Stopping President Trump's Emergency Doesn't Need His Signature!

[miketx]

It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!

Here, eat on this.

 

[peach174]

Lucky that there's no emergency because the orange squatter is on yet another vacation, golfing, twitting, eating

So where did you get that info?

The nearest golf course from Hanoi is 146 miles.

Orange Judas is still in D.C. - possibly logging some simulator time.

"Orange Julius" - perfect.

peach174 - upon declaring this phony emergency, traitor trump did leave on vacation.

Since when are weekends vacations?

 

[Olde Europe]

At least the RWNJ's get to quit pretending they are Constitutional Original-ists for a while.

Yep, but the spinal flexibility required from them would make every circus artist proud. Remember the howls about the "lawless administration"? Those were the days…

 

[joaquinmiller]

Lucky that there's no emergency because the orange squatter is on yet another vacation, golfing, twitting, eating

So where did you get that info?

The nearest golf course from Hanoi is 146 miles.

Orange Judas is still in D.C. - possibly logging some simulator time.

Really?
Trump will leave for Vietnam on Monday for second meeting with Kim Jong un

Yep. Leaves in 18 minutes, according to the WH schedule.

Lucky that there's no emergency because the orange squatter is on yet another vacation, golfing, twitting, eating

So where did you get that info?

The nearest golf course from Hanoi is 146 miles.

Orange Judas is still in D.C. - possibly logging some simulator time.

Really?
Trump will leave for Vietnam on Monday for second meeting with Kim Jong un

Yep. Leaves in 18 minutes, according to the WH schedule.

Lucky that there's no emergency because the orange squatter is on yet another vacation, golfing, twitting, eating

So where did you get that info?

The nearest golf course from Hanoi is 146 miles.

Orange Judas is still in D.C. - possibly logging some simulator time.

Really?
Trump will leave for Vietnam on Monday for second meeting with Kim Jong un

Yep. Leaves in 18 minutes, according to the WH schedule.

So?
That still doesn't address Luddly's claim of him wanting to go golfing in Hanoi , with the nearest golf course 146 miles away.

I'll take your word for it, never having been to Hanoi. My info is almost 50 years out of date, but if Trump has the time, I can tell him that a certain class of women in Saigon find uniformed GI's and American greenbacks irresistibly sexy.

 

[OldLady]

Lucky that there's no emergency because the orange squatter is on yet another vacation, golfing, twitting, eating

I think he's actually in Vietnam, about to meet Kim Jong-Un.

 

[BULLDOG]

Lucky that there's no emergency because the orange squatter is on yet another vacation, golfing, twitting, eating

So where did you get that info?

The nearest golf course from Hanoi is 146 miles.

Orange Judas is still in D.C. - possibly logging some simulator time.

Really?
Trump will leave for Vietnam on Monday for second meeting with Kim Jong un

Yep. Leaves in 18 minutes, according to the WH schedule.

Lucky that there's no emergency because the orange squatter is on yet another vacation, golfing, twitting, eating

So where did you get that info?

The nearest golf course from Hanoi is 146 miles.

Orange Judas is still in D.C. - possibly logging some simulator time.

Really?
Trump will leave for Vietnam on Monday for second meeting with Kim Jong un

Yep. Leaves in 18 minutes, according to the WH schedule.

Lucky that there's no emergency because the orange squatter is on yet another vacation, golfing, twitting, eating

So where did you get that info?

The nearest golf course from Hanoi is 146 miles.

Orange Judas is still in D.C. - possibly logging some simulator time.

Really?
Trump will leave for Vietnam on Monday for second meeting with Kim Jong un

Yep. Leaves in 18 minutes, according to the WH schedule.

So?
That still doesn't address Luddly's claim of him wanting to go golfing in Hanoi , with the nearest golf course 146 miles away.

146 miles isn't far, considering he already will have gone 8286 miles, he will have access to a fast helicopter, and it probably won't be raining enough to get his hair wet.

 

[BULLDOG]

It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!

Here, eat on this.

View attachment 247686

Come on finger boy Jr. We both know Trump's silly emergency claim has nothing to do with aiding America. Mexico won't pay for the wall, so he wants to aid himself so he can claim he kept that stooopid campaign promise.

 

[joaquinmiller]

BTW, a quick Google says the golf course in Long Bien is only 7 miles from Hanoi. Also others within 25 miles.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Oops! I am showing my age. I shoulda said Ho Chi Minh City.

 

[Olde Europe]

BTW, a quick Google says the golf course in Long Bien is only 7 miles from Hanoi. Also others within 25 miles.

I would imagine, no one would be begrudging him flying even 250 miles to have some golfing - provided it helps making some progress with NK. Just to make President Spectacle's spectacle more spectacular, not so much.

Just as (next to) no one would deny that even $57bn would be wisely invested if it actually stopped human trafficking, or drugs. But…

 

[MAGAman]

146 miles isn't far, considering he already will have gone 8286 miles, he will have access to a fast helicopter, and it probably won't be raining enough to get his hair wet.

I guess he couldn't just sent over a plane load of cash instead.

 

[Flopper]

It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!

I don't think you are right on this point, however it is confusing. The act allowed for a legislative veto which required only a simple majority to override the president's veto of termination, however the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha declared this unconstitutional in 1983.

The National Emergencies Act was amended in 1985 to substitute a joint resolution as the vehicle for rescinding a national emergency declaration. There is no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill. Both must be passed, in exactly the same form, by both chambers of Congress, and signed by the President (or, re-passed in override of a presidential veto which requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber.

Joint resolution - Wikipedia
Legislative Veto
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf
National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

 

[BULLDOG]

146 miles isn't far, considering he already will have gone 8286 miles, he will have access to a fast helicopter, and it probably won't be raining enough to get his hair wet.

I guess he couldn't just sent over a plane load of cash instead.

Off subject, but go ahead and spit it out. Don't beat around the bush.

 

[dudmuck]

It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!

Here, eat on this.

View attachment 247686

None of those emergency declarations were to aid those countries. They were sanctions on those countries or sanctions on individuals in that country. Look at the list. Only non-sanction declaration by Obama was for swine flu.

 

[miketx]

It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!

Here, eat on this.

View attachment 247686

None of those emergency declarations were to aid those countries. They were sanctions on those countries or sanctions on individuals in that country. Look at the list. Only non-sanction declaration by Obama was for swine flu.

Never believe anything from the media.

 

[task0778]

It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!

I don't think you are right on this point, however it is confusing. The act allowed for a legislative veto which required only a simple majority to override the president's veto of termination, however the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha declared this unconstitutional in 1983.

The National Emergencies Act was amended in 1985 to substitute a joint resolution as the vehicle for rescinding a national emergency declaration. There is no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill. Both must be passed, in exactly the same form, by both chambers of Congress, and signed by the President (or, re-passed in override of a presidential veto which requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber.

Joint resolution - Wikipedia
Legislative Veto
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf
National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

The upshot is that in order to stop a presidential declaration of a national emergency, Congress would have to pass a resolution in both houses (60 votes in the Senate) AND it is signed by the President. If he vetoes it, then Congress would have to override his veto with a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Do I have that correct?

 

[Flopper]

Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed, support of military actions against a foreign power outside of normal presidential powers, applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump's national emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writers of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that there're would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

 

[task0778]

Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the for need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed or applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump nationa emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writes of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that their would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Wait a minute, Congress has never passed any legislation that says no wall, ergo he isn't going against the will of Congress. If Congress doesn't do that, then the courts have in the past considered such action as tacit approval, given that they gave him the power to declare an emergency with no limitations. And in fact, Congress just passed legislation that authorized the wall, plus they authorized it twice before in the past.

 

[Flopper]

It seems that a grave and shocking injustice is being perpetrated on the American by what is being proclaimed in the media that is needed to stop President Donald Trump's power grab in calling a national emergency and re-appropriating money for a southern border wall that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Media reports are setting the bar too high on what is needed to stop President Trump, the media is saying that what is needed is either a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress with the President signing the resolution or both chamber overriding a Presidential veto on the resolution. But if one actually reads the 1976 National emergencies act provisions they only say that each chamber of Congress must pass a concurrent resolution to terminate a Presidential emergency declaration; by definition a concurrent resolution does not need to be submitted to the President for his signature! It is readily achievable for the American people through their representatives in Congress to stop this Presidential power grab!

I don't think you are right on this point, however it is confusing. The act allowed for a legislative veto which required only a simple majority to override the president's veto of termination, however the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha declared this unconstitutional in 1983.

The National Emergencies Act was amended in 1985 to substitute a joint resolution as the vehicle for rescinding a national emergency declaration. There is no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill. Both must be passed, in exactly the same form, by both chambers of Congress, and signed by the President (or, re-passed in override of a presidential veto which requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber.

Joint resolution - Wikipedia
Legislative Veto
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf
National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

The upshot is that in order to stop a presidential declaration of a national emergency, Congress would have to pass a resolution in both houses (60 votes in the Senate) AND it is signed by the President. If he vetoes it, then Congress would have to override his veto with a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Do I have that correct?

It takes a 2/3 vote in both houses to override a presidential veto of a bill or joint resolution. At this point that seems unlikely, however due to the number of allegations and investigations of this president and his people that can certainly change.

 

[miketx]

Did you demand the same of all previous Presidents that declared emergencies? If not, why not.

Because the previous emergencies weren't just a scam to deliver a stupid campaign promise that congress already said no to.

If you look back at national emergencies, almost everyone was based on the need for immediate action such as freezing accounts or other assets of a foreign nation before they could be accessed, support of military actions against a foreign power outside of normal presidential powers, applying or suspending trade agreements critical to negotiations, a national health issue, etc.. I've looked back at over 20 years of national emergencies and they all were all done because they required immediate action; that is they just could not wait for congressional action. I don't believe a single one was issued in order to go against the will of congress. Trump's national emergency seems to be the first.

Apparently the writers of the Nation Emergency Act did not consider that there're would be a president that would use a National Emergency to subvert congress.

Someone needed to subvert the filth.