't mean that that power was not given without that in mind. Remember, the National Emergencies Act of 1976 only requires the President to cite the law that he is enacting. I believe the lack of mentioning appropriations was deliberate since Congress has the ability to pass a concurrent resolution to block the emergency in case they sense an abuse of power. Let's put it this way, say Yellowstone erupts and brings the Midwest and East Coast to a complete halt, but not enough money was appropriated for all of the necessary response and Congress could not convene (due to being in their states to campaign) to appropriate the money, shouldn't the President be able to take money from anywhere he possibly can to cover the costs?
Pretty sure that Yellowstone erupting would qualify as a nation emergency. Trump throwing a tantrum about his wall, does not.
POTUS was given the ability in 76 to cut red tape and expedite funds due to "emergencies" where time was of the essence. The southern border does not meet any of the criteria to designate it as an "emergency".
He's not "throwing a tantrum" about the wall - he's throwing a tantrum at the total lack of security, of ANY MEANS, at the Southern border.
Dictionary result for wall
Wow, you mean we have no border patrol? No check points? No barricades anywhere? Then what has Trump been doing with the billions of dollars of border security funding that he has already received???
Probably commissioning his bust carving on Mt Rushmore.
You just luv hyperbole and mystery novels, doncha?
Building the wall of course, and if this bill passes the Senate, Trump will simply veto it.
Yes...he can actually do that!!!
Can't answer the question so trying to deflect huh?
Wall will not be built.
You are right that he will veto the bill, but he cannot veto the multiple lawsuits against him declaring this fabricated "emergency".
If you had actually asked a serious question, I would've answered. However,I just considered the source before responding.
Unlikely.
Nope, you just realized how much of a dumb ass statement it was that you made and are now trying to escape from it.
He can ignore court orders as the courts, being impartial arbiters, would have to rule "No Standing" on anyone bringing a lawsuit due to the fact that the law gives Trump this power and the courts are not mentioned in Article 2 of the US Constitution, unless Congress passes the concurrent resolution and Trump vetoes it. The ONLY way that the courts can really intervene is by declaring The National Emergencies Act of 1976 Unconstitutional overall.
So you say. However, what applies is what does the National Emergencies Act of 1976 say about this? It pretty much states that the President can declare just about anything a National Emergency, but ONLY IF he cites applicable Federal laws, which are already on the books. President Trump has done so. Now, the issue is will a concurrent resolution pass both Houses? If it does so, then Trump will veto it and then the courts can accept a case against the National Emergency as a mediator. Until that point, no one else would have any standing in a true legal sense as the courts are not meant to use Article I or Article II powers and any court order against the National Emergency declaration would be using both, except as mediation between Congress and the President.
Can they paint the mountain orange?
Ya, that's supposed to be funny. Whatever anyone thinks of Rand Paul, he is dedicated to his libertarian beliefs. I think he is right and I think the Courts need to rule on executive powers. Either way Trump went the extra mile to keep his promise and his supporters know it!
The courts entering this battle for any reason outside of ruling The National Emergencies Act of 1976 unconstitutional or as a mediator between Congress and the President would be a violation of the separation of powers. If Congress did not want the President to have this power, they should not have given him this power. The only legitimate course of action for the courts would be to wait for Congress to pass a concurrent resolution and the President veto it and then rule based on what Congress and the President bring forth regarding the case to the courts. Otherwise, it would be the courts violating the Constitution by ruling whatsoever and the end of the Republic as Congress and the President would no long have any power and all the power would reside in the courts.
Good point. When the time come the SCOTUS will clarify if the President has such power. Trump has won the battle over the wall by pushing it all the way. The people know he was obstructed from fulfilling his pledge.
"he will vote to block President..."
I'll believe it when I see it. I see him as a showboat for the cameras, but not much in the way of a profile in courage when it's time to cast his vote in support of the people.
I don't think there are any people in Congress from BOTH sides that ever vote in support of the American people. They are party loyal, not people loyal.
Neither the Democrats or Republicans are worth the powder of a firecracker. They only pretend to care about the American people at election/re-election time. Otherwise, they could care less about the people. Their own party comes first in regards to loyalty, and that has been shown to be true for endless decades.
Lies and false promises are all they have for the American people who pay their hard earned money in taxes to pay their unearned salaries and benefits the average American can only dream of having.
They are all leeches on the American people's teats, who thumb their noses at them after they are elected. "Party first " is the mantra on BOTH sides.
That is how it has always been, and how it will always be. Nothing new there.
MO
I don't think there are any people in Congress from BOTH sides that ever vote in support of the American people. They are party loyal, not people loyal.
Neither the Democrats or Republicans are worth the powder of a firecracker. They only pretend to care about the American people at election/re-election time. Otherwise, they could care less about the people. Their own party comes first in regards to loyalty, and that has been shown to be true for endless decades.
Lies and false promises are all they have for the American people who pay their hard earned money in taxes to pay their unearned salaries and benefits the average American can only dream of having.
They are all leeches on the American people's teats, who thumb their noses at them after they are elected. "Party first " is the mantra on BOTH sides.
That is how it has always been, and how it will always be. Nothing new there.
MO
Things may be changing to some degree-- that may not be true of some of the newly elected Congresspersons.
Maybe AOC? Sharice Davids?....perhaps some of the others????
I was speaking of Congress as a whole, not by individuals. The majority of newly elected members on BOTH sides have a learning curve when they first enter the cess pool in DC known as Congress. They think they can say whatever they like about whatever or whoever they wish. They will soon learn that is not the case. Just like many others ON BOTH SIDES have learned.
Well. in that case I have to agree.
I'll believe it when I see it. I see him as a showboat for the cameras, but not much in the way of a profile in courage when it's time to cast his vote in support of the people.
But in support of...which people?
Voting in support of the people in, say, rural Mississippi would result in voting quite differently than the way you'd vote if you represented people in. say, the heart of San Francisco or New York City.
Am I too idealistic that our elected representatives should be able to vote on behalf of "We the people"? Mississippi, California makes no difference in my mind. People in all 50 states should benefit from the government that is by and for them.
I think my comment wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that different people have different ideas as to what positions reflect the will of the people. For example, there are many voters who are sincere in their Conservative political views-- so they feel Liberal politicians are not voting" the will of the people".
Similarly there are many voters who are sincere in their Liberal views-- so they feel that Conservative politicians are not voting in a way that reflects the views of "the people".
What position on guns (Gun Control vs the Right to Bear Arms) reflects the positions of "We the People"? Which position on Abortion issues is representative of the opinions of "We the People"?
Obviously people with different opinions will claim that differing views represent what "we the People" want.
No my friend, you were clear...… I was being obtuse!
Regards...
I don't have a problem with a Dem voting according to the lean and need of his/her constituants.
People get all aflutter about a Dem or Republican in a conservative or liberal district voting against their party when their constituants lean away from the politicians party view.
Suppose the people in 'rural Mississippi' strongly desired to bring back Antebellum slavery? Should the representative follow their lead or use The Second Amendment against them?
14th Amendment would override their "desire" - the 2nd isn't applicable.
Heresy!
Trump seems to be finding hidden money in several places.
When the rubber meets the road is when we'll see if Mr. Paul will put his money where his mouth is.
It will be a first if he does. He's like a catfish......all mouth and no a$$.
Ayn Rand Paul is a Supply Sider. Anything else he says or thinks is flotsam for 'the percentage of the thud brained'.