Posted on 03/07/2019 1:53:34 PM PST by conservative98
7. Ted Cruz (Texas)
Cruz has made his concerns clear that Trump issuing a national emergency could be a "slippery slope" for future Democratic presidents to use such powers to declare their policy priorities an emergency. It would make sense that Cruz, an expert in constitutional law, would be uncomfortable with this move, and if it had been done by a Democratic president he'd certainly be among those protesting the loudest about executive overreach. But after a bitter start to their relationship when they were opponents in the 2016 primary, Cruz has come around to being one of Trump's allies on Capitol Hill and owes Trump for holding a huge rally for him last year when he was in a very tight race to retain his Senate seat.
[cut]
4. Mike Lee (Utah)
Lee hails from the same camp as Paul when it comes to federal government overreach, and he's no fan of Congress ceding power to the executive branch. Lee could really go either way, but if he sticks with his convictions, he'll vote against the president.
3. Marco Rubio (Florida)
Rubio is usually a team player, but he's said he's unlikely to support Trump on this one. He sees it as a clear violation of the Constitution. "I will wait to see what statutory or constitutional power the president relies on to justify such a declaration before making any definitive statement. But I am skeptical it will be something I can support," Rubio said in a statement last month. Certainly the White House is working hard to change his mind, and it's not out of the question that Rubio would find a way to justify standing with the president. Like Toomey, Rubio has his seat for another six years, so this issue is unlikely to dog him by
(Excerpt) Read more at thehour.com ...
The Democrats definitely won’t abuse this when they get the White House.
What are these guys thinking?
As The Washington Post reported, President Bill Clinton declared emergencies 17 times, George W. Bush 12 and Barack Obama 13.
Rubio continues to disappoint. Sadly I have to support him with my vote or face worse consequences.
ObaMao already exceeded presidential authority when he flew a jumbo jet loaded with cash to Tehran without congressional approval . . . and there was ZERO national emergency involved, just Valarie Jarrett wanting to send money to her pals in Hezbollah.
Thanks for putting illegal invaders first,fellas.
Having lost the House, the GOP is now working on losing the Senate.
Damned priks !
Well, it’s not so much the declaration of the emergency, it’s the using it to seize budgetary authority from the congress that I think they’re concerned about. Usually these things are declared to freeze some dictator’s US based financial assets, not to violate the principles of the constitution.
President Trump does not need an emergency declaration to repell a foreign invasion. He can do it under article IV and at the very least suspend Habeus Corpus under Article I.
How about this then? trump has the power to completely shut down the border.
Shut the border down unless the wall is fully funded.
That’s an understatement.....
“The Democrats definitely won’t abuse this when they get the White House”
They already did repeatedly for non-emergencies and this gang of supposed Constitutional purists did nothing.
This is a real emergency and now they’re concerned?
Wow, Cruz.
Get your head out!
If they ever win the Dems will use it anyway......how stupid can these holdouts be!
Its about the money, not the Declaration itself
6. Patrick Toomey (Pennsylvania)
Toomey is not one to shy away from taking a contentious stance (see: background checks on firearms), but most of the time he falls in line with the party. But Toomey represents a state that swings with the political winds, and if he were up for reelection soon, he might be closer to the top of this list. But Toomey has his seat secured for another six years and may see more benefit in staying in Trump’s good graces.
5. Mitt Romney (Utah)
When Romney arrived in Washington, he penned an op-ed in The Washington Post about how he’ll stand up to Trump when warranted, but in his first two months, Romney hasn’t done so. This could be Romney’s big moment to take a stand against the president, but, despite his critiques of the move, he’s been fairly neutral in his condemnations of it.
2. Cory Gardner (Colo.)
Of all the possible Republican defectors, Gardner has the most to lose. He is up for reelection in 2020 in a purple state that Hillary Clinton won in 2016 by 5 points. Taking the president’s side on this could jeopardize his already tenuous reelection prospects, but voting against the president will invite the wrath of Trump’s core supporters who make up a large share of the loyal GOP voting constituencies.
1. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Alexander has the least to lose. He is retiring after this term, so he’s unshackled to anyone. Considered a moderate for these times, he’s tried to convince the White House to reverse course and find the funds from other pools of money that don’t require the president to declare an emergency.
That money was nominally Iran’s money, not a budget item. This is about a budget item.
Mitch McComical won’t use the nuclear option to help Pres. Trump’s agenda but you can bet your life’s saving the Democrats will do that when they regain the Senate. If they win the House, Senate and Presidency they use almost certainly use that power and pass laws by majority rule to make sure Republicans will not regain power for 20 years if ever.
Cruz and Paul are both on double-secret-probation anyhoo.
.
fiddling while rome burns
Do republicans realize that if our current immigration system is not changed (with million of dem voters coming in) that democrats will have a permanent lock on federal power in the near future?
Maybe they are stupid?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.