Trump vetoes measure to end his emergency declaration on border wall

[rooster59]

Trump vetoes measure to end his emergency declaration on border wall

By Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton

 

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up his veto of the congressional measure to end his emergency declaration to get funds to build a border wall after signing it in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., March 15, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump issued the first veto of his presidency on Friday to block a measure passed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress that would terminate his emergency declaration for a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico.

 

The veto, made necessary after a strong and unusual rebuke from members of Trump's Republican party, capped a week that left Trump politically wounded, at least temporarily, as immigration and his signature promise of a wall become a flashpoint again in the 2020 presidential campaign.

 

Congress is unlikely to muster the votes to override Trump's veto, a fact that left White House officials confident despite disappointment that it passed the Republican-controlled Senate at all.

 

The bipartisan vote on Thursday was a slap at Trump for his decision to circumvent Congress and take money already designated for other programs to pay for a barrier on the southern border.

 

Twelve Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate to pass the measure, concerned that the president had overstepped his authority.

 

Trump repeated his view that a crisis existed at the border, called the resolution reckless and said he was proud to veto it.

 

"As president the protection of the nation is my highest duty. Yesterday, Congress passed a dangerous resolution that if signed into law would put countless Americans in danger, very grave danger," he said, sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office. "Congress has the freedom to pass this resolution, and I have the duty to veto it."

 

The White House had lobbied heavily for Republicans to back Trump, despite concerns among some about executive overreach and precedent-setting action that a future Democratic president could copy on policies that Republicans oppose. The president, without acknowledging that lobbying, said he had sympathy for those who defied him, adding they did what they had to do.

 

U.S. Attorney General William Barr said the president's emergency declaration was legal.

 

It is being challenged in court as an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' power of the purse.

 

Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said her chamber would vote on March 26 to override the veto.

 

“The House and Senate resoundingly rejected the president’s lawless power grab, yet the president has chosen to continue to defy the Constitution, the Congress and the will of the American people," she said in a statement.

 

The Senate would have to vote to override the veto as well, requiring more Republicans than the original 12 to sign on, which is unlikely to happen.

 

Trump was flanked by border officials and people whose relatives were killed by someone who was in the United States illegally. They praised the president for standing firm on the issue, which resonates strongly with his political base.

 

Researchers have said that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, despite Trump repeatedly linking immigration and crime.

 

The president has said he wants a wall to prevent immigrants from crossing into the United States illegally. Democrats deny there is an emergency at the border, saying border crossings are at a four-decade low.

 

Trump thanked Republican senators who voted for his declaration in a Twitter post earlier on Friday. "Watch, when you get back to your State, they will LOVE you more than ever before!" he said.

 

Trump made a border wall a central promise of his 2016 campaign for the White House. He initially insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall but it has declined to do so. Last year, Trump forced a government shutdown over an impasse with Congress over funding for the barrier.

 

When a deal to prevent another shutdown did not give him the funding he requested, Trump declared a national emergency, redirecting funds that were allocated for other projects to build the barrier instead.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-03-16

 

 

[helpisgood]

20 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

U.S. Attorney General William Barr said the president's emergency declaration was legal.

 

Assuming that the OP is right, it is not a ringing endorsement of a "national emergency" when your top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Barr, merely says that the veto was "legal."  Boy, that was a safe response.  Of course, it is legal. 

 

The better question for the AG is whether it is truly a national emergency or not.  I am not sure if I was Barr that I would like it on the record that the wall was such an emergency.  

 

Here's the NY Times' quote of Barr's "play it safe" remark:

 

"Mr. Barr said the president’s emergency order was “clearly authorized under the law” and “solidly grounded in law.”"

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/us/politics/trump-veto-national-emergency.html

 

No kidding, Mr. Barr!  The veto is clearly constitutional, as any American schoolchild should know.  But, as the chief law enforcement officer, do you think it is truly such a national emergency? 

 

Well, I can understand his response.  One usually likes to keep one's job and reputation.

[Samui Bodoh]

"...The veto, made necessary after a strong and unusual rebuke from members of Trump's Republican party, capped a week that left Trump politically wounded, at least temporarily, as immigration and his signature promise of a wall become a flashpoint again in the 2020 presidential campaign...."

 

First of all, the veto was not "made necessary", it is a choice made by Trump because the 'Deal-Maker' was unable to make a deal with Congress. Hmm... wasn't one of his campaign promises that he would 'make the best deals!'? What happened to that?

 

Secondly, the case for an 'Emergency' at the US southern border has not been made.

 

Third, while Trump did promise a wall in the 2016 campaign, there is no legitimacy to his argument that it is required because the campaign promise was that "Mexico would pay for it".

 

This usurping of power by Trump puts the US on a dangerous path. What will be the next "Emergency"? Take monies already allocated for other purposes and use them to fund 'militias'? Take monies already allocated for other purposes and use them to fund subsidies for 'hotel construction'? Take monies already allocated for other purposes and use them to fund 'Replacements' for 'costly and unnecessary elections'? Once you accept that a President can merely declare an "Emergency" and use monies allocated for other purposes, you negate the powers of Congress and disavow the concept of 'Separation of Powers'. It is a dark, murky, and dangerous path that Trump is leading Americans down. And, it is both gutless and shocking that the Republican party is allowing him to do it; what happened to all those comments of an "Imperial Presidency' when Obama was in office? The hypocrisy is breath-taking.

 

I have said it before and (sadly) need to say it again;

 

Donald Trump is an ever-expanding cloud of toxic waste that defiles everything it touches.

 

God help us all.

 

 

 

[Puchaiyank]

Can you believe this guy?  Vetoed a vote by Congress which would have continued to allow 10s of thousands of illegal migrants to enter the US circumventing legal points of entry, bringing drugs, human trafficking, terrorists, gang members, and people in immediate need of food, shelter, and healthcare to America...the land of the free...

 

Where is his human compassion?

[Puchaiyank]

No kidding, Mr. Barr!  The veto is clearly constitutional, as any American schoolchild should know.  But, as the chief law enforcement officer, do you think it is truly such a national emergency.

 

So you are saying you approve of the illegal entry of thousands of immigrants above the President's responsibility to secure the borders?  

[NorthernRyland]

12 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

Can you believe this guy?  Vetoed a vote by Congress which would have continued to allow 10s of thousands of illegal migrants to enter the US circumventing legal points of entry, bringing drugs, human trafficking, terrorists, gang members, and people in immediate need of food, shelter, and healthcare to America...the land of the free...

 

Yeah but think about all those yummy taco stands and cheap lawn care. Diversity is our strength!

[stevenl]

30 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

Can you believe this guy?  Vetoed a vote by Congress which would have continued to allow 10s of thousands of illegal migrants to enter the US circumventing legal points of entry, bringing drugs, human trafficking, terrorists, gang members, and people in immediate need of food, shelter, and healthcare to America...the land of the free...

 

Where is his human compassion?

Why don't you come with some facts in stead of emotional nonsense.

[Chomper Higgot]

Barr doesn’t seem to understand ‘motive’, let alone ‘separation of powers’.

 

In the meantime Trump just went full dictator.

 

All that takes is good men to do nothing.

 

(Not that I’m saying Barr is a good man).

[Tug]

Some people have that trump delusion syndrome bad lol it will get hung up in the courts past 2020 then Donald will get his wall his very owne private wall were he can hang out with his buddies like Paul maybe roger stone

[KMartinHandyman]

Can you believe this guy?  Vetoed a vote by Congress which would have continued to allow 10s of thousands of illegal migrants to enter the US circumventing legal points of entry, bringing drugs, human trafficking, terrorists, gang members, and people in immediate need of food, shelter, and healthcare to America...the land of the free...
 
Where is his human compassion?

Can you believe this guy, a non-politician, politician that despite the numerous government agencies investigations, media pushback of his mere existence has the audacity to fulfill as many of his campaign promises by any means necessary rather than suck-up to the resistance?

[smotherb]

5 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Can you believe this guy?  Vetoed a vote by Congress which would have continued to allow 10s of thousands of illegal migrants to enter the US circumventing legal points of entry, bringing drugs, human trafficking, terrorists, gang members, and people in immediate need of food, shelter, and healthcare to America...the land of the free...

 

Where is his human compassion?

Trump vetoed the majority will of the senate; including Republicans. Yes, it is the President's Constitutional right to veto. However, that neither makes the border wall a National Emergency nor will building the wall stop, "10s of thousands of illegal migrants to enter the US circumventing legal points of entry, bringing drugs, human trafficking, terrorists, gang members . . . "   

Even if you premise your tale with, "Once upon a time . . . "

 

 

 

[Sir Swagman]

To me this means a complete rejection of democracy by this play acting president. The elected representatives say ‘no’, a voice arguably numbering as the large majority of the electorate - yet this wannabe dictator ignores it. 

 

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, KMartinHandyman said:

Can you believe this guy, a non-politician, politician that despite the numerous government agencies investigations, media pushback of his mere existence has the audacity to fulfill as many of his campaign promises by any means necessary rather than suck-up to the resistance?

Dude if there was an option for multiple trophies you would get them. Snideness is going to follow, dont let it get you down....

[lannarebirth]

6 hours ago, genericptr said:

Yeah but think about all those yummy taco stands and cheap lawn care. Diversity is our strength!

You say that as if it were a bad thing. I'm tired of mowing the lawn and I can't get enough of yummy tacos.

[thaibeachlovers]

So, Trump did what he said he would do and vetoed it. Unlikely to the max that the senate will over rule the veto, so looks like it will head to the SCOTUS and we'll have to wait and see what they say. I'm not sure how they will rule, so not guessing.

So far Trump is achieving at least some of his election promises, 2 conservatives on the SCOTUS, cancelled TPPT ( That made me happy ), and seen to be doing what he can to build the wall. His base should be happy, and it's looking good for 2020.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

I can't get enough of yummy tacos.

I miss Mexican food a lot. Sit on the grass with a container of street tacos and a beer....yum

[mikebike]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, Trump did what he said he would do and vetoed it. Unlikely to the max that the senate will over rule the veto, so looks like it will head to the SCOTUS and we'll have to wait and see what they say. I'm not sure how they will rule, so not guessing.

So far Trump is achieving at least some of his election promises, 2 conservatives on the SCOTUS, cancelled TPPT ( That made me happy ), and seen to be doing what he can to build the wall. His base should be happy, and it's looking good for 2020.

Not disagreeing but he will need to pull more than his base to win and that's a big ask in the current climate.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Not disagreeing but he will need to pull more than his base to win and that's a big ask in the current climate.

That could be true if the Dems actually produce a decent candidate for 2020. Had they had a decent one in 2016 Trump would have been the loser. He was the least bad of 2 bad candidates, IMO.

No doubt Trump is praying every night that Biden or Warren are the Dems's candidate.

Meanwhile, Trump just needs to keep his nerve, and try to keep his promises. Expect to see more vetoes in the future.

[elmrfudd]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Barr doesn’t seem to understand ‘motive’, let alone ‘separation of powers’.

 

In the meantime Trump just went full dictator.

 

All that takes is good men to do nothing.

 

(Not that I’m saying Barr is a good man).

A dictator uses veto power granted by the constitution? 

 

Barrack hussein O. Did it 12 times, was that the action of a dictator? 

 

Good thing you have a good perspective on things. 

[helpisgood]

Re: post #19 above.

 

I think what Chomper is referring to is not the president's veto power itself, but that it is obvious that Trump is using his veto as an end run from Congress' refusal to fund his wall.  I think that's why Chomper chose to use the words "motive" and "separation of powers."  As is well-known, the federal legislature was given the constitutional authority to fund actions that the executive branch carries out, aka, "the power of the purse." 

 

Thus, the core issue is not the veto power itself, but whether the president is usurping a power that Congress was assigned by the Constitution.  See e.g., the Iran-Contra Scandal. 

 

I would not characterize Trump as a dictator, but it does look like he is abusing his power.  Sadly, if this goes to the US Supreme Court, Trump may have the votes to win.  If so, my guess is that such a majority opinion will carefully distinguish this "national emergency" case on the Mexican border to avert setting a precedent for other presidents to broadly define a "national emergency" and do as they please regardless of what an elected legislature thinks. 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

Re: post #19 above.

 

I think what Chomper is referring to is not the president's veto power itself, but that it is obvious that Trump is using his veto as an end run from Congress' refusal to fund his wall.  I think that's why Chomper chose to use the words "motive" and "separation of powers."  As is well-known, the federal legislature was given the constitutional authority to fund actions that the executive branch carries out, aka, "the power of the purse." 

 

Thus, the core issue is not the veto power itself, but whether the president is usurping a power that Congress was assigned by the Constitution.  See e.g., the Iran-Contra Scandal. 

 

I would not characterize Trump as a dictator, but it does look like he is abusing his power.  Sadly, if this goes to the US Supreme Court, Trump may have the votes to win.  If so, my guess is that such a majority opinion will carefully distinguish this "national emergency" case on the Mexican border to avert setting a precedent for other presidents to broadly define a "national emergency" and do as they please regardless of what an elected legislature thinks. 

If congress doesn't like it they can try for a constitutional amendment. Just wailing about it isn't going to achieve anything. If the SCOTUS say he is within his rights that's the end of it. There is no higher authority.

If the populace don't like it, elect someone else in 2020. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If congress doesn't like it they can try for a constitutional amendment. Just wailing about it isn't going to achieve anything. If the SCOTUS say he is within his rights that's the end of it. There is no higher authority.

If the populace don't like it, elect someone else in 2020. 

You are getting ahead of yourself.

[welovesundaysatspace]

Lonely sad fool. 

[usviphotography]

24 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

 

I would not characterize Trump as a dictator, but it does look like he is abusing his power.  Sadly, if this goes to the US Supreme Court, Trump may have the votes to win.  If so, my guess is that such a majority opinion will carefully distinguish this "national emergency" case on the Mexican border to avert setting a precedent for other presidents to broadly define a "national emergency" and do as they please regardless of what an elected legislature thinks. 

There are something like 31 ongoing "National Emergencies" enacted by past Presidents still in effect. What Trump did is not unusual at all, and fully within his authority as President as Congress already gave him the power to do what he did. The very fact that there is a statutory remedy within the bill for Congress to override the President's Action proves it. If he usurped their power, they'd just be screaming that what he did was unconstitutional and running to the Courts. Instead, they are using the mechanism within the National Emergency Act itself (which the Congress wrote and passed) in order to stop him. They just didn't get enough votes. Note that Congress could always repeal the National Emergencies Act itself by simple majority vote, but nobody is talking about doing that, which demonstrates their hypocrisy. It isn't the principle they object to- they just don't like this particular use of the act by this particular President. 

[Sakeopete]

Excuse me if I'm wrong but didn't I see a video where Barrack Obama said the US should build a wall? Clinton supported it too? I think the Democrats are playing politics nothing more. 

[billd766]

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

A dictator uses veto power granted by the constitution? 

 

Barrack hussein O. Did it 12 times, was that the action of a dictator? 

 

Good thing you have a good perspective on things. 

 

Take a look at the vetoes that former presidents made and on what subjects.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#Barack_Obama

 

 

[riclag]

On 3/16/2019 at 3:06 PM, elmrfudd said:

A dictator uses veto power granted by the constitution? 

 

Barrack hussein O. Did it 12 times, was that the action of a dictator? 

 

Good thing you have a good perspective on things. 

"Both the veto power and Congress’ ability to override it are examples of the system of checks and balances the Constitution created to ensure the separation of powers and keep any one branch of government from becoming too powerful".

https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/veto

Sounds like the President is being Presidential

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Can you believe this guy?  Vetoed a vote by Congress which would have continued to allow 10s of thousands of illegal migrants to enter the US circumventing legal points of entry, bringing drugs, human trafficking, terrorists, gang members, and people in immediate need of food, shelter, and healthcare to America...the land of the free...

 

Where is his human compassion?

 

15 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

No kidding, Mr. Barr!  The veto is clearly constitutional, as any American schoolchild should know.  But, as the chief law enforcement officer, do you think it is truly such a national emergency.

 

So you are saying you approve of the illegal entry of thousands of immigrants above the President's responsibility to secure the borders?  

The majority of the illegal immigrants are entering the US through legal points of entry, as are the majority of the drugs.  Few if any terrorists have been shown to enter the US through the southern border.  Congress is willing to improve border security where the money will do the most good, but not waste billions of dollars on an ineffective wall.

 

More important, this is a veto against the US Constitution which mandates that Congress controls government funding.  Trump wants to take money approved by Congress for specific purposes and use the money for a totally different purpose. 

 

Trump tears up the Constitution and his base cheers.  The Trumpies really do want a dictatorship.

[smotherb]

14 hours ago, Sir Swagman said:

To me this means a complete rejection of democracy by this play acting president. The elected representatives say ‘no’, a voice arguably numbering as the large majority of the electorate - yet this wannabe dictator ignores it. 

 

You apparently are not aware of the President's Constitutional Right to veto a Congressional act. However, Congress can reject the President's veto with a 2/3 majority of both houses. That process is part of the US system of checks and balances. So, you can make up your mind what you think constitutes democracy, but  . . . .

[thaibeachlovers]

20 minutes ago, smotherb said:

You apparently are not aware of the President's Constitutional Right to veto a Congressional act. However, Congress can reject the President's veto with a 2/3 majority of both houses. That process is part of the US system of checks and balances. So, you can make up your mind what you think constitutes democracy, but  . . . .

Agree.

Seems there are a lot of people out there that think "democracy" applies only when they agree with the action, and that people that don't agree with them are <deleted> or <deleted>.