“Founders Did Not Want A King” – Democrats Vote Unanimously To Overturn Trump Border Emergency Plan

Less than two weeks after President Trump declared a national emergency to fund his border wall, House Democrats have voted unanimously to block Trump’s declaration, marking an unprecedented congressional challenge to a president’s authority to invoke emergency powers.

13 Republicans joined with Democrats to admonish Trump’s move — well short of the number Democrats would need to overturn the president’s promised veto.

Breaking News

Be the first to know when big news breaks


As The Hill reports, the vote marks the first time Congress has taken formal action to block a presidential emergency declaration since the power was created in the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

Democrats hinged their opposition on the basic principles of constitutional law, arguing that Trump’s unilateral move marks a clear-cut violation of the separation of powers and the unique authority of Congress to dictate where federal dollars are spent.

“If it were truly an emergency we’d all be there with the president,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said several hours before Tuesday’s vote, during a conference of the American Legion in Washington.

“Our founders had great vision. They did not want a king.”

As a reminder, here’s a list of all the national emergencies…

  1. Nov 14, 1979: Blocking Iranian Government Property (EO12170)
  2. Nov 14, 1994: Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (EO 12938)
  3. Jan 23, 1995: Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (EO 12947)
  4. Mar 15, 1995: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (EO 12957)
  5. Oct 21, 1995: Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (EO 12978)
  6. Mar 1, 1996: Declaration of a National Emergency and Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels (Proc. 6867)
  7. Nov 3, 1997: Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Sudan (EO 13067)
  8. Jun 26, 2001: Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (EO 13219)
  9. Aug 17, 2001: Continuation of Export Control Regulations (EO 13222)
  10. Sep 14, 2001: Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (Proc. 7463)
  11. Sep 23, 2001: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism (EO 13224)
  12. Mar 6, 2003: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (EO 13288)
  13. May 22, 2003: Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest (EO 13303)
  14. May 11, 2004: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (EO 13338)
  15. Jun 16, 2006: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (EO 13405)
  16. Oct 27, 2006: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EO 13413)
  17. 17. Aug 1, 2007: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (EO 13441)
  18. Jun 26, 2008: Continuing Certain Restrictions With Respect to North Korea & North Korean Nationals (EO 13466)
  19. Apr 12, 2010: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (EO 13536)
  20. Feb 25, 2011: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (EO 13566)
  21. Jul 24, 2011: Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (EO13581)
  22. May 16, 2012: Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (EO 13611)
  23. Mar 6, 2014: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (EO 13660)
  24. Apr 3, 2014: Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (EO 13664)
  25. May 12, 2014: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (EO 13667)
  26. Mar 8, 2015: Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (EO 13692)
  27. Apr 1, 2015: Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (EO 13694)
  28. Nov 22, 2015: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (EO 13712)
  29. Dec 20, 2017: Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (EO13818)
  30. Sep 12, 2018: Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (EO 13848)
  31. Nov 27, 2018: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (EO 13851)

…and since the National Emergencies Act went into effect in the mid-1970s, a total of 58 have been declared, most of which were in regard to foreign issues (like the War in Iraq).

“People will say, ‘Well, there have been a lot of emergency designations.’ That’s right,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

“This is the only one — the only one — that has been used to get around a Congress’s refusal to appropriate money for a particular objective.”

The Hill points out that passage in the upper chamber is not guaranteed, but appears increasingly likely. Three GOP senators — Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Tom Tillis (N.C.) — are already on record in support of the disapproval resolution, and a handful of others are leaning that way.

The president, for his part, has vowed in no uncertain terms to veto the resolution if it travels that far. Neither chamber is expected to have enough support to win a two-thirds vote to override the promised veto.

“They’re not going to be able to reverse this emergency declaration. But it does show that they’re in denial that there’s a crisis at the border,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) told The Hill ahead of the vote.

“Pelosi goes to the border and waves a Mexican flag saying there’s no crisis the same week that an illegal alien goes to Napa right in her own backyard and attacks a cop,” he continued.

“I mean it’s it’s happening every day. There’s a real crisis and the president is taking steps to keep our country safe.”

No matter, what, Trump already called the endgame – “we’ll see you in the Supreme Court.”

via zerohedge

You might also be interested in:

10 comments

  1. So, according to Nutty Nancy “the founders didn’t want a King”. They didn’t want a Queen either that thinks she’s a King. Now, is she protecting the American people that she swore to protect when she took office? NO! She is protecting the illegals! They have Sanctuary cities…no…they have Sanctuary States! They are very protected there. I know, because I lived in San Diego for thirty years, and couldn’t wait to get out! What are the American people asking for… and DESERVE ….A WALL! We just want a wall to protect us. We can’t even get that! When they built the wall in San Diego crossings went down by 90%. They want the illegals to vote and they do….for the Demo’s! That is the only way they can win in 2020 and they can’t afford to stop the number of votes coming over for them. They will bankrupt this Country. It costs 70,000 to take care of ONE illegal! They get free everything when they enter this Country. I know, I saw it in an Diego. The first thing they ask is, “what can you give me”, and they get it all….FREE! More than the American people get!

  2. The founders didn’t want a king, but they wanted the Constitution to be followed and matters to be discussed to carry out the will of the citizens, not given an unequivocal NO!

  3. No, the Founders didn’t want a king, and they also didn’t want an usurper of the office of the president. Obama was never constitutionally eligible to be president, since his Kenyan, British subject father was not a U.S. citizen. One must be a “citizen” to be a senator or representative, even if a naturalized citizen, but the president must be a “natural born citizen”, a “super citizen” if you will, one not only born on U.S. soil but also born to a citizen father and a citizen mother, “jus soli and jus sanguinis”, soil and blood. Obama could have been born in the White House and still would not have been eligible because only his mother was a citizen. His father was NOT a citizen. He is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people, and Nancy Pelosi KNEW he was not constitutionally eligible when she caused the forms going to the states, to be signed and notarized, that he was the duly nominated candidate at the DNC convention, one version going to Hawaii with the “constitutionally eligible” phrase, and all of the other states’ forms simply saying that he and Biden were the “duly nominated candidates. SHE is the one who lied to get him into the presidency.

    1. and, Obama was not constitutionally eligible due to being adopted
      by the Indonesian step-dad, Obama is an Indonesian citizen.

      1. He wasn’t constitutionally eligible when he was born, because of his Kenyan, British subject father not being a citizen. It’s what you are born with that counts. Now, because his mother married Lolo Soetoro and he adopted Barry, Barry may not be a U.S. citizen at all, which would have made him ineligible to even be a Senator. We don’t know if he ever regained U.S. citizenship, after his mother sent him back to her parents in Hawaii. Either way, he certainly was not a “natural born citizen” and he was never eligible to be president.

  4. That ‘queen wanabe’ should be removed from office…. She is NOT representing her Constituents. and come to think of it .. neither are the democrats. They are dragging this WALL decision till the end of this year .. What are they afraid of? that we Americans want America to REMAIN American???? That our President wants America to REMAIN American? No one says people can’t come here LEGALLY and become American… ..
    If illegals want their own state .. their own beliefs .. their own laws .. they should stay where they are in their own countries . Our forefathers had the future of America in mind for their children and children of their children… Become one of us or stay where you are.. stop trying to change America!!!

    AND .. There should be an age limit to represent our country ..a retirement age … collecting social security like us normal people (dems and reps alike). Too many Alzheimer non thinking peoples sitting there in Washington.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*