First Trump Veto

[billisonboard]

It is totally fitting that the first Trump veto involves the Constitutional issue of an overstepping of Presidential authority. This situation will be significant in the history of our nation.

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." link

[billisonboard]

House Effort to Override Trump Veto on National Emergency Measure Comes Up Short

The President of the United States now has the power of the purse, US Constitution be dammed.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2019 22:15:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

House Effort to Override Trump Veto on National Emergency Measure Comes Up Short

The President of the United States now has the power of the purse, US Constitution be dammed.

how will Republicans feel when the next Democratic president uses this power for healthcare?

[OldCoyote]

Mar 26, 2019 23:25:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 26, 2019 22:15:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

House Effort to Override Trump Veto on National Emergency Measure Comes Up Short

The President of the United States now has the power of the purse, US Constitution be dammed.

how will Republicans feel when the next Democratic president uses this power for healthcare?

Do you know how far down the road that is going to be??

[Tennesseer]

Mar 26, 2019 23:25:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 26, 2019 22:15:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

House Effort to Override Trump Veto on National Emergency Measure Comes Up Short

The President of the United States now has the power of the purse, US Constitution be dammed.

how will Republicans feel when the next Democratic president uses this power for healthcare?

Or national emergency on firearms.

[OldCoyote]

Trump beat the Veto, now that Muller thing is out of the way,,,,

It is full speed ahead,  Great results from the Tariff are going to kick in,,

The Wall is going to be built!

Now with Trump in control,, with all those petty little issues out of the way,

The economy is going ahead full steam, Hang on for the ride!!

Trump is Making America Great Again!!!!

Wooooooo Hooooooo!!!!

I had a young business man talking with me right after Obama first presidental win,, He was taking over every fail business(in our in of business) he could,

I told told him that I would not be doing that, I cautioned him about him doing it, he did it anyway.

His reason,,, Now that Obama has been elected, the Economy is going to come roaring back,, his exact words!

He was going to make a ton of money,,,,

He is also no longer in business!

So My post on top maybe a slight stretch,, , I am only putting this here to see if you read this far.

[OldCoyote]

Mar 27, 2019 9:14:27 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 26, 2019 23:25:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how will Republicans feel when the next Democratic president uses this power for healthcare?

Or national emergency on firearms.

Go for, you might learn how much Americans, like their Second Amendment!

including several of my Democrat friends, most of which don't care about politics,

But would protect their guns,

[andi9899]

Mar 27, 2019 9:13:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Mar 26, 2019 23:25:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how will Republicans feel when the next Democratic president uses this power for healthcare?

Do you know how far down the road that is going to be??

2020 isn't that far away.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 27, 2019 9:13:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Mar 26, 2019 23:25:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how will Republicans feel when the next Democratic president uses this power for healthcare?

Do you know how far down the road that is going to be??

i have a good guess.

less than 100 weeks.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 27, 2019 9:40:44 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Mar 27, 2019 9:14:27 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Or national emergency on firearms.

Go for, you might learn how much Americans, like their Second Amendment!

including several of my Democrat friends, most of which don't care about politics,

But would protect their guns,

emergency powers are quite broad.  if a president can suspend Habeas Corpus (which is in the constitution), he can certainly restrain arms.

[billisonboard]

Mar 27, 2019 9:36:23 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

...
It is full speed ahead, ...

which is the point of the OP. Congress has fully relinquished it power to control allocation of government funds. Now it is left to the Supreme Court to defend the separation of powers since Congress rolled over. Will they?

[OldCoyote]

Mar 27, 2019 9:55:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 27, 2019 9:13:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Do you know how far down the road that is going to be??

i have a good guess.

less than 100 weeks.

[OldCoyote]

Mar 27, 2019 9:42:59 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

Mar 27, 2019 9:13:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Do you know how far down the road that is going to be??

2020 isn't that far away.

Well then, they need come up with some one better than they have now!

[swamp]

Mar 27, 2019 10:22:29 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Mar 27, 2019 9:42:59 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

2020 isn't that far away.

Well then, they need come up with some one better than they have now!

Oh, there is a democratic candidate chosen?  

Could you tell us who it is, because the rest of us are only aware of about 12 to 16 people who have declared their candidacy. 

[OldCoyote]

Mar 27, 2019 10:25:30 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 27, 2019 10:22:29 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Well then, they need come up with some one better than they have now!

Oh, there is a democratic candidate chosen?  

Could you tell us who it is, because the rest of us are only aware of about 12 to 16 people who have declared their candidacy. 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 27, 2019 10:22:29 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Mar 27, 2019 9:42:59 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

2020 isn't that far away.

Well then, they need come up with some one better than they have now!

not really.  they only have to be better than Trump, which is a very low hurdle.

[OldCoyote]

Mar 27, 2019 10:36:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 27, 2019 10:22:29 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Well then, they need come up with some one better than they have now!

not really.  they only have to be better than Trump, which is a very low hurdle.

No one has made that low hurdle yet.

[swamp]

Mar 27, 2019 10:37:42 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Mar 27, 2019 10:36:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not really.  they only have to be better than Trump, which is a very low hurdle.

No one has made that low hurdle yet.

yeah, maybe because there haven't been any primaries yet?    

[djAdvocate]

Mar 27, 2019 10:37:42 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Mar 27, 2019 10:36:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not really.  they only have to be better than Trump, which is a very low hurdle.

No one has made that low hurdle yet.

i realize that.  here is my point....

in 2016 everyone figured that Clinton was a shoo-in.

the GOP ran a clown car of candidates.

the primary produced Trump.

most Democrats thought he was the most beatable candidate.

Trump won.

so, that PROCESS got you victory.

what makes you think that PROCESS won't produce the same result for Democrats?

[OldCoyote]

Mar 27, 2019 10:53:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 27, 2019 10:37:42 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

No one has made that low hurdle yet.

i realize that.  here is my point....

in 2016 everyone figured that Clinton was a shoo-in.

the GOP ran a clown car of candidates.

the primary produced Trump.

most Democrats thought he was the most beatable candidate.

Trump won.

so, that PROCESS got you victory.

what makes you think that PROCESS won't produce the same result for Democrats?

That pretty much what I said, A Demo = of Trump,,

Because the fragmentation of the candidates, going in different directions,, each with their group of followers,

it is like the Bernie followers that didn't vote for Clinton.. Which included both of my oldest grandsons!

[swamp]

Mar 27, 2019 10:53:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 27, 2019 10:37:42 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

No one has made that low hurdle yet.

i realize that.  here is my point....

in 2016 everyone figured that Clinton was a shoo-in.

the GOP ran a clown car of candidates.

the primary produced Trump.

most Democrats thought he was the most beatable candidate.

Trump won.

so, that PROCESS got you victory.

what makes you think that PROCESS won't produce the same result for Democrats?

Because Dems bad (scratches armpit) 

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2019 22:15:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

House Effort to Override Trump Veto on National Emergency Measure Comes Up Short

The President of the United States now has the power of the purse, US Constitution be dammed.

Veto's aren't able to be overridden ?

Per the Constitution ?

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2019 23:25:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 26, 2019 22:15:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

House Effort to Override Trump Veto on National Emergency Measure Comes Up Short

The President of the United States now has the power of the purse, US Constitution be dammed.

how will Republicans feel when the next Democratic president uses this power for healthcare?

They 'might' like it, or not ?

[billisonboard]

Mar 27, 2019 11:55:27 GMT -5 @x said:

Mar 26, 2019 22:15:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

House Effort to Override Trump Veto on National Emergency Measure Comes Up Short

The President of the United States now has the power of the purse, US Constitution be dammed.

Veto's aren't able to be overridden ?

Per the Constitution ?

Yes, and in this obvious power grab it wasn't. But "As long as you don't hit me in the future ..."

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2019 11:59:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 27, 2019 11:55:27 GMT -5 @x said:

Veto's aren't able to be overridden ?

Per the Constitution ?

Yes, and in this obvious power grab it wasn't. But "As long as you don't hit me in the future ..."

This scenario of using defense funds to control illegal border crossing was always a possibility.

Invasion isn't defined by the size, or backstory of the invaders.

[billisonboard]

Mar 27, 2019 12:05:03 GMT -5 @x said:

Mar 27, 2019 11:59:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Yes, and in this obvious power grab it wasn't. But "As long as you don't hit me in the future ..."

This scenario of using defense funds to control illegal border crossing was always a possibility.

Invasion isn't defined by the size, or backstory of the invaders.

The reason for abuse is irrelevant. Constitutionally the President "recommends" (Article II Section 3) and Congress is charged with "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;" (Article I, Section 9(7)). President Trump recommending allocating the funds for a wall. Congress told him no. You can "teenager" it all you want but it is what it is, abuse of presidential power.

[billisonboard]

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Member of Congress

However, I cannot approve of this unilateral action by the president - just as I could not approve of such unilateral action by any president.

Here's why:

I am 100 percent for the Constitution and the rule of law. Whether it's for border security or protecting the balance of powers in the Constitution, upholding the rule of law is foundational to our system of government. I take this seriously because disregard for the law only leads to more abuse, dysfunction, and corruption. Congress must reassert itself as the primary branch of government.​​​​​​​

I am 100 percent with President Trump for building the wall, but this declaration maintains the status quo. Securing our border is foundational to who we are as a sovereign nation. Unfortunately, this national emergency declaration tests the limits of executive authority and could be tied up in the courts for years with no guarantee judges will rule in our favor for the wall.​​​​​​​

Unilateral executive actions undermine representative government. As we depart from Constitutional principles of governance by the people, Congress becomes more dysfunctional and power concentrates in one branch of government. That's why I was against the previous administration using a pen and phone to act alone on DACA, reappropriate money to implement Obamacare, and, in my opinion, regulate every mud puddle in America. Remember, the previous president initially said he couldn't act alone on DACA because he wasn't a king or an emperor. After a robust debate in Congress, he changed his mind and took executive action. His executive action took away Congress's authority to act and DACA still isn't solved.

Unilateral executive actions turn Representatives into bystanders. Article I of the Constitution gives the legislative branch the exclusive power to make laws and set funding priorities. When that power is delegated to the executive or judicial branches, Representatives become irrelevant and so do you. When Congress is marginalized, "We, the People" are minimized as governance falls to a powerful executive branch. We are powerless against a faceless bureaucrat.

It sets a bad precedent that when the legislative branch doesn't reach an agreement, it's okay for the executive branch to act unilaterally. Where does that take us? Governor Jay Inslee has already said he would be willing to declare a national emergency on climate change, allowing drastic federal action that would never have to be approved by Congress.

What would this precedent mean for the future? What if, without my say or any Congressional approval, a future President used a national emergency to take money from our VA clinics, Fairchild Air Force Base, or forest management at the Colville National Forest, to force the Green New Deal on the American people?

Bottom line: It's Congress's job to provide the resources our nation needs to keep us safe, and that is my priority. We need to secure the border, and I will continue to vote for President Trump's border security priorities. To achieve these goals, we need a solution that won't get held up in court, doesn't weaken your voice in Congress, and won't minimize your ability to hold the federal government accountable.

My vote to disapprove of unlateral executive action had nothing to do with the merits of building President Trump's wall - I support it. It was a vote based on my deeply held conviction that we must reassert the people's ability to speak through their representatives in Congress. That's the best way to keep us free and protect our liberty. It's our call to put aside any personal ambition or partisan divides, so individual power is protected and the next generation can freely pursue their own version of the American Dream.

It isn't about political parties; personalities; or power - it never has been. It's about making certain the Promise of America is never breached and knowing the only ones who can preserve it are "We, the People."

Thanks,

[djAdvocate]

Mar 27, 2019 11:04:37 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Mar 27, 2019 10:53:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i realize that.  here is my point....

in 2016 everyone figured that Clinton was a shoo-in.

the GOP ran a clown car of candidates.

the primary produced Trump.

most Democrats thought he was the most beatable candidate.

Trump won.

so, that PROCESS got you victory.

what makes you think that PROCESS won't produce the same result for Democrats?

That pretty much what I said, A Demo = of Trump,,

Because the fragmentation of the candidates, going in different directions,, each with their group of followers,

it is like the Bernie followers that didn't vote for Clinton.. Which included both of my oldest grandsons!

I would argue that Trump is a uniquely Republican phenomena.

as to the "not following" part, if Bernie wins, and he very well may, that will end the argument.

and since neither of us can predict that, it is useless to speculate.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2019 12:51:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Member of Congress

However, I cannot approve of this unilateral action by the president - just as I could not approve of such unilateral action by any president.

Here's why:

I am 100 percent for the Constitution and the rule of law. Whether it's for border security or protecting the balance of powers in the Constitution, upholding the rule of law is foundational to our system of government. I take this seriously because disregard for the law only leads to more abuse, dysfunction, and corruption. Congress must reassert itself as the primary branch of government.​​​​​​​

I am 100 percent with President Trump for building the wall, but this declaration maintains the status quo. Securing our border is foundational to who we are as a sovereign nation. Unfortunately, this national emergency declaration tests the limits of executive authority and could be tied up in the courts for years with no guarantee judges will rule in our favor for the wall.​​​​​​​

Unilateral executive actions undermine representative government. As we depart from Constitutional principles of governance by the people, Congress becomes more dysfunctional and power concentrates in one branch of government. That's why I was against the previous administration using a pen and phone to act alone on DACA, reappropriate money to implement Obamacare, and, in my opinion, regulate every mud puddle in America. Remember, the previous president initially said he couldn't act alone on DACA because he wasn't a king or an emperor. After a robust debate in Congress, he changed his mind and took executive action. His executive action took away Congress's authority to act and DACA still isn't solved.

Unilateral executive actions turn Representatives into bystanders. Article I of the Constitution gives the legislative branch the exclusive power to make laws and set funding priorities. When that power is delegated to the executive or judicial branches, Representatives become irrelevant and so do you. When Congress is marginalized, "We, the People" are minimized as governance falls to a powerful executive branch. We are powerless against a faceless bureaucrat.

It sets a bad precedent that when the legislative branch doesn't reach an agreement, it's okay for the executive branch to act unilaterally. Where does that take us? Governor Jay Inslee has already said he would be willing to declare a national emergency on climate change, allowing drastic federal action that would never have to be approved by Congress.

What would this precedent mean for the future? What if, without my say or any Congressional approval, a future President used a national emergency to take money from our VA clinics, Fairchild Air Force Base, or forest management at the Colville National Forest, to force the Green New Deal on the American people?

Bottom line: It's Congress's job to provide the resources our nation needs to keep us safe, and that is my priority. We need to secure the border, and I will continue to vote for President Trump's border security priorities. To achieve these goals, we need a solution that won't get held up in court, doesn't weaken your voice in Congress, and won't minimize your ability to hold the federal government accountable.

My vote to disapprove of unlateral executive action had nothing to do with the merits of building President Trump's wall - I support it. It was a vote based on my deeply held conviction that we must reassert the people's ability to speak through their representatives in Congress. That's the best way to keep us free and protect our liberty. It's our call to put aside any personal ambition or partisan divides, so individual power is protected and the next generation can freely pursue their own version of the American Dream.

It isn't about political parties; personalities; or power - it never has been. It's about making certain the Promise of America is never breached and knowing the only ones who can preserve it are "We, the People."

Thanks,

I'll have to say, Cathy talking about "protecting the balance of power" and also stating that Congress should "reassert itself as the primary branch" in the first paragraph, sounds like opinionated nonsense.

Interesting way for her to be 100% for the Constitution.

As in 3 branches, separate but equal.

I didn't read past that first paragraph.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2019 10:44:15 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 27, 2019 10:37:42 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

No one has made that low hurdle yet.

yeah, maybe because there haven't been any primaries yet?    

The hurdle was higher in 2016 ?