Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Marco Rubio is a Drooling Idiot for Claiming Trumps Emergency is Unconstitutional

[b]Now Democrats have been making the same claim, but that is just Democrat rhetorical style when the facts get in your way just lie. But Rubio is the same party as Trump, technically anyway, and he has no incentive to challenge Trump on this other than one; he genuinely thinks Trump is violating the Constitution.[/b]

[c=#003BB2]https://thinkprogress.org/adam-schiff-emergency-cnn-interview-f121ec4cc9b1/[/c]

[quote]“This is the first time a president has tried to declare an emergency when Congress explicitly rejected funding for the particular project that the president is advocating,” Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence, said on CNN’s State of the Union.

“And in saying just the other day that he didn’t really need to do this — he just wanted to do it because it would help things go faster — he’s pretty much daring the court to strike this down. So it’s hard to imagine a poorer case.”

Schiff said he sees this moment as a test for Republicans in Congress and whether they will stand up to Trump and deny him the ability to circumvent the legislative branch’s power....

“The [risk] is that we limit the president’s power to act when it really is necessary, when it is not practical to bring the Congress into session on a moment’s notice. But this president doesn’t care about future presidents. He only cares about himself. And in this case, he only cares about placating his conservative critics.”

Trump officially declared a state of emergency Friday, infuriating members of Congress from both parties. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) described it as an “end run around Congress,” while Republicans have raised red flags about the precedent Trump’s decision might set.

“We have a crisis at our southern border, but no crisis justifies violating the Constitution,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said last week, ahead of the declaration, which had been expected for weeks.

“Today’s national emergency is border security. But a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal,” Rubio said.[/quote]

This is just stupid. There is no violation of the Constitution as the law authorizing this emergency declaration is like 40+ years old. Congress can pass a resolution to end it, but the President can veto it. Then Congress would have to have a veto proof majority to make their will stick.

Why would a majority of Republicans in the Senate pull the rug out from under the President of their own party to put in place something that their party really needs, the country really needs and would help save literally thousands of American lives each year?

If it were simple Kuch corruption then I could understand it, but the Kuch brothers always manage to get their way through riders and that sort of thing. They dont need a wall or a lack of wall. They own the Congresscritters in the GOP.

So why would Rubiooo throw himself on his own sword and likely get primaried? OR defeated in the general because Republicans won't turn out for him at the polls in a purple state like Floriduh so he can win?

There is only one answer; the man is as stupid as a CNN reporter.

[c=#BF0000][big]LET THE LIBERAL TROLLING BEGIN[/big][/c]
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
One could easily make the argument that the National Emergencies Act (NEA) (Pub.L. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601–1651) could be deemed unconstitutional as it technically violates the requirement for separation of powers.

No president, until now, has used it to end-run Congress, so it hasn't been wielded in an unconstitutional fashion and therefore hasn't been challenged.

If this goes to the Supreme Court, it's possible that the NEA could be deemed unconstitutional. This could open a can of worms since there are currently 31 active national emergencies (most tie back to Sept 11 and terrorism in general.)

For those of you that don't understand how this all works, just because there's a law that supports what Trump is doing, that does not preclude this being an unconstitutional act. The NEA hasn't been challenged yet, so therefore, the Supreme Court has not been able to rule on its validity.

One solution for Congress might be to establish a voting mechanism to formally ratify the declaration of an emergency. They would need a solution for when Congress isn't in session.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
That’s a good example. On a different thread it appears you and I found common ground. Why can’t THEY? Would you agree that there are problems on BOTH sides? @JoeyFoxx
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@jackjjackson so, I need to walk back my notion of a constitutional challenge. I read more of the law yesterday.

Congress has the ability to override the emergency. The President can then veto it. Congress then needs a 2/3’s majority to overrule the President.

Checks and balances remain in place.

So, yeah. I’m calling bullshit on the Congress people calling this unconstitutional.

This shit is a mess.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Well assuming their staffers were doing their jobs, they knew wthis was inevitable and the travel ban was a template. @JoeyFoxx
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
Or maybe he's just an intellectually honest Conservative who believed in the rule of law. It is rare, I guess.

To bypass Congress you need a national emergency.
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@sunsporter1649 I stole a pack of gum from the corner store when I was 12.

I am a criminal.

Many people who come here illegally would love to have a legal pathway, but many of them do not have the resources.

Other that being here illegally, a vast majority of them are otherwise law-abiding citizens. Using a broad-brush label of "criminal" may be true, but it's not accurate. Or perhaps it's accurate, but it's not precise.

If you don't get this, then yes, you are missing something.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
So you and I have found common ground. If we can why can’t they?@JoeyFoxx
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@JoeyFoxx Took my mother 4 years to get to America, from Poland. She arrived in August, 1939. My grandfather, and her two older brothers, did not make it. So yes, illegal immigration is a sore spot with my family. And among the restrictions was that you had to have a place to live, money in your pocket, and a job waiting for you upon arrival. Somehow just showing up at the border and demanding to be let in holds no water with me.
CheshireCatalyst · 36-40, M
In my job I always plan emergencies several months in advance. It's completely reasonable and ethical.

Then I get to do whatever I want - and have plenty of notice to really organise the shit out of it - because it's an emergency.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
katielass · F
Oh no, it couldn't be unconstitutional. odumbo invoked that privilege 13 times and they supported him in doing it.
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
At no point did Congress object to any of B.O.’s declarations.

In fact, Trump has extended at least 2 of them.

This is literally the first time an “emergency” has been declared for something that was already a going concern

@katielass
katielass · F
@JoeyFoxx Oh but they did. They refused to do what he wanted so he took his little pen and phone and broke the law. His exact words were "I just made law".
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@katielass You are quite literally incorrect. And, I fact-checked myself....

11 of the 13 emergencies declared by Obama have been extended by Trump. The other two either expired or were terminated by Obama himself.

The "made law" comment (which you misquoted by the way) is a reference to a DACA Executive Order. This was not a declared national emergency.

Did Congress support this one? No. But it wasn't explicitly an end-run in that it didn't require funding.

And for the record, even TRUMP supports DACA, at least he said he did recently.

So... want to try again?
TexChik · F
Congress is corrupt and violating the constitution by not following the laws they have passed and were signed by previous presidents
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Little Marco once again lives up to his monicker.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@MyParentsAreProud Straw man.

I have yet to hear anyone deny that we have an immigration (sic. border) crisis. A crisis is not the same as an emergency.

Building a wall solves literally nothing. This is actually the only thing that is being debated.

What Trump has manufactured is a constitutional crisis.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@MyParentsAreProud You are 100% correct.

This is precisely why border protection provisions were included here: H.J.Res.31 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019

Is it enough? Who knows? But the provisions in the spending bill are far more likely to be effective than building a wall that can be defeated with a ladder or a tunnel.

 
Post Comment