Live Stream of the Senate Debating National Emergency!

US News & Politics
21

The national emergency:
Congress, both houses, both parties are cowards. Congress should have reclaimed their power years ago yet did nothing. The same applies to this congress.

Today this is what we hav:
Democrats, who are dead set against Trump’s declaration as it is Trump. Many of them called it a grossly immoral travesty that would compound the problems at the border.

Some Democrats are dismissive of the notion that there was an emergency at all.

Constitutional conservatives lawmakers who view Trump’s order as a violation of the legislative branch’s power of the purse. The same hypocrites who gave us repeated continuing resolutions shirking their power of the purse as they cannot compromising to reach agreement.

The undecided Republicans caught between two bad choices voting against a Republican president or voting against a joint resolution that stops this president from taking action and changes nothing.

Neither party has ever proposed ending the presidents power to claim a national emergency.

And in the end, the democrats and republicans could care less about the flood of people claiming asylum, illegals entering the country, the free flow of drugs across the border. The both live in a bubble unaffected by the crisis at the southern border.

As a side note:
Lawmakers in both chambers are supposed to review national emergencies every six months to determine whether they are still appropriate. Not once has this occurred in the 42 years the law has been on the books. It’s why there ar 23 active emergencies on the books from past presidents.

22

That is why I am brought this up:

Subject: MacCarran Walter Act of 1952 (Immigration and Nationality Act 0f 1952)

It’s been law for over 60 years…….isn’t this interesting? Imagine somebody talking about precedent instead of just new laws.
It is amazing what we do not know and even more amazing that our government officials also do not know or are ignoring it in hopes no one notices.

Trump was severely criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims). The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being “Un-American,” dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and the president called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions. Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens of any class into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The act was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported many. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas. 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States in 1979.

It is of note that the act requires that an applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and "attached to the principles of the Constitution.”

Since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, all Muslims should be refused immigration. Can this same precedent be applied to people who willfully break the law by entering the country illegally and remain in the country on such status?

This Reference Can Be Authenticated at: http://library.uwb.edu/static/ …

There is already precedent already established, so you are right on all accounts that every senate member predicated their vote on false pretenses. I also think as Trump stated, that he will veto it, the the Senators who voted no was putting on a good show for their lobbyists, but clearly this was a message being sent from the COC threatening impeachment to hang over Trump’s head if he pursues this further.

23

They should go for impeachment.

The house would certainly pass it as they would march lock step into oblivion.

Of course half the country would be up in arms and it would likely be a plus for re-election.

24

That is an interesting proposition you are pointing out. Which actually leads me to rethink what Pelosi’s real motives and strategy is regarding her decision not to pursue impeachment. Now we have the Senate threatening Trump, and the onus is now on him in regards to his next move.

But now we have this, and I am not sure if this is a fake news story but its interesting to consider.

25

Looks like the AG is agreeing with the President’s authority to declare a national emergency act right after he vetoed H.J. res 46

26

Keep in mind what charge would they use? Proof of the charge, i.e. Treason, Sedition, after 2 years Mueller has nothing.

Everyone yells impeach him without a clue as to what it takes to impeach a president. The House would be proven to be a foolish group of hysterical people if they moved ahead with impeachment.

27

Do you remember what the charge was against Clinton?

28

one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.
Did Clinton lie under oath to congress? Proven he did, the Blue diss was compelling. Should he have been impeached? A useless gesture.

Did Trump lie under oath?

Did Trump obstruct justice?

The left could claim he obstructed by firing Comey but that is very weak.

29

All good points, and I was only asking because it was the first thing that came to mind. I will say then that it will all come down to Muellers report when it is made public!

30

Did you know treason was one of the original charges before the vote was final? Do you know why you can’t find anything anywhere on it now?

Showing my age here, but I still remember the impeachment process as it was happening and how pissed I was after they collectively buried this. This was far more important than a blowjob from an intern and a valid reason for seeking impeachment. It also would have shined a light on the globalists pulling the strings behind Clinton. That’s why it wasn’t allowed to stand.

31

I did not know that! I do remember when it happened, but I did not know it was an original charge that lead to him being impeached! Based on that, I find it infuriating that his wife would have the audacity to run for President as well. Just reading today’s report in a separate thread I created earlier about the spy who admitted his guilt in selling secrets to the Chinese, (also with the name Hansen) I wonder why is it when spying or when treason is committed its always when a Democrat is in office? Jimmy Carter? Remember him? Personally I think Obama and the Clintons should face charges and be convicted based on this and a myriad of other crimes that they have committed. Eric holder? I can go one, but you get the point!

32

The point is, it was brought up originally and spoken about for a total of about five minutes before they settled on the lying under oath bullshit. If the treason charge had stayed and they had legitimately allowed that to go to the Senate, he still more than likely would not have been impeached, but the American public would have been given a glimpse into what was going on behind the scenes and as we all know, the globalists can’t have that!

33

Ok. So IYO, do you think it would have led to other aspects that would have a different outcome leading up to the present in our political landscape? Can you identify who the globalists were at that time, and are they the same today, such as Bilderberg group being one such ORG?