Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
That_Guy

McConnell: Senate will pass resolution blocking Trump's emergency

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

That_Guy

McConnell: Senate will pass resolution blocking Trump's emergency declaration

BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 03/04/19 11:19 AM EST

(too short to excerpt)

 

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday said that he expects a resolution blocking President Trump's emergency declaration to pass the Senate, but he does not believe lawmakers will be able to override a veto.

 

"I think what is clear in the Senate is that there will be enough votes to pass the resolution of disapproval, which will then be vetoed by the president and then in all likelihood the veto will be upheld in the House," McConnell said while speaking to reporters in Kentucky.

 

The Senate will vote on the resolution before lawmakers leave town on March 15 for a weeklong recess.

 

The resolution blocking Trump's emergency declaration appeared to clinch the 51 votes needed to pass the Senate when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced over the weekend that he would vote for it.

 

In addition to Paul, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have said they will vote for a resolution of disapproval. Several other GOP senators, including Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah), have yet to say how they will vote.

 

Trump announced that he would declare a national emergency to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall after Congress passed a funding bill that included $1.3 billion for physical barriers, below the $5.7 billion the president requested.

 

But his decision has put Republicans in a bind. GOP senators have been wary of breaking with the president on border security, but they've also been concerned that Trump's decision could let a future Democratic president use a national emergency declaration on issues like climate change.

 

McConnell added that while he was supporting Trump's emergency declaration, he was "hoping he wouldn't take that particular path."

 

"Yeah I am," he said, asked if he was concerned about the precedent set for a Democratic president. "That's one reason I argued obviously without success to the president that he not take this route."

 

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco

Veto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Veto

Corleon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

Their resolution won't mean anything other than symbolism nor will it stop the emergency order.

 

Trump has the veto as well as the law behind him on this one and the spineless republicans can all go stuff it because they did NOTHING as the Obamunist did it 13 damned times. Trump will win this one when it's settled in court.

 

I am disappointed in Rand Paul for his vote against, but he is being consistent in his constitutional beliefs whereas Mitch McCommie is being his usual establishment nevertrumper backstabbing self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

Veto

:2up:

 

Corleon

:lol: :2up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Building the wall will be the most important thing Trump accomplishes....and that’s saying a lot, given all the great things he’s done. He could only maybe outdo the wall if he got KJU to give up nuclear weapons altogether and open up the NK society to the South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

 

I am disappointed in Rand Paul for his vote against, but he is being consistent in his constitutional beliefs whereas Mitch McCommie is being his usual establishment nevertrumper backstabbing self.

 

yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Might as well name McConnel Fido the way he rolls over. He's useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weaseljd

Might as well name McConnel Fido the way he rolls over. He's useless.

 

How is this that McConnell is useless or he is a commie because he is counting the votes and see's the senate will not vote against the resolution. he can't force Collins, Murkowski and Paul to vote the way he wants. Has he said he is voting with the Democrats? No. Has he said the veto will stand? yes. So how is this McConnell is a commie traitor issue when its not his vote that is causing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

How is this that McConnell is useless or he is a commie because he is counting the votes and see's the senate will not vote against the resolution. he can't force Collins, Murkowski and Paul to vote the way he wants. Has he said he is voting with the Democrats? No. Has he said the veto will stand? yes. So how is this McConnell is a commie traitor issue when its not his vote that is causing this.

 

He does not have to bring the vote forward. You do realize the party in power chooses what to table and what to vote on. Simply by deciding NOT to bring it to a vote he would have done his job. Just because Pelosi get's something voted on does not mean he has to even hold it before the floor.

 

Remember when the RNC held the house and the Senate was controlled by the DNC they literally tabled hundreds of bills passed by Ryan. Or did you forget the 64 or so attempts to "repeal and replace" Odumbo-care?

 

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilmerfan

Rand Paul lost his b@lls in that fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

Rand Paul lost his b@lls in that fight.

That or he's being consistent in his beliefs whether we agree with them or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

That or he's being consistent in his beliefs whether we agree with them or not.

He stated that the REASON why he’s against the emergency order is that he believes democrats could use one in the future to confiscate guns.

 

He’s badly mistaken. One: stopping the bleeding at the southern border is one of the most important tasks of our time. Two: this emergency order actually is true and does not violate the constitution - if anything, it defends it. A democrat president’s order to confiscate guns of legal peaceful owners would be in violation of the constitution and would result in a bloodbath.

 

There’s no comparison, and I don’t accept AT ALL how he’s trying to hide behind an imagined threat. HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND IT’S NOT DEFENSIBLE. Despicable. Contrarian for the sole purpose of trying to look smarter than anyone else. Stuck on stupid.

 

The end.

Edited by zurg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilmerfan

That or he's being consistent in his beliefs whether we agree with them or not.

Nope he lost his manhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

He does not have to bring the vote forward. You do realize the party in power chooses what to table and what to vote on. Simply by deciding NOT to bring it to a vote he would have done his job. Just because Pelosi get's something voted on does not mean he has to even hold it before the floor.

 

FYI - Mitch has no choice in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

Veto

 

:clap:

 

For the O_P:

Too_bad, so_sad.

 

Their resolution won't mean anything other than symbolism nor will it stop the emergency order.

 

Trump has the veto as well as the law behind him on this one and the spineless republicans can all go stuff it because they did NOTHING as the Obamunist did it 13 damned times. Trump will win this one when it's settled in court.

 

I am disappointed in Rand Paul for his vote against, but he is being consistent in his constitutional beliefs whereas Mitch McCommie is being his usual establishment nevertrumper backstabbing self.

 

:clap:

 

Mitch McCommie is part of the GOPe. <censored> him.

Edited by RedSoloCup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weaseljd

He’s badly mistaken. One: stopping the bleeding at the southern border is one of the most important tasks of our time. Two: this emergency order actually is true and does not violate the constitution - if anything, it defends it. A democrat president’s order to confiscate guns of legal peaceful owners would be in violation of the constitution and would result in a bloodbath.

 

 

THANK YOU! I have been making this point, and so pissed at the Republicans for not stating it (or somehow buying into it) for a while now. The BS argument that a Dem President will just start using executive orders to do things like gun control is insane. The President can, by executive order, only take such action as Congress itself could have taken. An executive order that does something that is unconstitutional is wring not because it is done by executive order, but because it violates the constitution. A gun grab by congress OR the president both are unconstitutional because they violate the second Amendment. What Trump is doing is NOT unconstitutional in terms of the subject of the order because Congress could otherwise pass this law and it would be upheld.

 

Also, the fear that the next president could implement the Green New Deal by executive order is also misplaced, because unlike Trumps Order, which is taking discretionary spending dollars in the military budget that congress has appropriated already and shifting them, the green new deal would likely violate the power of the purse of the house. Though if it does not, but instead just created insane CAFA standards or such, then it might be upheld. But the argument that if Trump does it, a democrat may do it later based upon the precedent s dumb. That cart has left the barn. A dem president, no matter what Trump does, will be issuing these orders if they want. Like they care about hypocrisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

He stated that the REASON why he’s against the emergency order is that he believes democrats could use one in the future to confiscate guns.

 

I'm under the impression that all of it stems from his general beliefs that against a strong executive, and other small government libertarian beliefs.

 

 

He’s badly mistaken. One: stopping the bleeding at the southern border is one of the most important tasks of our time. Two: this emergency order actually is true and does not violate the constitution - if anything, it defends it. A democrat president’s order to confiscate guns of legal peaceful owners would be in violation of the constitution and would result in a bloodbath.

 

 

 

 

On this we agree. Yes, the Dems could perform all sorts of overreaches with fake emergencies. They however cannot use it to eliminate constitutional rights. They couldn't take away our right to bear arms any more than they could use it to reinstate slavery or make religious expression illegal.

 

 

There’s no comparison, and I don’t accept AT ALL how he’s trying to hide behind an imagined threat. HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND IT’S NOT DEFENSIBLE. Despicable. Contrarian for the sole purpose of trying to look smarter than anyone else. Stuck on stupid.

 

The end.

 

Seems like his usual MO, and that of his dad when it comes to the government doing anything beyond the bare minimum.

 

Nope he lost his manhood.

 

A fantastic and persuasive argument. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grimreefer

THANK YOU! I have been making this point, and so pissed at the Republicans for not stating it (or somehow buying into it) for a while now. The BS argument that a Dem President will just start using executive orders to do things like gun control is insane. The President can, by executive order, only take such action as Congress itself could have taken. An executive order that does something that is unconstitutional is wring not because it is done by executive order, but because it violates the constitution. A gun grab by congress OR the president both are unconstitutional because they violate the second Amendment. What Trump is doing is NOT unconstitutional in terms of the subject of the order because Congress could otherwise pass this law and it would be upheld.

 

Also, the fear that the next president could implement the Green New Deal by executive order is also misplaced, because unlike Trumps Order, which is taking discretionary spending dollars in the military budget that congress has appropriated already and shifting them, the green new deal would likely violate the power of the purse of the house. Though if it does not, but instead just created insane CAFA standards or such, then it might be upheld. But the argument that if Trump does it, a democrat may do it later based upon the precedent s dumb. That cart has left the barn. A dem president, no matter what Trump does, will be issuing these orders if they want. Like they care about hypocrisy

:yeahthat:

 

BUT...

 

The BS argument that a Dem President will just start using executive orders to do things like gun control is insane.

It is a BS argument, but insanity is the new normal for the dems so I wouldn't put it past them... no matter what Trump does. How quick can SCOTUS act if/when they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

He stated that the REASON why he's against the emergency order is that he believes democrats could use one in the future to confiscate guns.

 

He's badly mistaken. One: stopping the bleeding at the southern border is one of the most important tasks of our time. Two: this emergency order actually is true and does not violate the constitution - if anything, it defends it. A democrat president's order to confiscate guns of legal peaceful owners would be in violation of the constitution and would result in a bloodbath.

 

There's no comparison, and I don't accept AT ALL how he's trying to hide behind an imagined threat. HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND IT'S NOT DEFENSIBLE. Despicable. Contrarian for the sole purpose of trying to look smarter than anyone else. Stuck on stupid.

 

The end.

 

No they can't, if they could they would have done it under Obama with one of the 17 emergency orders HE issued. They cannot contravene the second amendment. This is not a bill of rights issue, it is a right of the POTUS to defend the nation against an invasion. As of March the total number of invaders to hit our border will exceed 100,000 people. That's a massive army of humanity. When is enough enough?

 

In other words I agree completely.

 

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

THANK YOU! I have been making this point, and so pissed at the Republicans for not stating it (or somehow buying into it) for a while now. The BS argument that a Dem President will just start using executive orders to do things like gun control is insane. The President can, by executive order, only take such action as Congress itself could have taken. An executive order that does something that is unconstitutional is wring not because it is done by executive order, but because it violates the constitution. A gun grab by congress OR the president both are unconstitutional because they violate the second Amendment. What Trump is doing is NOT unconstitutional in terms of the subject of the order because Congress could otherwise pass this law and it would be upheld.

 

Also, the fear that the next president could implement the Green New Deal by executive order is also misplaced, because unlike Trumps Order, which is taking discretionary spending dollars in the military budget that congress has appropriated already and shifting them, the green new deal would likely violate the power of the purse of the house. Though if it does not, but instead just created insane CAFA standards or such, then it might be upheld. But the argument that if Trump does it, a democrat may do it later based upon the precedent s dumb. That cart has left the barn. A dem president, no matter what Trump does, will be issuing these orders if they want. Like they care about hypocrisy

You nailed it right there. There is no constitutional right for illegals to gain entry to this country. There IS a constitutional right for US citizens to legally own firearms. Apples and oranges, but SanFranNan apparently doesn't know the difference between "apples and oranges" and a "pen and a phone."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

FYI - Mitch has no choice in this case.

 

Uh actually he does. What requires him to bring this or any other bill voted on by the House to the floor? What? Because there was paper littering the floor of the House under RNC control that never got out of committee in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

FYI - Mitch has no choice in this case.

I see you've pivoted from pissing into the wind to pissing up a rope.

 

Wrong as usual, Hamilton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilmerfan

I wonder if those " Principles " will wash the blood off of Rand Paul backstabbing hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

I see you've pivoted from pissing into the wind to pissing up a rope.

 

Wrong as usual, Hamilton.

 

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...