Rep. Justin Amash: 'The President Doesn't Get To Just Declare an Emergency'

Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) today suggested that while he's not necessarily opposed to "additional funding" for border security, he doesn't believe declaring a national emergency is the right way to obtain it.

Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon declared a national emergency earlier this month after Congress gave him just $1.375 billion of the $5.7 billion he'd demanded for construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump's plan is to reallocate, via national emergency powers, roughly $3.5 billion from the military construction budget in order to build the wall.

While Republican leaders in Congress endorsed the move, Democrats did not. Last week, more than 200 members of Congress co-sponsored a resolution, originally introduced by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D–Texas), to block the national emergency. The resolution passed the House today in a 245-182 vote. All of the bill's co-sponsors were Democrats, with the exception of Amash.

Amash is chairman of the House Liberty Caucus, which announced its opposition to Trump's national emergency declaration on similar grounds. "Few dispute the president's ability to act quickly to address a real emergency, but simply saying something is an emergency does not make it so and cannot on its own trigger emergency powers.


https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/26/rep-justin-amash-the-president-doesnt

The best congressmen in the House.

He's also only missed one vote in about 6 years now.

No one else comes close.

Funny how almost every time a Republican is praised, it's for acting more like a Democrat.

Seventy-five years ago this week, there was a serious conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and Congress. The United States was at war, indisputably a national emergency. Today we face a serious conflict between Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon and Congress. Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon has declared a national emergency in order to spend monies appropriated by Congress for other purposes in order to build a wall between the United States and Mexico. Only Trump’s supporters, a minority of the country, see an emergency. If Trump is not stopped, we will have taken a serious step toward authoritarian government. We may draw some lessons from the conflict between Roosevelt and Congress in 1944 that may be helpful today.

As a follow-up to his call for an Economic Bill of Rights in his January 11, 1944, State of the Union address, Roosevelt had proposed to raise $10.5 billion for the prosecution of the war and domestic needs. The resulting Revenue Act raised only $2.1 billion and included tax cuts and new benefits for bondholders and the airline, lumber, and natural gas industries. On February 22, 1944, Roosevelt issued a veto message, charging that the measure enacted by Congress was “not a tax bill but a tax relief bill providing relief not for the needy but for the greedy.” Although Roosevelt was right in his criticism, the reaction on Capitol Hill was outrage.

The next morning, Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley of Kentucky, hitherto a close supporter of the president, charged that the president had given a “calculated and deliberate assault upon the legislative integrity of every Member of Congress.” Barkley announced that he would resign as majority leader because he needed to maintain “the approval of my own conscience and my own self-respect.”  He concluded his speech to a packed Senate with a call for action: “if the Congress of the United States has any self-respect yet left, it will override the veto of the President and enact this tax bill into law, his objections to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Senate gave Barkley a standing ovation. The House overrode the president’s veto later that day. The Senate did so the following day, February 24, 1944.

Instead of persisting in his criticism of the Congress, Roosevelt sent Barkley a conciliatory message, hoping that he would not resign and that “your colleagues will not accept your resignation; but if they do, I sincerely hope that they will immediately and unanimously re-elect you.” Shortly before the Senate override of the veto, Barkley resigned and was unanimously reelected majority leader.

An immensely popular president who had been elected three times and would be reelected to a fourth term in less than nine months time, Roosevelt nevertheless knew he needed to work with Congress and respect its authority. Although the media at the time characterized Barkley’s resignation and the Congressional override of Roosevelt’s veto as a crisis, the rift was quickly healed and Roosevelt and the Congress continued to work together on the war emergency. The controversy, it’s true, meant that Roosevelt no longer considered Barkley as a potential running mate in 1944. That was a sacrifice Barkley was willing to make. He later served as vice president under Harry Truman.

What lessons may we draw today from this controversy?  To maintain its role as the holder of “All legislative Powers” of our constitutional government, the Congress should vote to cancel Trump’s emergency declaration as provided by the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and then vote to override his likely veto. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell should follow the example of fellow Kentuckian Alben Barkley and support such legislation and an override of a presidential veto. Because the stakes are the survival of representative government, a grass roots movement should make their voices heard to stop the imposition of authoritarian government.


https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/171377

The majority of Americans are now against the wall anyway

Its clearly time to reign in Trump's Dictatorship, with his abuse of emergency powers.

As there is no emergency at the border

And yet so many people will bring up the fact that Obama used emergency powers, without noting the important distinction that he did not abuse emergency powers.

Trump: The stupidest piece of shit in every multiple universe that has ever existed.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Funny how almost every time a Republican is praised, it's for acting more like a Democrat.

Wrong.  

Amash is actually backing limited government. Which party (falsely usually) claims that mantle?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:And yet so many people will bring up the fact that Obama used emergency powers, without noting the important distinction that he did not abuse emergency powers.

Amash and I would suggest that Obama's  emergencies were not really emergencies either. At least not all if them. 

That's called being consistent in your beliefs no matter who is president.  Its liberating quite frankly.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Funny how almost every time a Republican is praised, it's for acting more like a Democrat.

Wrong.  

Amash is actually backing limited government. Which party (falsely usually) claims that mantle?

So why are you not living like the Amish?

Forget Amash

I asked you this yesterday and was proceeded with countles claptrap links on fake libertarianism

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Wrong.  

Amash is actually backing limited government. Which party (falsely usually) claims that mantle?

So why are you not living like the amish?

I asked you this yesterday and was proceeded with countles claptrap links on fake libertarianism

Amash is my favorite representative. I dont know what living like him means. I support his positions most if the time.  

Yesterday you were being a dick.  When I get tired of someone being a dick, I become difficult.  Its what I do.  If you talk down to me, I get even worse.  

People had questions about libertarians. I provided the resources for the answers.

if a president has the authority to call an emergency then he can

And how are links to the Libertarian Party fake libertarianism? 

The Devil, You Know wrote:if a president has the authority to call an emergency then he can

Yeah, sorta.  There are guidelines though.  Congress a d the courts are supposed to provide a check on that power.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

So why are you not living like the amish?

I asked you this yesterday and was proceeded with countles claptrap links on fake libertarianism

Amash is my favorite representative. I dont know what living like him means. I support his positions most if the time.  

Yesterday you were being a dick.  When I get tired of someone being a dick, I become difficult.  Its what I do.  If you talk down to me, I get even worse.  

People had questions about libertarians. I provided the resources for the answers.

Ah so now you attack me, when I point out faults in your arguments

You become difficult for one simple reason

You have no valid argument

That is very plain to see

The problem with Libertarians, is they can never back up their arguments

You just proved that

Can you show me an example that extucally works, that not relys on global needs?

The Devil, You Know wrote:if a president has the authority to call an emergency then he can

And by reasoning the senate can challenge this and stop this, when there is no such emergency

So explain the need to impose an emergency?

Maddog wrote:And how are links to the Libertarian Party fake libertarianism? 

Show me how they work, devoid from the rest of the world?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:And how are links to the Libertarian Party fake libertarianism? 

Show me how they work, devoid from the rest of the world?

Limited government has worked all over the globe.  

Obviously the entire Libertarian Party platform has not been adopted in the US.  

Neither has the Democratic or Republican party platforms. 

There are people, with libertarian bents serving in our government. 

Justin is a good example.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


Show me how they work, devoid from the rest of the world?

Limited government has worked all over the globe.  

Obviously the entire Libertarian Party platform has not been adopted in the US.  

Neither has the Democratic or Republican party platforms. 

There are people, with libertarian bents serving in our government. 

Justin is a good example.

Show me an example of success?

I do not back either the Republicans or Democrats, hence a red herring by you

I will tell you why limited goverment never works

The same as it never works elsewhere

Corruption and its even more endemic in small government

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Limited government has worked all over the globe.  

Obviously the entire Libertarian Party platform has not been adopted in the US.  

Neither has the Democratic or Republican party platforms. 

There are people, with libertarian bents serving in our government. 

Justin is a good example.

Show me an example of success?

I do not back either the Republicans or Democrats, hence a red herring by you

I will tell you why limited goverment never works

The same as it never works elsewhere

Corruption and its even more endemic in small government

I would say the US is an example. Do you not think it was founded by Classical Liberals? 

But long story short, I support a political position different than you. 

Why does that get you so fired up chief?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


Show me an example of success?

I do not back either the Republicans or Democrats, hence a red herring by you

I will tell you why limited goverment never works

The same as it never works elsewhere

Corruption and its even more endemic in small government

I would say the US is an example. Do you not think it was founded by Classical Liberals? 

But long story short, I support a political position different than you. 

Why does that get you so fired up chief?

That is not small governemnt is it mate?

So when you cannot actually defend this position, you turn to talk about me?

Be my guest, as I am not against many things

I am simple question your beliefs, which as seen you canno back up

The US is not small Governement in any shape or form

How is tha being worked up, when its you being worked up yourself avoiding the questions

Again show me one example?

I can actually do this for you.

Do you want to know who?

In fact i can give you many examples in history

Thor wrote:How is tha being worked up, when its you being worked up yourself avoiding the questions

Again show me one example?

I can actually do this for you.

Do you want to know who?

In fact i can give you many examples in history

Avoiding an interrogation is sort of me being a libertarian.  

You have some strange ideas of what I'm obligated to do when I post on here. 

This is why you have such a hard time on forums.  You cant get along well with others. I imagine its worse in real life.  

Anyway. Gladstone was a classical liberal. At least later in life.  Maybe you heard if him? 

I gotta run. Take a breath and chill.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:How is tha being worked up, when its you being worked up yourself avoiding the questions

Again show me one example?

I can actually do this for you.

Do you want to know who?

In fact i can give you many examples in history

Avoiding an interrogation is sort of me being a libertarian.  

You have some strange ideas of what I'm obligated to do when I post on here. 

This is why you have such a hard time on forums.  You cant get along well with others. I imagine its worse in real life.  

Anyway. Gladstone was a classical liberal. At least later in life.  Maybe you heard if him? 

I gotta run. Take a breath and chill.

You turned this on me and not me on you 

Look up the Saxons and Celts for small Governement, pre Christian

So I dont have a hard time getting along with others

In fact, people come to me with problems

That is what happens in real life, because I never bullshit people

I am always upfront and why, in fact i have never had problems getting on with people

But f that is what you want to believe I expect that may have cultural aspects here. On what is accepted on your in the main redneck Texan society, to my open kent society

By the way, there was once a kingdom of kent

The reality is, you had no answer and instead use me as a distraction to get out of answering and nobody bought it buddy

Asnswer the points not the poster eh?

Hey ho

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Avoiding an interrogation is sort of me being a libertarian.  

You have some strange ideas of what I'm obligated to do when I post on here. 

This is why you have such a hard time on forums.  You cant get along well with others. I imagine its worse in real life.  

Anyway. Gladstone was a classical liberal. At least later in life.  Maybe you heard if him? 

I gotta run. Take a breath and chill.

You turned this on me and not me on you 

Look up the Saxons and Celts for small Governement, pre Christian

So I dont have a hard time getting along with others

In fact, people come to me with problems

That is what happens in real life, because I never bullshit people

I am always upfront and why, in fact i have never had problems getting on with people

But f that is what you want to believe I expect that may have cultural aspects here. On what is accepted on your in the main redneck Texan society, to my open kent society

By the way, there was once a kingdom of kent

The reality is, you had no answer and instead use me as a distraction to get out of answering and nobody bought it buddy

Asnswer the points not the poster eh?

Hey ho

I said what I have to say. I support small, limited government like the one designed by the folks that created ours.

Perhaps you don't consider our original government small enough to be considered "limited".

I provided you links to the Libertarian Party for further information.

I support people like Justin. I don't know what you call his political positions.

He is known for his support of very limited government.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


You turned this on me and not me on you 

Look up the Saxons and Celts for small Governement, pre Christian

So I dont have a hard time getting along with others

In fact, people come to me with problems

That is what happens in real life, because I never bullshit people

I am always upfront and why, in fact i have never had problems getting on with people

But f that is what you want to believe I expect that may have cultural aspects here. On what is accepted on your in the main redneck Texan society, to my open kent society

By the way, there was once a kingdom of kent

The reality is, you had no answer and instead use me as a distraction to get out of answering and nobody bought it buddy

Asnswer the points not the poster eh?

Hey ho

I said what I have to say. I support small, limited government like the one designed by the folks that created ours.

Perhaps you don't consider our original government small enough to be considered "limited".

I provided you links to the Libertarian Party for further information.

I support people like Justin. I don't know what you call his political positions.

He is known for his support of very limited government.  

No worries maddog. i simple have seen examples in history and they certainly worked for the time, but that was centuries ago

I just think its far too difficult to achieve within the US

I understand this is your beliefs, so no worries, just giving my pennies worth on that

https://amp.cincinnati.com/amp/3002703002?fbclid=IwAR0EHoJ6RJdhF3cybs3SY84ax67LLrL7XUNi_XbPP2hsW_m3jxi0d-ifErw

And no. Massie is not acting like a democrat. He and Amash do this a lot. They are not voting like this because they despise Trump, but because they value the Constitution and limited government.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:
You turned this on me and not me on you 

Look up the Saxons and Celts for small Governement, pre Christian

So I dont have a hard time getting along with others

In fact, people come to me with problems

That is what happens in real life, because I never bullshit people

I am always upfront and why, in fact i have never had problems getting on with people

But f that is what you want to believe I expect that may have cultural aspects here. On what is accepted on your in the main redneck Texan society, to my open kent society

By the way, there was once a kingdom of kent

The reality is, you had no answer and instead use me as a distraction to get out of answering and nobody bought it buddy

Asnswer the points not the poster eh?

Hey ho

I said what I have to say. I support small, limited government like the one designed by the folks that created ours.

Perhaps you don't consider our original government small enough to be considered "limited".

I provided you links to the Libertarian Party for further information.

I support people like Justin. I don't know what you call his political positions.

He is known for his support of very limited government.  

The USA is simply too big, diversified and multicultural in it's makeup these days to support any kind of effective "libertarian" or "classical liberal" style of small guvm'nt...

IF you genuinely want to live under a 'Libertarian' regime you should be supporting Quill's proposed dis-unification of the USA --  then you could find yourself in a new free Southern "free market"/supply side/"trickle down" Paradise  --  fighting off those God-bothering, tub-thumping, KKK-worshipping inbred Evangelical barbarians moving across from the Deep South..

When George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and co. ruled the roost, America's population was measured in tens of millions --  not 320 million + --  and Indians and Afro-Americans didn't get the vote;  nor did any of their good wimmin-folk.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I said what I have to say. I support small, limited government like the one designed by the folks that created ours.

Perhaps you don't consider our original government small enough to be considered "limited".

I provided you links to the Libertarian Party for further information.

I support people like Justin. I don't know what you call his political positions.

He is known for his support of very limited government.  

The USA is simply too big, diversified and multicultural in it's makeup these days to support any kind of effective "libertarian" or "classical liberal" style of small guvm'nt...

IF you want to live under a 'Libertarian' regime yku should be supporting Quill's dis-unification of the USA --  then you could find yourself in a new free Southern "free market"/supply side/"trickle down" Paradise  --  fighting off those God-bothering, tub-thumping, KKK-worshipping inbred Evangelical barbarians moving across from the Deep South..

When George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and co. ruled the roost, America's population was measured in tens of millions --  not 320 million + --  and Indians and Afro-Americans didn't get the vote;  nor did any of their good wimmin-folk.

I already support the 10th amendment, and if politicians did the same, we could have 50 systems that operated more freely from each other.

50 loosely organized states, held together by a constitution written to have a federal government that served the states.

What a concept?

Of course now, the most libertarian state in the country is New Hampshire, so I would have to leave Texas.


And what does being multi cultural have to do with anything? Libertarians embrace multiculturalism.

PREAMBLE

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we set forth our basic principles and enumerate various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

I can't make you read it or understand it Wolfie, but I will call you out every time you misrepresent it.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


The USA is simply too big, diversified and multicultural in it's makeup these days to support any kind of effective "libertarian" or "classical liberal" style of small guvm'nt...

IF you want to live under a 'Libertarian' regime yku should be supporting Quill's dis-unification of the USA --  then you could find yourself in a new free Southern "free market"/supply side/"trickle down" Paradise  --  fighting off those God-bothering, tub-thumping, KKK-worshipping inbred Evangelical barbarians moving across from the Deep South..

When George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and co. ruled the roost, America's population was measured in tens of millions --  not 320 million + --  and Indians and Afro-Americans didn't get the vote;  nor did any of their good wimmin-folk.

I already support the 10th amendment, and if politicians did the same, we could have 50 systems that operated more freely from each other.

50 loosely organized states, held together by a constitution written to have a federal government that served the states.

What a concept?

Of course now, the most libertarian state in the country is New Hampshire, so I would have to leave Texas.

And what does being multi cultural have to do with anything? Libertarians embrace multiculturalism.

Libertarians may well 'support' multiculuralism.  

Those God-bothering, tub-thumping, KKK-worshipping Evangelical extremists in the Deep South and Mid-West don't though, do they ?

Like I said above, you would then have to fight off those barbarian hordes flooding your borders, aiming to raid your farmlands, steal your children, kill your women and rape your horses.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I already support the 10th amendment, and if politicians did the same, we could have 50 systems that operated more freely from each other.

50 loosely organized states, held together by a constitution written to have a federal government that served the states.

What a concept?

Of course now, the most libertarian state in the country is New Hampshire, so I would have to leave Texas.

And what does being multi cultural have to do with anything? Libertarians embrace multiculturalism.

Libertarians may well 'support' multiculuralism.  

Those God-bothering, tub-thumping, KKK-worshipping Evangelical extremists in the Deep South and Mid-West don't though, do they ?

Like I said above, you would then have to fight off those barbarian hordes flooding your borders, aiming to raid your farmlands, steal your children, kill your women and rape your horses.

No, cultural conservatives are a pain in the ass, much like fiscal liberals.

I catch hell from both sides every day.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Libertarians may well 'support' multiculuralism.  

Those God-bothering, tub-thumping, KKK-worshipping Evangelical extremists in the Deep South and Mid-West don't though, do they ?

Like I said above, you would then have to fight off those barbarian hordes flooding your borders, aiming to raid your farmlands, steal your children, kill your women and rape your horses.

No, cultural conservatives are a pain in the ass, much like fiscal liberals.

I catch hell from both sides every day.    

Well, one thing I have come to understand about you and its not based on your stubborness and why i will give you a compliment

That you always stand by your principles. No mater what is thrown at you. Your stubborness, may cost you relationships at times and i dont just mean women in relationships. It costs you at times being the constant piggy in the middle between warring sides with your friends and collegues.

Fair play to you, how you are never drawn to either side and stand by your beliefs. No matter if I think its not the best political choice

I imagine you are also as head strong in your support of your children, based on their choices. In that you dont want to ever decide for them and think they should always make their choices. yet constantly supporting them. In other words you have many good attributes and espcially as being a father figure to many. Not only your children but to many others.

Never lose that, as its fine quality. You are in fact more Liberal at times than most Democrats, but i doubt you will admit that...

All the best

The Devil, You Know wrote:if a president has the authority to call an emergency then he can

The point is, the president cannot call an emergency to do what Congress just refused to do, under the Constitution, by lawful vote.

It would be as if the Speaker of the House ordered the Army to attack, say, Belgium.