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

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.

https://thinkprogress.org/adam-schiff-emergency-cnn-interview-f121ec4cc9b1/

“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.

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.

LET THE LIBERAL TROLLING BEGIN
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@jackjjackson Hi Jack. Lovely to see you too.

Your contributions are enlightened as always.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
I try to keep it real and accurate JF. The Dems are playing games and costing all of us money. @JoeyFoxx
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@jackjjackson And the Republicans too.

What shall we do about this?
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
The barrier where needed will get built. Jerking everyone around for political gain wastes our money and insults our intelligence. @JoeyFoxx
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@jackjjackson Thank you Jack for supporting my point.

The barrier where needed will get built.


Congress never objected to funding wall reinforcements. So, where it's needed, it will get built. That has been in every plan presented to the President in the last 13 months.

He's the one jerking people around for political gain. He's the one shutting down the government and sending members of the military to food banks.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Except Congress never authorized the funds for the barrier that Congress approved in 2006. @JoeyFoxx
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
Not accurate.

Barrier construction was completed for a large majority of the barricade called for in 2006. There was a Republican Senator who wrote legislation to amend the bill according to construction limitations as determined by DHS.

Using partial truths to make your point is the best way to undermine your position.

@jackjjackson
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
You’re of the opinion that additional barriers are not necessary? Should repairs or improving on the existing barriers occur?@JoeyFoxx
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@jackjjackson without question. There's no point in having a barrier that isn't maintained. That said, barriers alone are insufficient. Solutions leveraging technology (heat sensors, drones, etc) are far more reliable and less expensive.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Shouldn’t all possible technologies be used?@JoeyFoxx
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@jackjjackson define possible.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Whatever apolitical border authorities recommend. @JoeyFoxx
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@jackjjackson Like the Department of Homeland Security, who specifically asked for provisions of the 2006 order to be changed.
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