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

originally posted by: carewemust

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.

How has a court taken a case when Congress hasn't completed its check?
I know cases were filed, i don't know they have been accepted.
Congress has a legal remedy for this.

a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you. Apparently I was wrong and a veto is permitted.

TheRedneck

a reply to: shooterbrody

How does a lower court declare an Executive Order into law? That was done when the Executive Order discontinuing DACA was overturned by the courts. DACA was an Executive Order.

Legally, the courts have no say in this case, unless the law is challenged as unconstitutional. Congress granted the power to declare a National Emergency to the President, and Congress has a legal remedy written into the law.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: shooterbrody

How does a lower court declare an Executive Order into law? That was done when the Executive Order discontinuing DACA was overturned by the courts. DACA was an Executive Order.

Legally, the courts have no say in this case, unless the law is challenged as unconstitutional. Congress granted the power to declare a National Emergency to the President, and Congress has a legal remedy written into the law.

TheRedneck

I don't know about daca i thought an injection was granted.

I agree with the second paragraph, but have seen few with that perspective.

It will be a serious seperation of powers issue imo.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: shooterbrody

How does a lower court declare an Executive Order into law? That was done when the Executive Order discontinuing DACA was overturned by the courts. DACA was an Executive Order.

Legally, the courts have no say in this case, unless the law is challenged as unconstitutional. Congress granted the power to declare a National Emergency to the President, and Congress has a legal remedy written into the law.

TheRedneck

Memorandum by the executive branch. An obama era policy upheld by the courts.

If it were an executive order then it would be gone just as you say.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

They are giving the impression that the lawsuits hold up the funding. So no construction beyond what congress voted on is permitted until there is a verdict saying they can launder the money.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: shooterbrody

How does a lower court declare an Executive Order into law? That was done when the Executive Order discontinuing DACA was overturned by the courts. DACA was an Executive Order.

Legally, the courts have no say in this case, unless the law is challenged as unconstitutional. Congress granted the power to declare a National Emergency to the President, and Congress has a legal remedy written into the law.

TheRedneck

Memorandum by the executive branch. An obama era policy upheld by the courts.

If it were an executive order then it would be gone just as you say.

No offense, but after your trouble understanding tresspassing and protest permits; without a source, I ignore your contributions.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, DACA was upheld de facto by an injunction overruling an Executive Order to terminate it. A final decision has not yet been reached on the case to my knowledge... it will likely go to the Supreme Court, and from there all DACA recipients will likely be ordered immediately deported. Thank you Congress for dragging your feet... again.

The Judicial Branch, according to the Constitution, has very strong but also very limited powers. If there is a case to be made for unconstitutionality, it should fall on the courts injecting themselves outside of their jurisdiction. There is a lot of danger in doing that.

TheRedneck

I ignore your contributions

Yet you do nothing of the sort and cling to every word i say like stink on poo.

Changing the subject and attacking a member instead of content is the sign of a weak mind.

Think about it cause in the amount of time you spent degrading my character you could have easily fact checked my words.

Yet because of your online crush on myself you just can not help your self.

Learn the difference between executive branch policy and executive orders and get back to me or perhaps take your first advice and ignore me.

BTW There is a big difference in loitering and waiting for a bus and most of all we have the freedom of speech to talk smack about public figures.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, DACA was upheld de facto by an injunction overruling an Executive Order to terminate it. A final decision has not yet been reached on the case to my knowledge... it will likely go to the Supreme Court, and from there all DACA recipients will likely be ordered immediately deported. Thank you Congress for dragging your feet... again.

The Judicial Branch, according to the Constitution, has very strong but also very limited powers. If there is a case to be made for unconstitutionality, it should fall on the courts injecting themselves outside of their jurisdiction. There is a lot of danger in doing that.

TheRedneck

If you could list the executive order number that would help me. They are all numbered.

You know for a friend named broody.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, DACA was upheld de facto by an injunction overruling an Executive Order to terminate it. A final decision has not yet been reached on the case to my knowledge... it will likely go to the Supreme Court, and from there all DACA recipients will likely be ordered immediately deported. Thank you Congress for dragging your feet... again.

The Judicial Branch, according to the Constitution, has very strong but also very limited powers. If there is a case to be made for unconstitutionality, it should fall on the courts injecting themselves outside of their jurisdiction. There is a lot of danger in doing that.

TheRedneck

It is a shame what the former president did with daca.
Daca won't stand court scrutiny.

Potus will get to build his wall, and expose those against an open border as well.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Yes, you are correct; DACA was an Executive memorandum, not even an Executive Order. I found that when I went looking for the EO number; there isn't one.

An Executive memorandum carries even less weight than an Executive Order. It is nothing more than in internal policy decision, and certainly not a law. Obama didn't even create it; Janet Napolitano did. All Obama did was approve it.

Incidentally, one Federal District judge has already ruled DACA as "likely unconstitutional," but has declined to block it until litigation can proceed.

They are giving the impression that the lawsuits hold up the funding. So no construction beyond what congress voted on is permitted until there is a verdict saying they can launder the money.

"They" can give that impression all "they" want... unless the court has entered an injunction, nothing is being held up. I would argue that an injunction is premature until Congress has an opportunity to act. I would actually expect the funds from the DoD to already be in process, so if Congress terminates the National Emergency, Trump can just scream on Twitter for a while and quietly keep building his wall while his opponents are busy patting themselves on the back. He has direct authorization to begin construction; who is going to measure how much is under construction when they think they've won?

TheRedneck

a reply to: shooterbrody

It is a shame what the former president did with daca.
Daca won't stand court scrutiny.

I agree. The more I learn about DACA, the more I am amazed that Obama got away with it. I actually support what it does, but it cannot be without Congress codifying it. It flies in the face of 8 USC § 1325. Even an Executive order cannot dismiss a law, except for in the case of a National Emergency which is temporary by definition.

Potus will get to build his wall, and expose those against an open border as well.

I think you are correct. Donald Trump is no angel; he can pay as dirty as his opponents want to play, and he always comes out squeaky clean. Just look how he played the media leading up to the 2016 elections.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ausername

He's voting against the precedent not the president.

Rand Paul votes from personal feeling.
Nothing else.
Although registered as a R , that puts him in the same voting style as a Progressive Liberal

There won't be enough votes to override the veto and Trump will probably have the Wall up by the time the Courts decide.

What are they going to do then, tear down an effective barrier to entry? I can just see Beto there with his pick axe.

a reply to: r0xor

You know what is a national emergency oil being over $2.50 per gallon.

Rand Paul lost my support. The ignorance and continued disregard for law, of every level, on our border is more than enough reason for the emergency deceleration.

Rand Paul has officially lost his mind. And as such, not a senator Kentucky needs to support in the future.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Rand Paul lost my support. The ignorance and continued disregard for law, of every level, on our border is more than enough reason for the emergency deceleration.

Rand Paul has officially lost his mind. And as such, not a senator Kentucky needs to support in the future.

Disregard for what laws are you talking about?

a reply to: EternalSolace

Rand Paul is like Ron Paul i believe both of them support open borders this is why on such issues i dont support the Paul's position.

a reply to: AtlasHawk
Not sure where you got that but Ron Paul (and I'm pretty certain Rand as well) do not support open borders in the slightest. Ron has voiced his stance pretty clearly when it comes to being against illegal immigration.

I think Ron and Rand are just overly strict when it comes to upholding the letter/spirit of the law/constitution. They're against anything that could set a dangerous precedent in regards to government overreach -- particularly any actions taken by the government without Congressional approval.

Pretty sure he supports the wall, just not the method that Trump is using to achieve it -- however the way the Democrats are dragging their collective feet -- there's not a lot of choices on the table and at the end of the day, it needs to get done.