The House will vote Tuesday on blocking Trump's national emergency

[sandensea]

Source: Vox

Congressional Democrats have a way to potentially stop President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency without going to court, and they’re planning to use it.

As part of the National Emergencies Act of 1976, the law that details the president’s ability to make emergency declarations, there’s also a legislative check that’s given to Congress. After the president declares an emergency, Congress can pass a resolution that terminates it.

House Democrats, led by Rep. Joaquín Castro (D-TX), have introduced this very measure, and the House is set to vote on it next Tuesday.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-house-will-vote-tuesday-on-blocking-trumps-national-emergency/ar-BBTUHRd

---

Facing a real emergency against the rule of law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff address reporters in a recent Brussels conference.

[PoliticAverse]

1. "Facing a real emergency against the rule of law" - if it's against the rule of law then...

a rule of law like this won't stop it.

[dameatball]

2. Doubtful that the Senate would ever override the expected veto, but what the hell. Give it a go.

In a logical world, it would seem a bit bizarre that this "Act" would allow the person that declared the emergency in the first place to come back and veto the measure passed by Congress to do away with the emergency declaration. But that's how we roll.

[sandensea]

3. Plus, it puts Cheeto on the spot.

When the GOPee controlled both houses, you'll recall, they went to great lengths to make sure nothing landed on Cheeto's desk that might embarrass him if he felt he had to veto it.

This helps keep the controversy over this Idi Amin-style decree going.

[dameatball]

4. True. That's one angle. Like I said.....give it a go and see what happens.

[sandensea]

7. Amazing, isn't it.

This is exactly what the Founding Fathers sought to prepare our institutions for. And here we are.

[beachbum bob]

5. so does the senate need to vote too? If so, not going anywhere

[sandensea]

6. Several Senate Republicans, however, have announced they'll vote to block Orange Amin

Whether Bitchy Mitchy can stop them or not, that we'll have to wait and see.

[dameatball]

8. I have a good feeling about the first vote in the Senate. Not so much on the veto override.

[sandensea]

9. Definitely looks that way

This is heading for the Supreme Court - bigly.

[Honeycombe8]

10. I can't imagine McConnell's going to let this bill fly to a normal vote process in the Senate.

He'll come up with something, to get them out of having to take a stand. Whether it's put something else in the bill, so the Republicans can say they voted up or down on it for that amendment. Something. That's McConnell's pattern in the past. If he lets it go to a vote, in the first place.

If he doesn't, that may help the Democrats win in 2020, with Senate seats and the Presidency.

[sandensea]

11. +1

That's an excellent analysis, and in fact is the most likely outcome here.

But as you pointed out, either way the GOPee has a major PR problem with this.

By this time next year, I bet they'll be actively plotting an Arthur Bremer scenario against their albatross of a president.

They may be already.

[onenote]

12. The National Emergencies Act requires both houses vote within a set time

3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

[Honeycombe8]

13. And...what is anyone going to do about it, if McConnell won't allow it?

They're supposed to have confirmation hearings on Supreme Court Justices, too.

We live in McConnell and Trump times, now.

[onenote]

14. There is no law requiring a vote on Supreme Court justices (or any other appointee).

[Honeycombe8]

15. Yes, there is. Confirmation of the nominee Justice is required by law. nt

[onenote]

16. No.

If you mean that a nominee can't serve without being confirmed yes. If you mean a nominee has to be confirmed, obviously not. And nothing -- absolutely nothing -- requires the Senate to vote on a presidential nominee. Many nominations -- and the Constitution doesn't distinguish between Supreme Court nominations and other nominations such as those for cabinet positions, ambassadors, etc etc -- never get voted on.

[Maxheader]

17. I don't understand all the ins and outs

as to how stumpys "emergency" gets its funding..but sure glad to see the democrats working to stop or slow this whole charade...The liberals need to show past history of cheetzos lack of involvement in ' duh wall'...And how his advisers planted that bean in its widdle head during the campaign buildup in 16'...