Guess What Time It Is Boys & Girls? It's VETO Time!

[BluesLegend]

The founders never imagined someone would want to be a senator or house member for 40 years otherwise they would have put a term limit on the position.

 

[McRocket]

Great.

POTUS's who veto start to erode the power they have over Congress as Congressional politicians resent the President trying to usurp their authority (even though they NEVER admit it).

Trump's veto just brings him that much closer to quacking like a duck...bring it on.

 

[B. Kidd]

A legitimate and enjoyable veto is on the horizon. Americans are celebrating a president who tells the rest of the government, especially the opposition who NEVER vote for anything pro-America, "America is back, this is why I was elected".

Very well said....This is awesome actually, it exposes the piece of shits in the Senate that are scared shitless to tackle the immigration issue...The nutless fucks much prefer to continue kicking the can down the road and operating under status quo. Trumps says...FUCK THAT, and so do all good, real Americans.

Their wealthy donors want more cheap labor that they don't have to provide healthcare for. Simply hire illegals for below minimum wage with no benefits and let the taxpayers pay for their healthcare.

Bingo!
Straight out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce playbook!

 

[Flopper]

The founders never imagined someone would want to be a senator or house member for 40 years otherwise they would have put a term limit on the position.

The country has changed a bit in the last 243 years. The population has increased by a factor of 130. There were only 4 cities in the US with population over 10,000. Congress was in session in some years just 30 days. A congressmen got paid $4 to $6 a day. There were about 8 committees and today there are over 200. Congressmen had no paid staff. Today there are about 10,000 congressional staff members. In the 17th century there were only a couple hundred laws. Today, no one knows how many federal statues exist, probably in the millions. There are over 20,000 about guns and the IRS code is over 7500 pages. Obviously, the job of a Senator or Representative has changed considerable over the years as has the complexity of the operations of congress. In the House it takes most of a member's first year just to learn the job and most of the 2nd year is spent fund raising and campaigning for re-election.

The biggest problem with term limits in congress is the most effective legislators are the one with years of experience. It takes years to develop the relationships that are critical to get anything done. Even more important is gaining the trust of peers and leaders. Trust among congressmen is determined by how well they honor their commitments. Although a congressmen may make many promises in campaigning that he will never keep, once he is elected, his standing with his peers will be determined by how well he honors his commitments to fellow members.

 

[jwoodie]

The Border Emergency Declaration was a political maneuver designed to keep the issue on the front pages - and it is working. The argument that it sets a precedent for future Democrat presidents is bogus - they will do whatever they want anyway. (Just as Harry Reid did with the "nuclear option.")

And when did the last democrat president declared a national emergency in order to take 5 billion in funds for a project congress refused to fund. If Trump can declare a national emergency to build a wall then the next democrat president can certainly declare climate change, health cost, college costs, ect an emergency and fund spending needed with Homeland Security funds or Defense Funds, ect.

And what makes you think the next democrat president WON'T do that anyway?

 

[Flopper]

The Border Emergency Declaration was a political maneuver designed to keep the issue on the front pages - and it is working. The argument that it sets a precedent for future Democrat presidents is bogus - they will do whatever they want anyway. (Just as Harry Reid did with the "nuclear option.")

And when did the last democrat president declared a national emergency in order to take 5 billion in funds for a project congress refused to fund. If Trump can declare a national emergency to build a wall then the next democrat president can certainly declare climate change, health cost, college costs, ect an emergency and fund spending needed with Homeland Security funds or Defense Funds, ect.

And what makes you think the next democrat president WON'T do that anyway?

Because no president, democrat or republican has ever used the National Emergency Act to take money that has been specifically refused him by congress. Presidents have extraordinary powers. Most of our presidents have been very reticent about using those powers. However once a president uses those powers it's much easier for the next president to use them because a precedent has been set. Hopefully the courts will block Trump. If not, lookout because the next president will have the power of purse to do what he wants regardless of the will of congress.

 

[TahoeHorn]

As a lifelong Republican I fear the idea of a DEm President declaring a national emergency for climate change, gun violence, access to abortion in rural areas and so on.

Any time you place what you want over the Constitution you will get trouble. Everybody will get trouble in the long run.

 

[The Original Tree]

The founders never imagined someone would want to be a senator or house member for 40 years otherwise they would have put a term limit on the position.

The courts and Congress actually have more power than The President Now.

I think Presidential Terms should be at least two consecutive 6 year terms, and The House should be limited to 20 years Senate to 24 total years of service and The Courts should have a mandatory retirement at 70 years old.

 

[Flopper]

As a lifelong Republican I fear the idea of a DEm President declaring a national emergency for climate change, gun violence, access to abortion in rural areas and so on.

Any time you place what you want over the Constitution you will get trouble. Everybody will get trouble in the long run.

A Republican president could do the same thing. Suppose Trump or another republican president decides North Korea or Russia is a threat that must be dealt with by starting a huge 50 billion dollar defense program and the congress disagrees. The president declares a national emergency starts the programs taking money from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal Highway Fund, etc. Anything can be a national emergency. The president get's to decide.

What should happen now is congress should change the law to allow congress to intercede without a super majority. However, that's not going to happen. Republicans feel that would be a slap in the face to the president and he might need more money that the House would not give him. Democrats want that power for next democrat president.

We have opened Pandora's Box and we don't know how to get it closed.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

AG Bill Barr: Mr. President your declaration of an emergency on the southern border was clearly authorized under the law and consistent with past precedent… The humanitarian and security crisis that we currently have right now on the border is exactly the type of emergency that presidents are permitted to address.

 

[HenryBHough]

Rooseveldt tried it. A prudent, benevolent God fixed that.

 

[22lcidw]

The Border Emergency Declaration was a political maneuver designed to keep the issue on the front pages - and it is working. The argument that it sets a precedent for future Democrat presidents is bogus - they will do whatever they want anyway. (Just as Harry Reid did with the "nuclear option.")

And when did the last democrat president declared a national emergency in order to take 5 billion in funds for a project congress refused to fund. If Trump can declare a national emergency to build a wall then the next democrat president can certainly declare climate change, health cost, college costs, ect an emergency and fund spending needed with Homeland Security funds or Defense Funds, ect.

And what makes you think the next democrat president WON'T do that anyway?

Because no president, democrat or republican has ever used the National Emergency Act to take money that has been specifically refused him by congress. Presidents have extraordinary powers. Most of our presidents have been very reticent about using those powers. However once a president uses those powers it's much easier for the next president to use them because a precedent has been set. Hopefully the courts will block Trump. If not, lookout because the next president will have the power of purse to do what he wants regardless of the will of congress.

This issue of the wall is about elected corrupted men and women who lie over the many years they are "honored" to serve us.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Congress needs razed and restructured. There need to be term limits and no lobbying allowed. Also repeal Citizens United, what a joke that is.

 

[Flopper]

Rooseveldt tried it. A prudent, benevolent God fixed that.

Yeah Roosevelt, declared national emergencies over little things like WWII, closing the banks to save the banking system from collapse, nothing nearly as important as filling a campaign promise that neither the congress nor a majority of people supported.

 

[candycorn]

Great.

POTUS's who veto start to erode the power they have over Congress as Congressional politicians resent the President trying to usurp their authority (even though they NEVER admit it).

Trump's veto just brings him that much closer to quacking like a duck...bring it on.

It’s fun to hear the idiots here celebrating a veto.

It’s a sign he is losing his grip

 

[HenryBHough]

Yeah Roosevelt, declared national emergencies over little things like WWII, closing the banks to save the banking system from collapse, nothing nearly as important as filling a campaign promise that neither the congress nor a majority of people supported.

I referred to Rooseveldt's multiple terms and his thirst tp be "president for life". A life that was mercifully short so he kind of got what he wanted but not the way he wanted it.

Sorry you couldn't grasp that.

Was it a hateful political choice to not comprehend?

Or a simple reading comprehension issue:

 

[jwoodie]

Because no president, democrat or republican has ever used the National Emergency Act to take money that has been specifically refused him by congress.

How did Congress specifically refuse him? Please be specific.

 

[Flopper]

Because no president, democrat or republican has ever used the National Emergency Act to take money that has been specifically refused him by congress.

How did Congress specifically refuse him? Please be specific.

Congress did not approve the money he wanted for the wall and when took it without their approval, they voted to stop him. That's about as specific as it gets.

 

[jwoodie]

Because no president, democrat or republican has ever used the National Emergency Act to take money that has been specifically refused him by congress.

How did Congress specifically refuse him? Please be specific.

Congress did not approve the money he wanted for the wall and when took it without their approval, they voted to stop him. That's about as specific as it gets.

Congress could pass a bill which specifically bans the expenditure of funds for a border wall.

But it hasn't done that, has it?

 

[Flopper]

Because no president, democrat or republican has ever used the National Emergency Act to take money that has been specifically refused him by congress.

How did Congress specifically refuse him? Please be specific.

Congress did not approve the money he wanted for the wall and when took it without their approval, they voted to stop him. That's about as specific as it gets.

Congress could pass a bill which specifically bans the expenditure of funds for a border wall.

But it hasn't done that, has it?

They could but it wouldn't stop him because he is operating under the authority of the National Emergency Act. Congress would have to override his veto of the bill congress passed to resend the emergency. The Senate has already done that but there aren't enough republican votes in the House willing to do that at this time.

If the president starts using the full power of that act which includes powers such as martial law, shutting down "fake news" communications facilities such as radio and tv stations, freezing Americans' bank accounts and seizing their assets, and suspending laws, Congress would act. Republicans do not want to go against their president which is understandable but there are lines the president can not cross to reach goals. So far he has been successful in declaring an emergency to accomplish his goals. There is no reason to think that he will not continue to do so and there is no reason to think that other presidents will not do the same.

Both Houses of congress need come down hard on the president and they need to change the law so no president can do this in the future.