Ex GOP sign letter urging GOP to block the NE

[BigDroppa]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/43137...ock-trumps


About a dozen or so signed the bill.  I think they orobaly donâ€t like Trump and his executive power , are worried the Democrats will do the same when they take power someday. 

But Gosh F******g Damn, BP and CBP are requesting the barrier so they donâ€t have to make 60K human herding arrests each month. They are soldiers on the border that say they need it. What we are talking about is 230 miles of wall of a 2000 mile border.This is not a concrete Israeli wall. And also , half the people in the country want a barrier built or reinforced. 

Even if they do block some NE he will divert funds from other pockets of money.

What needs to happen is the US should designate the various Mexican cartels as terror organizations because that is what they are. And if you have terrorist organizations South if the border than any moron should want a wall , more officers and more security( people and technology)  at the PoE and at our shipping ports. 

This wall is assisting BP and CBP to do their jobs. Right now huge resources require these agents to round up people when they could be used at PoE and doing other stuff like combating the Cartel operations. Instead they are bogged down with migrants. These ***** want our BP and CBP to play Red Cross field helpers . 

Nope. Itâ€s about blocking the campaign promise.

[BigDroppa]

I just want to go outside and scream towards the sky

[Alabuckeye]

So, a couple things.....here is their reasoning

We offer two arguments against allowing a president—any president, regardless of party—to circumvent congressional authority. 

One is the constitutional placing of all lawmaking power in the hands of the peopleâ€s representatives. Article 1 of the Constitution, which vests the legislative branch with specific powers, states in section 9: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The power of the purse rests with Congress because it is comprised of 535 representatives of the taxpayer and is the most direct connection between those being governed and those governing. If you allow a president to ignore Congress, it will be not your authority but that of your constituents that is deprived of the protections of true representative government. 

The second argument goes directly to the question each of you must face: how much are you willing to undermine both the Constitution and the Congress in order to advance a policy outcome that by all other legitimate means is not achievable? The current issue—a wall on our southern border—has gone through the process put in place by the Constitution. It has been proposed by the President, it has been debated by Congress, and the representatives of the people allocated funding at a level deemed appropriate by Congress. We understand that there are many Members of Congress who disagree with the final funding compromise reached by a bipartisan group of legislators. To you, we ask this question: what will you do when a president of another party uses the precedent you are establishing to impose policies to which you are unalterably opposed? There is no way around this difficulty: what powers are ceded to a president whose policies you support may also be used by presidents whose policies you abhor. 

I too think there is grave danger that this comes back to bite us as a nation.  I don't think Trump is wrong to place the importance on the wall that he has, I don't think that building a wall is a bad thing.  But I think this step could be a bad thing.

Didn't recognize many of the names of the signers, and of the ones I recognized, I'm only surprised by John Danforth(Mo) and Richard Luger.....maybe I shouldn't be.

[BigDroppa]

The country is reinforcing border area requested by solidiers on the front lines. Itâ€s not walking in the country like Rast Germany. It does NOT stop migrants from going through our Ports of Entry. It creates order

It relives our officers from having to play Red Cross

The cartels are terror organizations the affect the US inside itâ€s borders

[ScarletHayes]

Didn't congress make this bed back in the 1970s? Trump isn't doing anything extra-constitutional or out of the ordinary here.  This is simply the left having an absolute temper tantrum.  Efffff them and the GOP clowns that once campaigned on a wall

[Alabuckeye]

Didn't congress make this bed back in the 1970s? Trump isn't doing anything extra-constitutional or out of the ordinary here.  This is simply the left having an absolute temper tantrum.  Efffff them and the GOP clowns that once campaigned on a wall

And the signer's point is imagining a President Biden or President Harris or President Sanders declaring 'climate change' or 'gun violence' a national emergency and implementing policy to deal with them, over Congress' approval.

[cincydawg]

I'm against an expansion of Presidential power so I'm against the emergency thing, which isn't a real emergency anyway as the term is defined.

[Hightop77]

It should be obvious that many in the GOP want open borders just as much as Democrats do.  They get money from people like the Koch brothers who want cheap foreign labor brought into the country.  It is unbelievable that when any other President used this provision, there was literally zero controversy but with Trump it is a constitutional crisis.

[Alabuckeye]

It should be obvious that many in the GOP want open borders just as much as Democrats do.  They get money from people like the Koch brothers who want cheap foreign labor brought into the country.  It is unbelievable that when any other President used this provision, there was literally zero controversy but with Trump it is a constitutional crisis.

So, you don't think the GOP signers have concern about how this could be used by the next Democratic President and the precedent created?  They are just open border hucksters?

[P1tchblack]

So, a couple things.....here is their reasoning

We offer two arguments against allowing a president—any president, regardless of party—to circumvent congressional authority. 

One is the constitutional placing of all lawmaking power in the hands of the peopleâ€s representatives. Article 1 of the Constitution, which vests the legislative branch with specific powers, states in section 9: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The power of the purse rests with Congress because it is comprised of 535 representatives of the taxpayer and is the most direct connection between those being governed and those governing. If you allow a president to ignore Congress, it will be not your authority but that of your constituents that is deprived of the protections of true representative government. 

The second argument goes directly to the question each of you must face: how much are you willing to undermine both the Constitution and the Congress in order to advance a policy outcome that by all other legitimate means is not achievable? The current issue—a wall on our southern border—has gone through the process put in place by the Constitution. It has been proposed by the President, it has been debated by Congress, and the representatives of the people allocated funding at a level deemed appropriate by Congress. We understand that there are many Members of Congress who disagree with the final funding compromise reached by a bipartisan group of legislators. To you, we ask this question: what will you do when a president of another party uses the precedent you are establishing to impose policies to which you are unalterably opposed? There is no way around this difficulty: what powers are ceded to a president whose policies you support may also be used by presidents whose policies you abhor. 

I too think there is grave danger that this comes back to bite us as a nation.  I don't think Trump is wrong to place the importance on the wall that he has, I don't think that building a wall is a bad thing.  But I think this step could be a bad thing.

Didn't recognize many of the names of the signers, and of the ones I recognized, I'm only surprised by John Danforth(Mo) and Richard Luger.....maybe I shouldn't be.

There is a process to fund government and it's not NE when there is no NE.  These congressmen are 100% correct to oppose this.

[Hightop77]

It should be obvious that many in the GOP want open borders just as much as Democrats do.  They get money from people like the Koch brothers who want cheap foreign labor brought into the country.  It is unbelievable that when any other President used this provision, there was literally zero controversy but with Trump it is a constitutional crisis.

So, you don't think the GOP signers have concern about how this could be used by the next Democratic President and the precedent created?  They are just open border hucksters?

That would be my guess.  Does anyone really believe Democrats are restrained by GOP actions?

[BigDroppa]

The power of the handbag. Approved by the House with the Obama administration.

What they should do is list the Cartels as terroist organizations. That what they are. They are no different than ISIS. They sell their drugs into the US to make money and they torture and murder their rivals. If that isnâ€t a terrorist organization than I donâ€t know what is. They make money by trafficking migrants and tie up our agents . They are on our Southern Border . They make money in the US with their product - drugs and human trafficking.

Is that an emergency or a crisis ? Or is it just horseplay ?

Trump should declare a war on the Mexican cartels and use the NSA , DEA and CIA to launch counter offenselive measures against them.

They did it in Columbia. They did it with ISIS. Why not the Cartels in Mexico. Why not offered assistance to the Mexican to knock them out.

[P1tchblack]

It should be obvious that many in the GOP want open borders just as much as Democrats do.  They get money from people like the Koch brothers who want cheap foreign labor brought into the country.  It is unbelievable that when any other President used this provision, there was literally zero controversy but with Trump it is a constitutional crisis.

So, you don't think the GOP signers have concern about how this could be used by the next Democratic President and the precedent created?  They are just open border hucksters?

I think the GOP should do what's right which is to oppose this abuse of power by Trump.  He overplayed his hand on the shutdown and Dems called his bluff.  He needs to deal with it.

[cincydawg]

Just because a President (and his supporters) think there is a national emergency about something does not in my mind justify a unilateral alteration in spending money appropriate by Congress. We have a system of government that I submit is more important than some fence on the border, even if that is a real need. If a President cannot convince Congress of an emergency, so be it.

[P1tchblack]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) released the following statement regarding the government funding compromise and President Donald Trumpâ€s intention to declare a national emergency on immigration:

“Iâ€m disappointed with both the massive, bloated, secretive bill that just passed and with the presidentâ€s intention to declare an emergency to build a wall. 
“I, too, want stronger border security, including a wall in some areas. But how we do things matters. Over 1,000 pages dropped in the middle of the night and extraconstitutional executive actions are wrong, no matter which party does them.”