U.S. House advances bill rejecting Trump's border wall emergency

[webfact]

U.S. House advances bill rejecting Trump's border wall emergency

By Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan

 

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), flanked by Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX) (L) and House Democrats hold a news conference about their proposed resolution to terminate U.S. President Trump's Emergency Declaration on the southern border with Mexico, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 25, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday, ignoring White House veto threats, moved toward passage of legislation to terminate President Donald Trump’s proclaimed national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, in what would be a stinging rejection of his proposed wall there.

 

By a vote of 229-193, the House agreed to move to final debate and a vote later on Tuesday on passing the resolution. Passage, which is expected, would set up a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate where the resolution's chances were slimmer, but seemed to be improving.

 

Republican Senator John Barrasso, a member of the Senate's leadership, told MSNBC in an interview that the legislation "may actually pass the Senate."

 

Following a closed meeting of Republican senators and Vice President Mike Pence, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to predict the outcome, including whether senators ultimately could override a Trump veto.

 

McConnell said Republican senators and Pence held a "robust, vigorous discussion" and that he had not "reached a total conclusion" over whether Trump's emergency proclamation was legal.

 

Meanwhile, the White House formally notified Congress, as expected, that if the measure passes Congress, Trump's advisers would recommend that he veto it in order to maintain the power he activated on Feb. 15 as a way of circumventing Congress.

 

Trump argues he has the power to proclaim a national emergency to unilaterally direct existing money for building a border wall that Congress has refused to fully fund.

 

"The current situation at the southern border presents a humanitarian and security crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency," the White House statement warned.

 

A Trump veto would be the first of his presidency and the first since Republicans lost majority control of the House in last November's elections.

 

Overriding such a veto in Congress would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers, making it highly unlikely, said lawmakers.

 

"When you see the vote today, there will be nowhere near the votes to override a veto," U.S. Representative Steve Scalise, the No. 2 House Republican, told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

 

The battle in Congress is the latest chapter in a long-running war between Trump and Democrats over border security, immigration policy and the "great, great wall" that Trump has pledged to build since becoming a presidential candidate.

 

He originally promised that Mexico would pay for it, but after Mexico refused, he asked U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for a project Democrats say is unneeded and will not be effective.

 

In his first two years in office, Trump's Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, which under the U.S. Constitution holds the national purse strings.

 

They failed to appropriate all the money Trump was seeking to build a wall and this year, with Democrats in control of the House, Congress refused Trump's demand for $5.7 billion in wall funding this year. Instead, he got $1.37 billion for border barriers.

 

Angry over that decision, Trump declared an emergency and vowed to divert funds toward the wall from accounts already committed by Congress for other purposes.

 

That set up a test of the constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the presidency that will likely lead to a court challenge after lawmakers deal with the resolution.

 

A coalition of 16 U.S. states led by California has already sued Trump and top members of his administration to block his emergency declaration.

 

Writing on Twitter on Monday, Trump, who says the wall is needed to stop illegal immigration and drugs, warned Republicans not to "fall into the Democrats 'trap' of Open Borders and Crime!"

 

Republican Representative Justin Amash was the lone Republican co-sponsoring the resolution in the House.

 

"The same congressional Republicans who joined me in blasting Pres. Obama’s executive overreach now cry out for a king to usurp legislative powers," Amash wrote on Twitter.

 

The White House was working to limit Republican support for the measure, especially in the Senate.

 

Nevertheless, Republican Senator Thom Tillis, in an opinion article published in the Washington Post, said he backed Trump on border security, but would vote for the resolution because he "cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress."

 

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski on Tuesday told reporters she would back the resolution. Previously, her Republican colleague, Susan Collins had said she likely would support the measure, too. For it to pass the Senate, at least one more Republican vote would be needed, assuming all Democrats and two independents back it.

 

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell, Richard Cowan, Amanda Becker and Doina Chiacu; editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Jonathan Oatis and Steve Orlofsky)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-02-27

[Chomper Higgot]

Pelosi running rings around Trump again.

 

McConnell can’t block the Senate vote which must now take place in within 18 days.

 

Republican Senators are now weighing the opinion of their voters against the deminishing need to butter up the ego of a President heading for the door.

 

Trump needs to hope no

more bad news comes his way these next 18 days.

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Samui Bodoh]

This is truly a litmus test for the Republican party.

 

For literally decades, the party has been in favour of limited government, strict constitutionalism, and limiting the powers of Government/the Presidency (and in favour of personal responsibility, free trade, etc, but that is another post).

 

If the Republicans vote in favour of this power grab, it will be a crystal clear indication that they have abandoned any/all principles that they once held dear, and are in Congress simply to attain and use power on behalf of their wealthy donors. Does anyone remember the Republicans complaining about Obama's "Imperial Presidency"? I do.

 

I could list all the morals, principles and ethics the Republicans have abandoned under Trump, but allow me to simply highlight one of them. The Republicans no longer seem to believe that having all people vote is a good thing, but rather spend their time, money and political capital trying to remove and/or deny Americans a voice/vote in their government (the non-existent 'voter fraud' nonsense); it goes against everything the Republican party has historically held dear (remember Lincoln, guys? Republicans used to say that they were the 'Party of Lincoln and Reagan'. are they still? Hint: No.).

 

If the Republicans hand over this kind of power to Trump, it will be tattooed on their foreheads for eternity, and they won't be able to complain when a future Democrat President declares a Gun Emergency, a Pollution Emergency, an Abortion Rights Emergency and, eventually, a Voting Emergency to do away with 'expensive' and 'unnecessary' elections.

 

Do Republicans still have any principles? We'll see...

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Samui Bodoh

[Kelsall]

More effort to sway public opinion in the haters' mission to overthrow President Trump.  Won't happen.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Kelsall

[metisdead]

Troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

[ReMarKable]

The republican party has become part of Trump's mafia.  They seem to care only about getting reelected and cashing in on big business lobbyist money.  It will never happen, but a true democracy like the Swiss have would be more desirable to me than the current nonsense in the USA now.

[ReMarKable]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 Time to enact some strict treason laws in the US. Working against the common good of the American people for whatever reason must be made a capital crime. Best I can make out it is chiefly virtue signalling and attempting to rig the voter pool from the left - there is no possible way on earth anybody can genuinely want no borders between first world America and the socialist hell holes south of the border.

 Those found guilty of aiding and abetting the fentanyl mules, MS13 gang bangers and welfare leeches should have 2 choices. Expedited trip on death row, or life in exile in Venezuela where they can lap up real socialism. Like the jihadi brides, once their eyes are opened they will be screaming and begging to get back. No chance. 

 Now let's wise up and get this wall built, and leave the histrionics to Jim Acosta and Hollywood actors.

Ha Ha you are a comedian?

[Tug]

Someone who doesent support Donald is not nessarly a (hater)this labeling people who’s view doesent align with yours isent constructive that being said Donald doesent control the money he needs permission he can’t take it

[Boon Mee]

They can advance this idiotic bill all the way to Trump's desk where he will righteously veto it. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

They can advance this idiotic bill all the way to Trump's desk where he will righteously veto it. 

And nobody will notice the power grab?!

 

You are not getting your wall.

[Srikcir]

45 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

They can advance this idiotic bill all the way to Trump's desk where he will righteously veto it. 

A Temporary Restraining Order is likely to be issued by a federal district court, sustained by a court of appeals and elevated to the the US Supreme Court whose ruling will be righteously be obeyed.

[ResandePohm]

6 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

This is truly a litmus test for the Republican party.

 

For literally decades, the party has been in favour of limited government, strict constitutionalism, and limiting the powers of Government/the Presidency (and in favour of personal responsibility, free trade, etc, but that is another post).

 

If the Republicans vote in favour of this power grab, it will be a crystal clear indication that they have abandoned any/all principles that they once held dear, and are in Congress simply to attain and use power on behalf of their wealthy donors. Does anyone remember the Republicans complaining about Obama's "Imperial Presidency"? I do.

 

I could list all the morals, principles and ethics the Republicans have abandoned under Trump, but allow me to simply highlight one of them. The Republicans no longer seem to believe that having all people vote is a good thing, but rather spend their time, money and political capital trying to remove and/or deny Americans a voice/vote in their government (the non-existent 'voter fraud' nonsense); it goes against everything the Republican party has historically held dear (remember Lincoln, guys? Republicans used to say that they were the 'Party of Lincoln and Reagan'. are they still? Hint: No.).

 

If the Republicans hand over this kind of power to Trump, it will be tattooed on their foreheads for eternity, and they won't be able to complain when a future Democrat President declares a Gun Emergency, a Pollution Emergency, an Abortion Rights Emergency and, eventually, a Voting Emergency to do away with 'expensive' and 'unnecessary' elections.

 

Do Republicans still have any principles? We'll see...

 

 

I agree totally with what you say. I am not a US citizen and it would appear to me that the Republican Party has absolutely no morals and serve only for their own gratification. What amazes me is that still such a high proportion of the electorate still support him. Can they not see what he is doing to the USA both economically and politically. Are they really that stupid? In any other Country he would have been voted out of office with a government vote of no confidence but in the US he is permitted to stay doing even further damage to his country as the wheels towards impeachment seem to turn very slowly. And further, the immoral Republican party would be relagated to a thing of the past.

 

In a rather sad way i am happy that he is creating turmoil mainly in the US and that he is having to defend himself against so many lawsuits. This keeps him occupied inside the US and leaves him little time to create too much chaos internationally. 

 

I don't know about God Bless America as for the moment their God seems to have forgotten them. Maybe he will return to help them soon.

[ReMarKable]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

They can advance this idiotic bill all the way to Trump's desk where he will righteously veto it. 

Yes, America needs a King, doesn't it?  Why bother with a constitution and rule of law?

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 3:22 PM, Tug said:

Someone who doesent support Donald is not nessarly a (hater)this labeling people who’s view doesent align with yours isent constructive that being said Donald doesent control the money he needs permission he can’t take it

LOL. If governments had to ask permission of every taxpayer if they could take their money, they'd get zip.

If people don't want Trump to take the money, they will need to see it all the way to SCOTUS, where it's probably going anyway.

Unless the Dems know they have a veto proof backing in both houses, it's all just for show. Unless they can overcome the veto

it goes ahead ( but probably after the court process is finished, perhaps after he leaves office ).

[metisdead]

Some troll posts have been removed. 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. If governments had to ask permission of every taxpayer if they could take their money, they'd get zip.

If people don't want Trump to take the money, they will need to see it all the way to SCOTUS, where it's probably going anyway.

Unless the Dems know they have a veto proof backing in both houses, it's all just for show. Unless they can overcome the veto

it goes ahead ( but probably after the court process is finished, perhaps after he leaves office ).

 

Seems like you skipped a step there. Government, in this case, needs permission from public representatives, not "every taxpayer".

[Prissana Pescud]

On 2/27/2019 at 5:44 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Pelosi running rings around Trump again.

 

McConnell can’t block the Senate vote which must now take place in within 18 days.

 

Republican Senators are now weighing the opinion of their voters against the deminishing need to butter up the ego of a President heading for the door.

 

Trump needs to hope no

more bad news comes his way these next 18 days.

 

 

 

But can he block supply again.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Seems like you skipped a step there. Government, in this case, needs permission from public representatives, not "every taxpayer".

Didn't miss a step, just a software thing.

I was responding to something specific a poster said. 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Didn't miss a step, just a software thing.

I was responding to something specific a poster said. 

 

Unless you're trying to blame the "software" for writing your post, can't see how the above is even remotely related to either comment. Government doesn't consult "the people", as in each and every citizen, on how to spend funds - that's what public representatives are for.