Trump's wall idea is dead

[playtime]

normal working people have healthcare , i've had Doctors for 70 years one way or the other . And if i didn't and i had a broken leg i'd just go to the EMERGENCY Room PTime .

that's access to heathcare. that's not having the financial means to pay for it without going brooke. & if you don't have any cash.... then those with health insurance pay for it thru higher premiums & the cost of care.

------------------------------- don't break your legs then and if you do , well thats the time to start all over again PTime .

& if some DUI asshole crashs into you & thru no fault of your own end up with broken everything, then it's time to declare bankruptcy & foreclose on the ol' homstead to pay for that there medical care.

---------------------------------------- quit advocating for letting 'mexican DUI' drunk drivers and WRONG Way freeway drivers into the USA and you will be less likely to get crashed PTime .

& there's the basket dweller comin' out in ya.... c'mon - let's see full tilt deplorable!

 

[playtime]

[basket dwelling DEPLORABLEs , 'I' is Famous eh PTime [chuckle] !!

you crave fame like donny? lol.... fail.

 

[rightwinger]

What it all comes down to is Nancy Pelosi built more wall around her house than Trump built around Mexico

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's true and a veto proof bill to overturn the National Emergencies Act would end it, but there is no such thing as a veto proof majority to end a specific national emergency as I showed you. As long as the President continues to renew the national emergency Congress cannot end it without overturning the National Emergencies Act.

I disagree.

"According to NPR, the National Emergencies Act (which was first enacted in 1976 and then edited after parts of it were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1983)allows Congress to override and veto a national emergency, if each chamber approves the override with a majority vote, and if the president subsequently signs the joint resolution. If the president is unwilling to do that, then both chambers of Congress would need to vote in favor of the resolution by at least a two thirds majority. In that instance, the president's signature would not be needed and the national emergency could end via Congress alone."

Here's What Congress Would Need To Do To Stop A National Emergency

I saw the NPR article, but it does not take into account the 1985 amendment to the Act which requires the President to agree to end an emergency.

The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Congress can override any veto.

The 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act says it can't end any national emergency unless the President agrees, so you should write to your Congress person to tell him or her of your discovery.

Nah I'm pretty sure he took a civics class in Jr. High

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

"The way that Congress set it up," says Vladeck, "was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president's approval."

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

Yes, The President Can Declare A 'National Emergency' To Build A Wall

Again, the NPR article you are quoting has not taken into account the 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act that required the President agree to end a national emergency.

 

[BlindBoo]

I disagree.

"According to NPR, the National Emergencies Act (which was first enacted in 1976 and then edited after parts of it were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1983)allows Congress to override and veto a national emergency, if each chamber approves the override with a majority vote, and if the president subsequently signs the joint resolution. If the president is unwilling to do that, then both chambers of Congress would need to vote in favor of the resolution by at least a two thirds majority. In that instance, the president's signature would not be needed and the national emergency could end via Congress alone."

Here's What Congress Would Need To Do To Stop A National Emergency

I saw the NPR article, but it does not take into account the 1985 amendment to the Act which requires the President to agree to end an emergency.

The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Congress can override any veto.

The 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act says it can't end any national emergency unless the President agrees, so you should write to your Congress person to tell him or her of your discovery.

Nah I'm pretty sure he took a civics class in Jr. High

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

"The way that Congress set it up," says Vladeck, "was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president's approval."

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

Yes, The President Can Declare A 'National Emergency' To Build A Wall

Again, the NPR article you are quoting has not taken into account the 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act that required the President agree to end a national emergency.

That revision was made in response to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. Clearly the article cites that as the reason the act was revised. There is no provision that excludes the Bill from a Congressional Override in case the President vetoes it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I saw the NPR article, but it does not take into account the 1985 amendment to the Act which requires the President to agree to end an emergency.

The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Congress can override any veto.

The 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act says it can't end any national emergency unless the President agrees, so you should write to your Congress person to tell him or her of your discovery.

Nah I'm pretty sure he took a civics class in Jr. High

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

"The way that Congress set it up," says Vladeck, "was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president's approval."

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

Yes, The President Can Declare A 'National Emergency' To Build A Wall

Again, the NPR article you are quoting has not taken into account the 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act that required the President agree to end a national emergency.

That revision was made in response to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. Clearly the article cites that as the reason the act was revised. There is no provision that excludes the Bill from a Congressional Override in case the President vetoes it.

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

 

[BlindBoo]

Congress can override any veto.

The 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act says it can't end any national emergency unless the President agrees, so you should write to your Congress person to tell him or her of your discovery.

Nah I'm pretty sure he took a civics class in Jr. High

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

"The way that Congress set it up," says Vladeck, "was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president's approval."

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

Yes, The President Can Declare A 'National Emergency' To Build A Wall

Again, the NPR article you are quoting has not taken into account the 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act that required the President agree to end a national emergency.

That revision was made in response to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. Clearly the article cites that as the reason the act was revised. There is no provision that excludes the Bill from a Congressional Override in case the President vetoes it.

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act says it can't end any national emergency unless the President agrees, so you should write to your Congress person to tell him or her of your discovery.

Nah I'm pretty sure he took a civics class in Jr. High

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

"The way that Congress set it up," says Vladeck, "was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president's approval."

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

Yes, The President Can Declare A 'National Emergency' To Build A Wall

Again, the NPR article you are quoting has not taken into account the 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act that required the President agree to end a national emergency.

That revision was made in response to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. Clearly the article cites that as the reason the act was revised. There is no provision that excludes the Bill from a Congressional Override in case the President vetoes it.

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nah I'm pretty sure he took a civics class in Jr. High

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

"The way that Congress set it up," says Vladeck, "was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president's approval."

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

Yes, The President Can Declare A 'National Emergency' To Build A Wall

Again, the NPR article you are quoting has not taken into account the 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act that required the President agree to end a national emergency.

That revision was made in response to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. Clearly the article cites that as the reason the act was revised. There is no provision that excludes the Bill from a Congressional Override in case the President vetoes it.

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

No they can override him on any single piece of legislation he vetoes. Here is McConnell talking about the very thing.

"The original intent of the 1975 law was to allow Congress a block a presidential emergency by simple majority vote. But in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto. So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president.

And McConnell said Trump could do exactly that.

"The president could win anyway by vetoing the bill and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it, so may ultimately be able to prevail on the national emergency alternative," McConnell told Fox News on Tuesday.

How congressional Democrats could fight a Trump wall national emergency declaration

Again, Congress would never give up that override power to the Executive.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Again, the NPR article you are quoting has not taken into account the 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act that required the President agree to end a national emergency.

That revision was made in response to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. Clearly the article cites that as the reason the act was revised. There is no provision that excludes the Bill from a Congressional Override in case the President vetoes it.

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

No they can override him on any single piece of legislation he vetoes. Here is McConnell talking about the very thing.

"The original intent of the 1975 law was to allow Congress a block a presidential emergency by simple majority vote. But in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto. So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president.

And McConnell said Trump could do exactly that.

"The president could win anyway by vetoing the bill and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it, so may ultimately be able to prevail on the national emergency alternative," McConnell told Fox News on Tuesday.

How congressional Democrats could fight a Trump wall national emergency declaration

Again, Congress would never give up that override power to the Executive.

From your post,

"So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president."

McConnell is saying any effort by Congress can be stopped by the President.

We could go on an on with this discussion, but it is pointless since there is no way 2/3 of each house will vote against the President.

 

[BlindBoo]

That revision was made in response to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. Clearly the article cites that as the reason the act was revised. There is no provision that excludes the Bill from a Congressional Override in case the President vetoes it.

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

No they can override him on any single piece of legislation he vetoes. Here is McConnell talking about the very thing.

"The original intent of the 1975 law was to allow Congress a block a presidential emergency by simple majority vote. But in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto. So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president.

And McConnell said Trump could do exactly that.

"The president could win anyway by vetoing the bill and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it, so may ultimately be able to prevail on the national emergency alternative," McConnell told Fox News on Tuesday.

How congressional Democrats could fight a Trump wall national emergency declaration

Again, Congress would never give up that override power to the Executive.

From your post,

"So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president."

McConnell is saying any effort by Congress can be stopped by the President.

We could go on an on with this discussion, but it is pointless since there is no way 2/3 of each house will vote against the President.

Not any effort. The Constitution gives Congress the final say "....and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it,"

Of course the point isn't if they will, the point is that they could if they find it necessary. You've been saying this entire tangent they couldn't override a veto no matter what.

 

[dannyboys]

The wonderful irony is Trump is going to use El Chapo's drug cartel money to fund the wall construction.
What will Chuck and Nancy say then?

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

No they can override him on any single piece of legislation he vetoes. Here is McConnell talking about the very thing.

"The original intent of the 1975 law was to allow Congress a block a presidential emergency by simple majority vote. But in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto. So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president.

And McConnell said Trump could do exactly that.

"The president could win anyway by vetoing the bill and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it, so may ultimately be able to prevail on the national emergency alternative," McConnell told Fox News on Tuesday.

How congressional Democrats could fight a Trump wall national emergency declaration

Again, Congress would never give up that override power to the Executive.

From your post,

"So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president."

McConnell is saying any effort by Congress can be stopped by the President.

We could go on an on with this discussion, but it is pointless since there is no way 2/3 of each house will vote against the President.

Not any effort. The Constitution gives Congress the final say "....and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it,"

Of course the point isn't if they will, the point is that they could if they find it necessary. You've been saying this entire tangent they couldn't override a veto no matter what.

Well, since the issue will not be tested, there is no way for us to settle this disagreement.

 

[BlindBoo]

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

No they can override him on any single piece of legislation he vetoes. Here is McConnell talking about the very thing.

"The original intent of the 1975 law was to allow Congress a block a presidential emergency by simple majority vote. But in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto. So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president.

And McConnell said Trump could do exactly that.

"The president could win anyway by vetoing the bill and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it, so may ultimately be able to prevail on the national emergency alternative," McConnell told Fox News on Tuesday.

How congressional Democrats could fight a Trump wall national emergency declaration

Again, Congress would never give up that override power to the Executive.

From your post,

"So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president."

McConnell is saying any effort by Congress can be stopped by the President.

We could go on an on with this discussion, but it is pointless since there is no way 2/3 of each house will vote against the President.

Not any effort. The Constitution gives Congress the final say "....and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it,"

Of course the point isn't if they will, the point is that they could if they find it necessary. You've been saying this entire tangent they couldn't override a veto no matter what.

Well, since the issue will not be tested, there is no way for us to settle this disagreement.

Of course I wasn't sure so I had to research it. But I'll agree to disagree, however I think McConnell's statement pretty much confirms it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

No they can override him on any single piece of legislation he vetoes. Here is McConnell talking about the very thing.

"The original intent of the 1975 law was to allow Congress a block a presidential emergency by simple majority vote. But in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto. So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president.

And McConnell said Trump could do exactly that.

"The president could win anyway by vetoing the bill and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it, so may ultimately be able to prevail on the national emergency alternative," McConnell told Fox News on Tuesday.

How congressional Democrats could fight a Trump wall national emergency declaration

Again, Congress would never give up that override power to the Executive.

From your post,

"So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president."

McConnell is saying any effort by Congress can be stopped by the President.

We could go on an on with this discussion, but it is pointless since there is no way 2/3 of each house will vote against the President.

Not any effort. The Constitution gives Congress the final say "....and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it,"

Of course the point isn't if they will, the point is that they could if they find it necessary. You've been saying this entire tangent they couldn't override a veto no matter what.

Well, since the issue will not be tested, there is no way for us to settle this disagreement.

Of course I wasn't sure so I had to research it. But I'll agree to disagree, however I think McConnell's statement pretty much confirms it.

lol We'll just have to continue to disgree.

 

[conserveguy877]

The wonderful irony is Trump is going to use El Chapo's drug cartel money to fund the wall construction.
What will Chuck and Nancy say then?

That really should happen.

 

[Dragonlady]

Nah I'm pretty sure he took a civics class in Jr. High

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

"The way that Congress set it up," says Vladeck, "was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president's approval."

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

Yes, The President Can Declare A 'National Emergency' To Build A Wall

Again, the NPR article you are quoting has not taken into account the 1985 amendment to the National Emergencies Act that required the President agree to end a national emergency.

That revision was made in response to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. Clearly the article cites that as the reason the act was revised. There is no provision that excludes the Bill from a Congressional Override in case the President vetoes it.

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

7

Once a veto is over-ridden, the President doesn't get a second veto. It's that simply you stupid Russian troll.

 

[Dragonlady]

That revision was made in response to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. Clearly the article cites that as the reason the act was revised. There is no provision that excludes the Bill from a Congressional Override in case the President vetoes it.

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

No they can override him on any single piece of legislation he vetoes. Here is McConnell talking about the very thing.

"The original intent of the 1975 law was to allow Congress a block a presidential emergency by simple majority vote. But in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto. So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president.

And McConnell said Trump could do exactly that.

"The president could win anyway by vetoing the bill and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it, so may ultimately be able to prevail on the national emergency alternative," McConnell told Fox News on Tuesday.

How congressional Democrats could fight a Trump wall national emergency declaration

Again, Congress would never give up that override power to the Executive.

From your post,

"So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president."

McConnell is saying any effort by Congress can be stopped by the President.

We could go on an on with this discussion, but it is pointless since there is no way 2/3 of each house will vote against the President.

The reason why Trump is signing this Bill is because Republican Senators have already warned him that if he doesn't sign it, it will come back to him with a veto-proof majority. 7 Republican senators voted for Nancy Pelosi's House Bill to keep the government open. That's more than voted for Trump's proposal. Since the government re-opened, several other senators have privately told the President, that if he doesn't sign this Bill, they will side with the other 7 Republicans and the Dems to give the Bill a veto-proof majority.

So Trump is gambling that the same senators who threatened the veto, won't side with the Dems to condemn his Declaration of Emergency. I think that once again, Donald Trump will find that he has gambled wrong, just like he gambled wrong on the shutdown.

Trump is now agreeing to a sign deal that gives him less money for the Wall, than the deal McConnell offered him in December. Every day, in every way, the "Great Negotiator" is proving that he's anything but.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol The amendment was made because all presidents objected to Congress being able to end a national emergency without the presidents agreement. The simple fact is the NPR article you are citing made no mention of the 1985 amendment which reversed the the original provision that allowed Congress to end an emergency without the president's agreement. Clearly, the writer did not do her research. I know that to you it is sacrilege to question NPR, but the facts are the facts and the writer clearly did not know about the 1985 amendment.

There was only one revision that came after the Supreme Court ruling in 1983. Here is where the NPR article referenced both.

"That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress' response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override."

Furthermore, I don't believe there has ever been a law passed by congress that rescinds their Veto Overriding Power. That is part of their Constitutional Authority.

"After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powersgrounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress."

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

If 2/3 of both houses vote to terminate the National Emergencies Act, then the emergency would also be terminated, but while the Act remains in effect, an emergency cannot be terminated by Congress without the President's consent.

No they can override him on any single piece of legislation he vetoes. Here is McConnell talking about the very thing.

"The original intent of the 1975 law was to allow Congress a block a presidential emergency by simple majority vote. But in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto. So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president.

And McConnell said Trump could do exactly that.

"The president could win anyway by vetoing the bill and then trying to get enough votes to sustain it, so may ultimately be able to prevail on the national emergency alternative," McConnell told Fox News on Tuesday.

How congressional Democrats could fight a Trump wall national emergency declaration

Again, Congress would never give up that override power to the Executive.

From your post,

"So now, any joint resolution by Congress to terminate an emergency can be vetoed by the president."

McConnell is saying any effort by Congress can be stopped by the President.

We could go on an on with this discussion, but it is pointless since there is no way 2/3 of each house will vote against the President.

The reason why Trump is signing this Bill is because Republican Senators have already warned him that if he doesn't sign it, it will come back to him with a veto-proof majority. 7 Republican senators voted for Nancy Pelosi's House Bill to keep the government open. That's more than voted for Trump's proposal. Since the government re-opened, several other senators have privately told the President, that if he doesn't sign this Bill, they will side with the other 7 Republicans and the Dems to give the Bill a veto-proof majority.

So Trump is gambling that the same senators who threatened the veto, won't side with the Dems to condemn his Declaration of Emergency. I think that once again, Donald Trump will find that he has gambled wrong, just like he gambled wrong on the shutdown.

Trump is now agreeing to a sign deal that gives him less money for the Wall, than the deal McConnell offered him in December. Every day, in every way, the "Great Negotiator" is proving that he's anything but.

Is that what your magic eight ball told you?

 

[basquebromance]

what's the point of having a door if it doesn't lock? what's the point of having a border if there's no wall?