WASHINGTON, D.C. – It was a certainty that the U.S. House, under Democratic leadership, would vote to block President Trump’s emergency declaration on the border. The Senate, however, was not so certain. Now it appears that a handful of Republicans will support the bill to block the declaration and carry it over the finish line.
The latest is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). We know Paul as a constitutional conservative in name and in practice, so his opposition to the declaration on the basis of protecting constitutional checks and balances is not inconsistent.
Sen. Thom Tillis (RINO-NC), on the other hand, is not conservative, nor a constitutionalist. Tillis feigns concern for checks and balances, but mainly adopts the Left’s narrative in fear mongering about precedents set by Trump’s action.
From Fox News:
“[…] Many lawmakers opposed to the emergency declaration say it tramples Congress’ constitutional power to control spending and would set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to make such a declaration for their own purposes. They also are concerned Trump would siphon money from home-state projects for the barrier construction.
Under a national emergency declaration, Trump would divert $3.6 billion from military construction to erect more border barriers. He also is invoking other powers to transfer an additional $3.1 billion to construction of a wall. […]”
The idea that an emergency declaration to enforce the national border, and thus national security, would serve as precedent for a future Democratic president to declare an emergency to ban fossil fuels, or nationalize banks, is pretty silly.
Defending the nation’s sovereignty, protecting its citizens rights, and guarding against threats to their safety is the most important charge a chief executive has. Trump’s emergency declaration, though open to reasonable debate, is consistent with that charge.
The hypothetical actions of radical Democrats to proactively project their nutty agendas to strip people of their rights and transform the very nature of our government is not just an orange to Trump’s apple – it’s in an entirely different universe.
That being said, honest concerns about checks and balances on the executive may exist. Those worrying about this issue would also acknowledge the legitimacy of the president’s veto power. Trump’s veto pen is another check on legislative power, and it would require 67 votes in the Senate to override it.
That is extremely unlikely to happen, and so this vote to block the president’s efforts at securing the border are mostly for show.