The senators did this To stop future abuse of power by democrats. It won’t
stop that. It’s to naive to think they can reverse executive powers
regarding emergencies. It’s subjective and decided by who’s got the
most power. They aren’t clawing back any powers that they don’t
I might agree with the author except Congress has not fulfilled its obligation
to the American people in having proper border security ensuring the sovereignty
of this country. There is an appropriate aphorism, but, it is not for tender
ears. Suffice it to say, Trump has said he is for America first, meaning we can
and should do good around the world, but not at the price of cutting our own
throats. Not many Democrats and never-Trumpers agree. So the old joke about
opposites -pro and con; i.e. progress and Congress. Unfortunately for us
It has always been within congress' purview to rescind or amend this law in
order to restore the balance of powers of the Executive. No action has been
taken other than "concern" expressed with furrowed brows accompanied by
"harrumphing" for the cameras. Both parties have had super-majorities
within the last decades yet nothing was done. For all the heartfelt angst
expressed by both House and Senate members - including UT senators Lee and
Romney - the actual actions are nonexistent. No one with any understanding of
the Constitution desires an actual usurpation of the enumerated powers, yet
congress had little concern in abdicating large segments of their powers to the
Executive with little complaint. No one took their lunch money. They
couldn't give it away fast enough in favor of more fundraising and less
work. President Trump is not a creature of D.C. He is a NY real estate developer
who knows how to get things done no matter the difficulty. Bemoan his methods,
vocabulary, posture, and combativeness yet the results are manifest. Pretty in
ain't. So what.
I am a Trump supporter, but before Trump or any leader, I support the
Constitution. I do not support the use of presidential emergency powers to
redirect funds for a border wall/barrier. This should be done legislatively. He
and the DHS need to take the message to the American public and gain their
support and toss the Democrats out for encouraging and allowing illegal
immigration - for Democrat VOTES!What I object to is that Obama did
much of the same thing with his phone and pen during his presidency and ruled be
executive fiat and there wasn't so much as a peep from either party. It is
time to reign in unilateral presidential powers; however, we should not reign in
a Republican president and not hold a Democrat president to the exact same
standard. Either we support the Constitution, or we do not. If we do not, then
the country is lost.
What REALLY needs to happen is for voters to come to their senses and vote EVERY
one of our current Congress out of office and replace them with people who will
place America before their party.
The only reason anyone is talking about Emergency Powers is that this time it is
about shaking up the status quo on illegal immigration. But the political donor
class does not want any changes because they benefit from illegal immigration,
so doing nothing is the thing to do. Funny how the goal of Progressives is to
@2 bits "I agree. But why did you not care or complain about this until
now?"What do you mean? I complained loudly when Obama did this.
He's not the president anymore.This isn't a party thing. I
don't belong to a party. It's an American thing.
No, 2 bits, your argument is hollow. You don't get to sit there and bemoan
the failures of Congress to act on issues needing our attention, and in the same
breath defend a president who is usurping a power that no predecessor has
before. It's a wholly inconsistent position. Presidents have
waged a back and forth with Congress over their powers since the beginning.
Sometimes they win out, sometimes Congress overrides them, and sometimes the
judiciary overrules them. Everything you're complaining of falls into that
realm.But no one has tried grabbing the powers of the purse like
this before. If you can't see how that glaring detail separates this
situation from all the others, and why that compelled a number of senators from
Trump's own party to vote against him, then you are indeed missing the core
issue of what is happening.This is unprecedented, but you categorize
it with everything that has happened before, and as a result have normalized it
with everything that has happened before. That is a mistake.You
can't complain that Congress has given up too much and then shrug off
executive efforts to grab more without owning the blame for the very thing you
@ Red Smith"In 24 hours a gang banger can cross the border and
be in Utah. That's a fact."That is peddling fear and that
needs to be called out. Utah has plenty of gangs and gang members
now and most of them are home-grown.
@Reb1:43RE: "You guys don't even understand what Congress voted
on yesterday or why"...---It's you who doesn't
understand that we are talking about a more broad context. Not just yesterday.
But the years and years Congress has been making itself irrelevant (because
they can't do anything, because of partisanship).The discussion
here isn't limited to yesterday. Take a step back and look at the whole
problem, not just one instance of the problem. The whole history of Congress
being unable to do anything, so Presidents have to do something anyway.We don't have to limit our conversation to abuses involving the
power-of-the-purse just because you want it limited to that one instance. We
can also discuss President's overriding Congress because they won't
act on Immigration/DACA, ACA, etc... any priority the President feels is urgent
but Congress won't do anything.We don't have to limit
discussion to one instance, or one President, or just President's
overriding Congress on spending. This is a bigger issue. And it goes way
back. Before 2016. If you can broaden your focus.
2 bits,The wall was a discussion point in the campaign you are
correct, you did however mention that the discussion point was Mexico was paying
for it which he said over 200 times. He also did discuss all the gang members
crossing the border in the campaign, but what about the first year of his
presidency? Not so much. He promised better health care at a lower cost
covering more people on day one of his presidency. Didn't happen. He had
a chance to get a big beautiful 25 billion dollar wall his first year and he
walked away from the deal. My point is, it is a problem, not an
emergency. It only became an emergency when he thought he could send troops to
the border and scare people into voting for Republicans in the mid terms and
then again when Ann and Rush called him out at Christmas time. I
can agree that something needs to be done on the border and has needed to be
done for years. Both parties are at fault. But an emergency is different than
a problem and circumventing congress to get what you want is a problem, and I
don't care who did it before, and yes you are right congress is the bigger
problem both R's and D's. They have become useless and non
@unrepentant progressiveHere's your post with "Obama"
substituted for "Trump" and it's exactly how we felt for eight
years."I don't really know how you can knock this
editorial.""I am sure [Obama] supporters will find a way and
we should be mindful of their arguments." To date, most of those
[Obama] talking points point to a dangerous mindset that allows unilateral power
to one person. Decidely not the intent of our founders and inimical to
"However, you and your ilk forget that it was Conservatives who were saying
that all of the powers that Congress has signed over to the President should be
looked at and cut off."Then why in the world are you supporting
Trump's grab of Article I appropriations powers to do the very thing you
claim to have been warning us of? That makes no sense at all.Oh,
wait. He's doing it for a policy *you* support. So much for standing on
your conservative principles."They were Silent when Obama did
the Dream Act even when he said he didn't have the power to do it."Tell me again where Obama infringed on the power of the purse to
reprogram funds appropriated by Congress to fund an ill-defined project with no
cost estimate that won't solve the problem, that a majority of Americans
oppose, and which Congress explicitly refused to support. You guys
don't even understand what Congress voted on yesterday or why."Most national emergencies declared since the National Emergencies Act of
1974 passed are still active today."The power to declare
emergencies isn't the Constitutional issue here, nor is their duration.
Again, completely whiffing on what's happening here.
If Congress really wanted to exercise their responsibilities they could start by
producing an actual budget instead of running the government on continuing
@Nate 10:50 RE: "By default, an emergency should expire"...---I agree. But why did you not care or complain about this until
now?Most national emergencies declared since the National
Emergencies Act of 1974 passed are still active today.There are
currently 28 active national emergencies in America today.Google
"Here are the 28 active national emergencies - CNNPolitics - CNN"...---"George W. Bush declared 13 emergencies and Barack Obama declared
12 -- nearly all of which are still active today. Bill Clinton declared 17
national emergencies, six of which are still active. Ronald Reagan declared six
and George H.W. Bush declared four -- but all of those have been revoked by
now"...The first declaration under the National Emergencies Act
of 1974 is still active today (Iran hostage crisis).Why is that
still active today?Why does Congress not care if that one expires?
@Fred44RE: "President Trump took office apparently no emergency
because this was not a discussion point"...---You don't
remember Trump talking about Illegal Immigration, and a wall, before he took
office? Seriously?It was a discussion-point in his campaign. And
the first 2 years he was in office. But nothing got done (in Congress). So he
felt he had to declare it an Emergency so they would do something, or he would
have to act without them (like President Obama finally decided to do when he
wrote his Executive Order on Immigration, after years of Congress refusing to do
anything, or pass anything)It only became an Emergency because
Congress refused to act in the first 2 years. If they had done something about
border security then... he wouldn't have had to go over their heads and
declare it an emergency later.I know it's Republican's
fault. Especially Republican leadership. They are the reason nothing got done
in the first 2 years.They don't like Trump. He's not one
of them. He's not an Establishment-Republican. Trump was the
non-Establishment candidate in the Republican Primary. Est-Republicans dislike
Trump almost as much as they dislike Democrats.
Trump has every right to use the national defense budget to defend our nation
from foreign invaders. Mike Lee doesn’t think it’s constitutional to
defend our border but seems to think his socialist cradle to grave act is. We might as well change the name of the Department of Defense to the
department of war and regime change since that’s all it has become.
Congress has become almost irrelevant, and needs to take it's power back.
But I disagree that it started with Trump.I've been complaining
about Congress willingly giving away their power to the Executive Branch, and
Presidents overreach and constantly overriding Congress for a long time.It's mostly Congress' fault (IMO). They kinda force the
President/Executive Branch to act and override Congress, because they refuse to
do anything, or pass anything, until it's an Emergency. Even a budget.Obama had to override them on Border Security (with an Executive Order)
because Congress failed to pass anything.Presidents who have to deal
with a "Do Nothing Congress" often decided to do something themselves
(if Congress won't act).We always have a "Party of
No"... People in Congress who won't let ANYTHING get done.-When Obama was President... Republicans were the party-of-no.-Bush
era... Democrats were the party-of-no (and pledged to block everything Bush
wanted, and to make him a one-term-president)-Today Democrats are the
party-of-no again.In the past Congress did nothing when Pres
overrode them. I'm glad they're finally deciding to become Relevant.
President Trump took office apparently no emergency because this was not a
discussion point. End of President Trumps first year no emergency because this
was not even talked about. Right before the mid-term in year two apparently
there was an emergency because we sent troops to the border. The emergency
apparently ended around Thanksgiving (after the election) because we sent troops
home again. Then the emergency occurred at Christmas when Rush and Ann called
the President out on the wall, but it wasn't enough of an emergency to send
troops. But now it is an emergency to that requires the President to go around
congress to build a little section of wall in a few years, but not enough of an
emergency that we need troops. Hard to follow how this constitutes
an emergency to simply build part of a wall that the President promised over 200
times that Mexico would be paying for.
There was too much ID politics, too much unfair trade, too many illegal aliens,
too many radical ideas about free stuff and Obamacare...and Trump stepped into
the void to fill the need.Interestingly, Congress continues to act
as if nothing happened. Both parties are still out-of-touch.The
Democrat candidates are doubling down with far-left solutions. The GOP cowers,
hoping to maintain the status quo of powerMedia outlets continue to
spout the nonsensical narrative that immigration control=racism.
Mike Lee: keep pushing on this. By default, an emergency should expire. If it
continues to be an emergency, Congress can acknowledge it and provide continued
"I will bet when the democrats take the white house and congress again which
they will eventually no party stays in power forever they try to do a national
emergency on something and I highly doubt not one democrat will say
no......"And that is why we need to role back some of this
power. We need to keep Congress, or the White House from being able to act
unilaterally on anything. We don't want Congress to make it their mission
to make any President fail, else the whole thing fails. There needs to be
incentive to work together, on common goals, through compromise legislation,
that no side feels they had their way over the other side.If only
one side feels they are winning, then the system will fail. It relies on
balance between the three parts. Balance - not domination.
Yes, now they can focus on upping our debt even more.
We are not safe. Crime, drugs, violence, rape, MS-13, terrorists are flooding
in our neighborhoods.So disappointed in Utah Senator Lee and Romney.
We are not safe. Congress has failed our nation for decades with thousands
dead, assaulted, and raped. Regardless of party, we must have law
and order which includes border security. In 24 hours a gang banger can cross
the border and be in Utah. That's a fact.
Lee and Mitt lost my vote.
The number one purpose of government is to protect its people.If
it's just one person or a million you protect the ones you represent!
To "unrepentant progressive" this is my response to you "wherefore,
the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very
center."But the word ilk means "sort or kind". If you
don't like being associated with the Progressives, then change your mindset
and change your ilk.
RedshirtcaltechYou lost your point by repeated use of the word
"ilk". This does not educate, it inflames.However, that
must be precisely the way you wish to handle this.
President Trump is a blessing to get "nothing gets done Congress" to
move and do their job for the citizens of this country.
Nancyblv -- They were Silent when Obama did the Dream Act even when he said he
didn't have the power to do it. So you are right -- they would be silent if
a Democratic pres. did it again. Those republicans senators who voted against it
felt they were doing the right thing but offered no solutions to the Emergency
at the border
This editorial is not unexpected from a pro-amnesty newspaper. While addressing
the balance of power, it fails to mention the third player - the court. And
circuit court injunctions are way out-of-hand. Yet that doesn't seem to
bother the editor.Curiously, the editor offers no solution to the
immigration problem, a problem for decades now. The message from 2016 was that
the voters were tired of talk and wanted action. They voted for a president
candid enough to speak his mind about the problem.Outside the
political realm, the average American wants to see solutions. The old saying,
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing
it," still rings true for Americans.Now and then an Andrew
Jackson or Teddy Roosevelt comes along and makes waves through bold action.Trump has already disappointed many of us for lacking the boldness we
had hoped for. (Not that it has been easy to press forward each day.)Time will tell. But complaining about process while ignoring the
REASON for the problem in the first place is short-sighted at best.The editor misses the mark.
I can (sort of anyway) understand the need for halting an impasse from the
senate and congress by an executive order on some occasions, especially during a
REAL national emergency. The definition of a REAL emergency no doubt would be
subject to translation. None the less, it is quite clear that trump
is overstepping the authority given him to use "national emergency" as a
fear factor in trying to get his way. He has done enough by separating families
at the southern border to begin with. That to me is a true "national
Emergency." Tragic indeed.
@unrepentant progressive - Bozeman, MTMarch 15, 2019 6:11 a.m.I
don't really know how you can knock this editorial.I am sure Trump
supporters will find a way and we should be mindful of their arguments."See post from nancybLV.
To "unrepentant progressive" we will most likely see a lot of your ilk
using this to bash Trump. However, you and your ilk forget that it was
Conservatives who were saying that all of the powers that Congress has signed
over to the President should be looked at and cut off. Congress should do their
job as listed in the Constitution and not give their powers to the President.
67 senators are required for a veto-proof majority, not 60
I will bet when the democrats take the white house and congress again which they
will eventually no party stays in power forever they try to do a national
emergency on something and I highly doubt not one democrat will say no......
I don't really know how you can knock this editorial.I am sure
Trump supporters will find a way and we should be mindful of their arguments.
To date, most of those Trump talking points point to a dangerous
mindset that allows unilateral power to one person. Decidely not the intent of
our founders and inimical to Constitutional principles.