Pirate's Cove

They should probably be more concerned with getting sued for $250 million by Covington student Nicholas Sandmann for defamation. But, instead, they’re concerned with Trump using his powers to protect the U.S. southern border

No one in Congress should be allowed to avoid voting on this presidential power grab

SIXTEEN STATES, led by California, have filed suit in federal court to block any construction of a wall along the southern border using reprogrammed funds pursuant to President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency. Their complaint presents a persuasive case against the president’s move, to the effect that it runs contrary to the constitutional rule that the executive branch may not spend money without Congress’s permission. And, in this case, Congress has explicitly denied Mr. Trump funds to build any barrier except for 55 miles of bollard-style fencing in a specific area of Texas. Not only is there no national emergency, the complaint argues, but also the wall would not meet the definition of “military construction” in the statute Mr. Trump claims as authority for $3.6 billion of his proposed spending.

Convincing as they are in policy terms, however, the states’ arguments face an uncertain future in court. Though Mr. Trump’s emergency declaration flunks the common-sense test, it might actually pass legal muster, because the relevant law — the National Emergencies Act of 1976— includes no definition of “emergency,” and courts might be loath to second-guess this president for fear of limiting the discretion of future ones.

So, it’s probably legal and Constitutional? Huh.

As much of a long shot as this may seem, Congress must pursue a joint resolution for two reasons. First, it is the remedy for executive overreach prescribed by law. And who knows? Eight Republican senators have said they oppose the emergency declaration; a number of others, as well as GOP House members, have expressed misgivings. After a debate in which the full negative implications are made clear — including, for them, the political repercussions and the precedent set for future presidents — it’s just barely conceivable a presidential veto could be overridden.

But only barely — which brings us to the second reason Democrats should use their control of the House to initiate a joint resolution of disapproval: No one in the House or Senate should be allowed to avoid voting on this presidential power grab, and being held accountable for it by the voters. Legal scholars may disagree, legitimately, as to the proper role for judges in protecting legislative prerogatives against alleged executive usurpation. Surely, though, members of Congress should have to stand up and be counted.

Well, that’s interesting. And shows the utter bias of the Washington Post. And, really, most of the media. Does anyone remember complaints about these presidential overreaches?

• Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals
• Deferred Action For Parents Of Citizens
• Obamacare initiatives like the Contraceptive Mandate
• Refusing to defend the Congressionally passed Defense Of Marriage Act
• “Recess” appointments while the Senate was still technically in session
• The Waters Of The U.S. rule
• Clean Power Plan
• Hundreds of Executive Orders which bypassed Congress, such as one which ignored No Child Left Behind requirements
• Being the least transparent when it comes to FOIA requests
• Pressuring banks to no longer work with firearm dealers

The list goes on and on. Many of these, and others, were shot down in federal court. There were few complaints from those in the media, including the Washington Post Editorial Board, at the time. Many were supportive of things like DACA, DAPA, WOTUS, and Clean Power Plan. All Trump is attempting to do is secure the southern border. We’ve built sections of border fencing before. Many Democrats in Congress complaining now voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act, such as Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Ron Wyden. Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted in favor of it, as well. Only 18 Democrats voted against in the Senate, though, 131 Dems voted against it in the House, with 64 voting for it.

Regardless, this is simply about protecting the U.S. borders, which is specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.