House Votes To Rescind Trump Border Emergency Declaration

U.S. House of Representatives

As expected, the House of Representatives passed a resolution to terminate President Donald Trump’s national emergency proclamation. The vote was 245 to 182 with 13 Republicans voting against the President. The matter now goes to the Senate where Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Maine Sen. Susan Collins have indicated that they will likely join Democratic members to rescind the order. However, even if passed, there is a need for a supermajority to override the promised veto from President Trump.

I will be testifying tomorrow in the House Judiciary Committee on the use of the National Emergencies Act by President Trump in this controversy. The hearing will be held at 12:00 at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building.

While I have previously written (here and here) that the law heavily favors Trump in making this declaration, I also believe that Congress should use its authority to rescind the order.

The Democratic measure would reverse the implementation of the president’s controversial proclamation and his access $3.6 billion in military construction funds to build his long-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

43 thoughts on “House Votes To Rescind Trump Border Emergency Declaration”

  1. And that doesn’t include human slavery and trafficking. The left has a lot to answer for and the Pattriot Act Anti Terrorism rules are just what is needed to get those answers.

  2. What do you call something that kills more every than traffic accidents, the Vietnam or Korean Wars? Not sure what the ot

    Some call them Friends of Socialism the political group aka Democrats, liberals, dinos, rinos, progressives whatever.

    Some of us using objectivism and reality and our ability to think and reason cal them Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Some of us even go so far as to call for them to be listed not only as weapons of mass destruction but the use of them as acts of terrorism.

    Reading the statistics it’s it’s not only hard or difficult it’s impossible to think otherwise.

    Yet when something IS Done it is invariable Blocked by the same group of people. Let’s call them politicians, educators, and propagandists of the left wing extremist factions.

    . Why?

    Protecting their own favorite import contacts and sources perhaps?

    A calloused lack of regard for the victims most of whom can be called ‘citizens’ and the rest those who are being victimized.

    The worst of the bunch is a fourth group called Rogue Judges who presume to set government rules, regulations, laws and policies ‘on their own’ and ‘one at a time.’ Not one law at a time but by ‘one un-elected single individual’ Make that group four and five counting those who presume to make laws and rules without so much as a nod to congress saying please legitimize before they go into effect.

    And when the President following the laws set into place tries to enforce them the same group that voted them into existence deny there is any problem.

    War Powers Act gives Presidents the right to deploy troops but requires then a report to congress who has thirty days to support or revoke. To date Two Presidents have honored that Act. Both named Bush. No Democrat Socialist has ever complied. None. Ever.

    But it was their law

    So let’s use another of their laws The Patriot Act and it’s provisions for handling terrorists.

    Declare these drugs to be weapons of mass destruction and use the in place rule of requiring only suspicion of acts of terrorism or supporting acts of terrorism.

    I noted Congress is not exempt from the provisions of the Patriot Act.

    Is this a real problem or not? If so then why is one political faction refusing to take the steps necessary and openly blocking the steps necessary.

    Those borders are federal…They belong to all citizens of the USA.

    Below is the random first three. Notice the sources.

    “Overdose Death Rates | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

    National Drug Overdose Deaths—Number Among All Ages, by Gender, 1999-2017. More than 70,200 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, including illicit drugs and prescription opioids—a 2-fold increase in a decade. … Drug overdose deaths rose from 16,849 in 1999 to 70,237 in …
    [PDF]World Drug Report 2017 – United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

    Jun 16, 2017 – Number of deaths and “healthy” years of life lost (DALYs) … laboratories, by type of drug identified, United States … disorders in daily or near- …
    US drug overdose deaths rose to record 72,000 last year, data reveals ……/16/us-drug-overdose-deaths-opioids-fentanyl-cdc

    Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose ……/opioids-overdose-deaths-rising-fentanyl.html
    Aug 15, 2018 – Drug overdoses killed about 72,000 Americans last year, a record number that … A growing number of Americans are using opioids, and drugs are becoming more deadly. … In some places, the type of synthetic drugs mixed into heroin … “

    1. Michael Aarethun,

      You might not have been aware but this website only permits two links per comment. I edited the above comment so that it would work. If you desire for the readership to review multiple links, this may be accomplished through the use of multiple comments of two each.

  3. Congress has really shown the
    American people an insight into their
    Real Agenda.
    To add an ounce of credibility to the current
    Farce of Cohen’s circus.
    Cohen doesn’t have enough hands to cover up his lies.

  4. For decades American Presidents have done nothing to stop Korea’s development of Nuclear Arms, but they have fed it and now we have a President who is actually doing something none of them could do. Slow but steady wins the race. While the President is negotiating with North Korea the Democrats complicate our foreign affairs by having a liar testify.


    Article in nesxt posting.

    1. ” Democrats Grill Cohen While Trump Negotiates with Korea

      Michael Cohen testifies before the House Oversight Committee; President Donald Trump waves after arriving at Noi Bai airport in Hanoi on February 26, 2019, ahead of the second U.S.-North Korea summit.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images; Kham / Getty ImagesMichael Cohen testifies before the House Oversight Committee; President Donald Trump waves after arriving at Noi Bai airport in Hanoi on February 26, 2019, ahead of the second US-North Korea summit. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images; Kham / Getty Images)

      The Democrats are very unwise to be examining Michael Cohen in Washington at the same moment as President Donald Trump confronts Kim Jung Un in Vietnam. They are creating a two-rink spectacle.

      In the first rink, we see the Democrats probing the details of Cohen’s role in the various pseudo-scandals involving Trump. In the second rink, we see the president negotiating to stop a potential nuclear war with our most threatening adversary: Kim Jung Un.

      The juxtaposition of these two events shows the priorities of the two parties: The Democrats want to get Trump. The president concentrates on protecting the country.

      People pay only sporadic attention to the events in our politics. But there are a few moments that punch through and get the full focus of the public. The most recent was the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. There, the spectacle of Democrats going nuts and an accuser lying contrasted with the dignity of future justice.

      This contrast probably had a great deal to do with the Republican victory in the Senate races of 2018. Now they see Democrats whipping up partisan warfare while Trump focuses on the key threat to our nation.”

    2. Robert McNamara should have held Trump-style economic negotiations with Ho Chi Minh rather than deploying the military during the Vietnam conflict. McNamara should have been waving dollars rather than weapons. 50 years post-facto America waves dollars in Hanoi and Pyongyang with what should and will hopefully be a more acceptable outcome.

      1. I totally agree with that.

        the Hanoi negotiation which was quickly ended, is not what it’s about.

        It’s really about the rivalry with the PRC. Kim gets paid no matter how that goes, he accepts and leverages his role as a pawn skillfully as it goes.

        Trump pulled a fast one and a good one by the quick walk-away. Switched gears and the press is scratching their heads. LOL

  5. Congress is about to declare that it will not protect the border of the Untied States. So much for their duties to the public. It’s obvious they are not on the side of the American Citizenry.

    1. Darren, for many years at this point, The Pentagon has officially considered Climate Change a threat to national security. Our largest naval base, in Norfolk Virginia, is sinking amid rising seas.

      Quite arguably Climate Change is a more urgent emergency than our southern border. Yet Trump and the Republicans deny Climate Change. In fact, Trump is currently scheming to create a sham commission to cast doubt on the issue.

      So why should anyone take this border ’emergency’ seriously? Where are the hard statistics to say that ‘waves of illegals’ continue breeching our southern border? The Department of Homeland Security’s own statistics clearly say apprehensions at said border peak in the year 2000.

      1. Peter, virtually everyone believes in climate change as the earths climate has been changing throughout the millennia. The differences of opinion are like night and day so don’t provide your bull of universal agreement. The last time we discussed this issue you asked for credible names that differed from what you call the consensus. After being provided those credible names you did what you always do, you ran away.

        If we accept climate change a la Peter (almost always wrong Peter) then tell us what has reasonable agreement that can prevent the catastrophe’s predicted to happen within a short span of years. Time for Peter to run away again or provide a dumb answer and then run away.

        As far as the 2000 statistics there is a crisis, the Democrats need more voters. Peter’s analogy is similar to this. Peter is being held at gun point and 911 is called. The dispatcher notes that gun violence is down so he finds no need to send the police.

        1. Alan, there are ‘no’ credible scientists disputing Climate Change. The only ‘scientists’ disputing it are somehow related to either The Koch Bros, Petroleum Interests or conservative foundations.

          Whatever the reason, earth’s atmosphere is warming at rates faster than earlier predicted. The Pentagon has been tracking this. International Assurance Companies, those who insure the insurers, are convinced that Climate Change is real. Even the American public is now convinced.

          But Republicans keep pretending that the issue is hoax. When the real hoax is Trump’s ‘border emergency’.

          1. “Alan, there are ‘no’ credible scientists disputing Climate Change. ”

            Peter, what about the names provided to you before? You didn’t attach any of them to the Koch brothers and just because their name is Koch doesn’t mean that everyone that agrees with them isn’t credible. Many people that dispute what the Democratic consensus says end up not being hired by universities or having their opinions published due to the fascism of the left.

            Your definition of credible is one that agrees with you. However, why don’t you state exactly what everyone is agreeing to since climate change has been occurring since the earth was created.

            “Whatever the reason, earth’s atmosphere is warming at rates faster than earlier predicted.”

            The models aren’t the best so one can’t trust the predictions. However, the question is not about warming or cooling rather 1) what part man has to do with it and 2) whether man can actually do anything to change what is happening. Go ahead and tell us an answer to these two questions. Fat chance. It’s time for you to run away again or provide a poor answer and then run away.



              Flooding, drought and wildfires driven by climate change pose threats to two-thirds of the U.S. military’s installations, the Defense Department said in a new report required by Congress.

              The authors of the report, which the Pentagon delivered to Congress on Thursday, note that it probably underestimates the full extent of risk to military facilities because it only looks at likely impacts over the next two decades. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said the world needs to become carbon neutral by 2050 to prevent global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius, which would lock in many of the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

              “It is relevant to point out that ‘future’ in this analysis means only 20 years in the future,” the report said. “Projected changes will likely be more pronounced at the mid-century mark; vulnerability analyses to mid- and late-century would likely reveal an uptick in vulnerabilities (if adaptation strategies are not implemented.)”

              President Donald Trump has regularly dismissed climate science, including reports like the the National Climate Assessment published in November by federal scientists that showed climate change was hitting all regions of the United States.

              The Pentagon report focused on 79 installations across the armed services. It said 53 installations currently experience recurrent flooding, 43 face drought, 36 are exposed to wildfires, six are undergoing desertification and one is dealing with thawing permafrost.

              More installations will feel those climate stressors in the future, with 60 sites projected to see recurrent flooding, 48 confronted hurt by drought and 43 threatened at risk of wildfires.

              The report builds on a number of other Pentagon reports that have called climate change a “threat multiplier” that can alter DOD priorities, such as mass migration and humanitarian aid missions fueled by extreme weather events.

              The fingerprints of climate change can disrupt everyday military operations, the report said.

              “Due to routine training and testing activities that are significant ignition sources, wildfires are a constant concern on many military installations,” the report said. “As a result, the DoD spends considerable resources on claims, asset loss, and suppression activities due to wildfire.”

              Edited from: “Pentagon: Climate Change Threatens Military Installations”

              POLITICO, 1/18/19

              Interestingly the above article notes that Democrats didn’t feel the report went far enough. Yet the Trump White House would have preferred that the report was not even released. In fact, it was the release of this report that inspired Trump to consider creating a sham commission to cast doubt on Climate Change.

              1. Peter, I already know you neither can read nor understand what you post on this blog. Let’s get back to the basis. Provide your definition of climate change that is accepted by all credible scientists.

                Then tell us in your own words the answers to these two questions. ” 1) what part man has to do with it and 2) whether man can actually do anything to change what is happening.”

                Obviously you throw things up but you don’t know what you are talking about.

                By the any climate change whether it be cooling or warming somewhere on the globe causes problems. I don’t think the author of the piece you posted understands very much about what climate change is either. Yes, hurricanes can threaten military installations. Yes, climate change can result in hurricanes whether or not the climate change is caused by humans and whether or not the climate change is considered good or bad.

                You were born in innocence and never grew up.

                  1. I don’t even think you read your own article nor do I think you could understand it. Climate change means a change in climate not that it is manmade and not that it is something that we can change.

                    You keep running away from answering the questions in your own words because you don’t know what you are talking about. Bradly Hope is a financial reporter not a scientist nor one that necessarily knows very much about it. What he does know is that when risks increase insurance premiums must increase.

                    I think Florida had a lot of hurricanes somewhere in the 50’s and many believe these events are cyclical. If an insurer feels the cycle is coming back invariably the premiums will go up. The earh is neither a sphere nor does it follow an exact pattern and the rotation is not lined up the way you probably think it is. Therefore even if temperatures fall in one portion of the globe they might be rising in another. Alternatively greater factors than your ego influence the temperature of the earth having nothing to do with mankind.

                    Admit it. You are a scientific dumkin.

      2. Peter H:

        “Our largest naval base, in Norfolk Virginia, is sinking amid rising seas. Quite arguably Climate Change is a more urgent emergency than our southern border. ”
        Are your pants on fire yet? Norfolk isn’t sinking because of rising seas or even global warming. Parts of Hampton Roads (not just Norfolk) are sinking and it’s uneven sinking — not what you’d expect from rising sea tides. There are lots of reasons for it. And it’s been that way for eons or at least since the last ice age.

        Here’s just one of the causes of subsidence found in the Interior Department’s report:

        “Glacial Isostatic AdjustmentCrystalline bedrock underlies the layered sediments of the Virginia Coastal Plain aquifer system. Bedrock is not solid and unyielding but actually flexes and moves in response to stress. Bedrock in the mid-Atlantic region is moving slowly downward in response to melting of the Laurentide ice sheet that covered Canada and the northern United States during the last ice age (Sella and others, 2007; Boon and others, 2010). When the ice sheet still existed, the weight of the ice pushed the underlying Earth’s crust downward and, in response, areas away from the ice sheet were forced upward (called glacial forebulge). The southern Chesapeake Bay region is in the glacial forebulge area and was forced upward by the Laurentide ice sheet. The ice sheet started melting about 18,000 years ago and took many thousands of years to disappear entirely. As the ice melted and its weight was removed, glacial forebulge areas, which previously had been forced upward, began sinking and continue to sink today. This movement of the Earth’s crust in response to ice loading or melting is called glacial isostatic adjustment. Data from GPS measurements and carbon dating of marsh sediments indicate that regional land subsidence in response to glacial isostatic adjustment in the southern Chesapeake Bay region may have a current rate of about 1 mm/yr (Engelhart and others, 2009; Engelhart and Horton, 2012). This downward velocity rate is uncertain and probably not uniform across the region.”

        Quit lying to people who live there and know better!

    2. The Congress approved over $6 billion for border security in it’s recent bill. but did not waste the many billions for the campaign stunt Trump promised, but maybe he can still get it from the Mexicans.

  6. The Congress does authorize specific expenditures and within categories.

    While it is irrelevant to the Constitutional issue, a wall that will take many months or years to build is not a response to an emergency, nor do most experts agree that the one Trump envisions is the best use of our money. It is primarily a campaign stunt, not a logical strategy.

    1. Yep. Walls are ineffective. That’s why Obongo and Hillary put walls up around their homes. Ever seen the walls in Beverly Hills and Bel Air? Don’t tell anyone but all their bodyguards have guns too. Oh my!

      1. Walls are part of the strategy for controlling our borders, but expert opinion is that not on the scale which Trump proposed as a campaign stunt. Maybe if the Mexicans were paying for it and it was therefore free, OK, but hey, we knew that was BS right?

        1. “Senator Chuck Schumer, who you will be hearing from later tonight, has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats,” Trump said during his controversial national address on Tuesday night. “They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”

          Obama, Hillary, Bush et al. voted to fund the border wall.

          “We still don’t understand why the Democrats are so wholeheartedly against [the wall]. They voted for it in 2006. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Senator Schumer voted for it. Senator Clinton voted for it. So we don’t understand why Democrats are now playing politics just because Donald Trump is in office,” White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said in 2017.

          The military builds forts. Wagon trains circle the wagons. You’re not fooling anyone. Walls are effective and necessary.

          $5 billion is .00114 of the $4.407 trillion budget.

          America could easily compel Mexico to pay for the wall but it would take resolve and unity.

  7. The next time we have some Nine Eleven Event we can hold these chumps in Congress accountable and thereafter elect someone to replace them. Mr. Pence: Build Up That Fence! Pence will be our President on March 5th.

  8. When Congress approves defense funding, do they specify exactly how every dollar is to be spent, or is that left up to administrators within the Dept of Defense? Why can’t the Dept of Defense decide whether or not the southern border requires defense? Why can’t the Commander in Chief decide where defense is needed? Why is Congress micro-managing Defense spending?

  9. So we self governing unaffiliated constitutionalists of the center now have clearly identified 13 targtets of opportunity. That trap worked well.

    But let’ see how it does in the Senate? So far it’ just Rino’s and Dino’s and means not much of anything. Ho

    Too bad the they are so worried about their suppy of dope and 11 year olds but RBG would be happy.

    How many do you think will cut their throats as willingly as he Manifestoites knowing the election clock is ticking.

    All of the Comrades that’s for sure. Not like they have a choice but to obey their masters of Ruling Class of The Party

  10. So we self governing unaffiliated constitutionalists of the center now have clearly identified 13 targtets of opportunity. That trap worked well.

    But let’ see how it does in the Senate? So far it’ just Rino’s and Dino’s and means not much of anything.

    Too bad the they are so worried about their suppy of dope and 11 year olds but RBG would be happy.

  11. So the Democrats are opposed to spending $3.6 billion to fund a border wall that would provide more effective security of our southern border, but are for spending $93 trillion for the Green New Deal that would…? They are for protecting the lives of those entering this country illegally, but not the lives of infants that survive entering this world legally.

    Democrats seem to be engaging in a political version of the dangerous online challenges targeting children. And they have just the constituency stupid enough to follow them. Right Mr. Gruber?

  12. The Congress fully vetted the issue which Trump declares as an emergency and his declaration is a blatant end run around their powers of the purse. This has not been done before, and if the GOP supports it, they have sold the Constitution, their constituents, and their souls to avoid getting primaried.

    Obama used a judicially well established principal of executive power to maximize the application of Congressional passed legislation, i.e., focusing a limited enforcement budget for immigration control on those of most danger and not on groups of little to none, or the granting of short term exemptions for compliance with the ACA on corporations who already had a non-complying but still beneficial health package. One does not have to agree with either Trump or Obama on these issues, but the constitutional implications are clear, and in this case, ground breaking. Trump will use money approved for other purposes on a project which Congress pointedly rejected. The only emergency is Trump’s failure to fulfill a campaign promise which was suspect if not false from day one – “the Mexicans will pay for it”.

  13. I don’t think it should even be constitutional for Congress to purport to delegate emergency powers to the President. Any argument to the contrary, based on the usual and customary resort to some dubious notion of “implicit powers” that are not enumerated in Article I, should be rejected out of hand as brazenly contravening the idea of limited government. It’s time to step it up, bring the case even if it is a lost cause, because the idea is important to get out there. The framers did not see fit to mention emergency powers anywhere in the Constitution, nor has any amendment to it thereafter mentioned these powers, either. That should be another constitutional challenge that is mounted, in addition to any challenge to Trump directly. Congress does not have any constitutional authority to delegate to the President any power it does not have. Therefore, the National Emergencies Act is unconstitutional on its face. Of course, we can expect the courts in either case to submissively abdicate any notion that they are an equal branch of government which says what the law is. I predict that, in any challenge to Trump directly, they will simply say: see statute, Congress delegated the authority, end of story. In the congressional case, they will cry “political question, not us”. To say that the U.S. circling the drain is the understatement of the year.

    1. non-delegation of powers doctrine is dead since Schechter Poultry case 1935

      Congress is actually the Supreme Legislative branch, in theory, regardless of what the SCOTUS has arrogated to itself over the years. If they want to delegate, in general, they can delegate.

      Here, they just don’t like the result.

  14. How many past presidents have used the Emergency Declaration for issues affecting our sovereign nation, as opposed to aiding other countries such as, Libya, or Syria? Were funds any funds required for their implementation allocated by Congress, before being authorized by the executive branch, for the many prior declarations.

    We face a legitimate threat on our southern border, promoted by the prior administration’s immigration policies and directives, of drug dealers, murderers, gangs, and people with illnesses we haven’t experienced in America for many years, and were primarily eliminated in this country. The onslaught of ILLEGALS has multiplied in the last few years. Homeland Security and ICE can not process and verify the tens of thousands who intent is to get here anyway possible.

    Many of the ILLEGALS in the caravans are men of military age who, should be fighting for their countries freedom, rather than coming here to become welfare families.

    If they truly seek asylum, the place to go and stay is Mexico, or other free South American countries. Mexico is the first country, on their long journey, and should be the location for their refuge.

    Until America gets our immigration laws modernized, we should only allow those desiring to come here, who apply for entrance and citizenship. Others who attempt to enter ILLEGALLY, should be sent back and told to apply and get to the end of the line.

  15. If an invasion of 22 million illegal aliens into the US doesn’t qualify as an “emergency” then we owe the British an apology for the War of 1812.

    1. Better yet: open up your home, share your shelter, food, resources (you have more than enough to spare like most Americans) and show in deeds and not words how you love God and God’s people

      “Love the Lord with all of your soul, heart, mind, and strength and your neighbor as yourself”


    The House passed a resolution to end the national emergency proclamation used by other presidents. They don’t want a wall and they don’t want border security. The wall and border security are good for the nation but Democrats prefer sanctuary cities where criminals are released among the general population so that they can kill, rape and murder.

    1. Alan, let’s see hard statistics to support this alleged wave of murder and rape.

      Remember that Yale Report we discussed two weeks ago? Said report determined that so-called ‘illegals’ are surprisingly well-behaved in terms of crime statistics. This alleged wave of murder and rape is simply not there as a verifiable pattern. Trump’s assertions are false as always.

      1. Peter:

        I have only glossed over that Yale Report although i have mentioned it. Based on what i have read, i think it is fair to characterize it as saying there are a lot more illegals here than we thought.

        And, considering the incidence of crimes confirmed to have been committed by illegals, the rate of crime among illegals is lower than we thought.

        That is not the same as what you said, ie, they are surprisingly well behaved.

        It may be that they have not been caught. Tax evasion for example, while a nonviolent crime, is perhaps very high among the illegal immigrant population, for a lot of obvious reasons. Now, that’s a nonviolent crime, but it’s a crime.

        Likewise, social services are potentially swamped by users who are not payers. They use first responders, hospitals, and in some states like New York, may be enrolled onto state medicaid plans, from what i hear and read. But do they pay into taxes sufficiently to cover the burdens they impose? I have seen economist studies that say they do not.

        And for that issue, if not the scary stuff like murder, but for the issue of burdens on social services, the higher numbers indicated by the Yale Report is not reassuring, it is concerning.

        So, the concerns related to the “emergency” of an enormous illegal immigrant population, may be more boring than rape and murder, but, they are genuine “emergency” concerns nonetheless.

      2. “Alan, let’s see hard statistics to support this alleged wave of murder and rape.”

        Peter, we hear about rapes and murders quite frequently and many of those rapes and murders would not have occurred if our borders were secure and we spent more time dealing with the issues of national security. Note the 3,000 deaths on Sept 11 as an example and note the number of Islamists that are entering south and central America and then with training some are being sent accross our border.


    2. i would say that is the Democrat LEADERSHIP. Actually a lot of regular Democrat folks are not on the same page at all.

      1. Perhaps you are correct and maybe it should be limited to most active Democrats such as those that vote in the primary etc., but I wanted to make sure that my headline was more like Peter’s by brushing all with the same brush. Excluding that Peter’s headlines differ from my own in that his purpose is to lie or deceive and mine is merely to educate and promote honest discussion.

  17. We now have a list of 15 Republicans begging to be primaried. Let’s give ’em what they want.

Comments are closed.