Enough Republicans voted for it, but it is not enough to make it veto proof. So this puts it squarely on Trump. If he wants it he has got to veto it. Which means the legality of it falls squarely on him.
Opinions?
Legality isn’t in question. The President, House and Senate are following the guidelines laid out in the 1976 legislation, giving Trump the power to do exactly what he did.
He will almost certainly veto the resolution.
It’s not on Trump’s desk yet. It’s on McConnell’s desk.
Which is, in my opinion, a much more interesting story.
2 Likes
How so?
I predict, Senate will vote to kill Trump’s declaration in a squeaker. Trump will then veto.
The real action will take place in the courts. The lower courts will most certainly go against Trump, as will the 9th circuit. This ends up in the SCOTUS and could have ramifications for all future Presidents, not just Trump.
There was no doubt that a D House would pass this.
The Senate Rs, on the other hand, are facing a real issue here.
Shockingly, I agree with everything in this post.
Maybe your prediction streak is about to change.
2 Likes
What kind of Ramifications are you talking about.
Such as their futures??? Depending on how they vote.
He could be out of office by then…
Most likely that the courts are overreaching if they strike this down…
Multiple things in play here.
Within the context of the 1976 legislation, Trump is doing nothing illegal. Some are saying the legislation itself is unconstitutional. If the SCOTUS agrees then the legislation ceases to exist and no future President can use it to declare a national emergency.
Then there is the funding question. As has been pointed out on multiple occasions, every President has moved monies around to fund their pet projects. In that regard, Trump is simply following in the footsteps of his predecessors. Is it illegal? Yep!
So if the courts forbid this in the future, once again all future Presidents will suffer; not just Trump. They can’t single out Trump for this behavior - requiring that only he can no longer partake in that illegal activity.
Agreed. That is indeed the interesting bit.
Thread title is off.
No, no one is arguing the act itself is unconstitutional as a whole - just that is unconstitutional in the current context and application.
If the Court overturns Trump’s move, it won’t do it by overturning the Emergency Act as a whole - they’ll rule on the facts of the instant case.
3 Likes
You wanna write it for me? Lol
What is off?
It still has to go through the Senate.
Actually that is exactly what some are arguing. In regards to Trump’s use of the legislation, please feel free to point to the specific statute that trump is violating.
So basically, the courts will simply single Trump out as an anomaly; a freak of nature. 
Well…
Nope…good try peek but no…its not that simple
Actually they aren’t…they are arguing how trump is applying it is unconstitutional.
Waaa victim
