[ad_1]
The agreement reached by President Trump with congressional leaders on Friday to reopen the government until February 15 has temporarily put an end to the confrontation with Democrats over his call to 5, $ 7 billion for building a wall along our southern border.
The House and the Senate Both passed a bill on short-term spending after President Trump announced the agreement and the president signed the measure on Friday night, putting an end to the bill. partial closure of the government which began on December 22nd. The bill does not provide funding for border protection.
Enable 800,000 federal workers to start collecting the paychecks and return to work. But we'll be back in Square One in three weeks if the Democrats refuse to silence their stubborn opposition to any funding for a wall that is obviously needed as an important element of border security.
TRUMP SIGNS A BILL TO TERMINATE THE PARTIAL JUDGMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT
The Illogicalism of the Democratic Opposition to Any Funding for a Wall, a Wall fence or another obstacle is breathtaking, because most Democrats who have served in Congress for several years, he has already voted to fund fencing at the border.
President Trump was more than reasonable in proposing compromises to Democrats. Last weekend he had announced that he would extend his protections against deportation for another three years to one million immigrants taking part in two programs he was trying to end – if the Democrats agreed to provide $ 5.7 billion in funding for the border wall.
Major concession to 700,000 young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children who are now protected from deportation by the DACA program (delayed action for child arrivals). It is also a big concession to 300,000 other immigrants who remain in the United States under temporary protection status after coming here as a result of natural disasters and other calamities that occurred in their homeland. origin.
But if the Democrats refuse to compromise they insist they do not provide any information. The money for a border wall or fence of some kind, we will be back in crisis mode in three weeks. That would be bad news for all Americans, regardless of their political affiliation.
President Trump said Friday that if no agreement was reached with Congress before February 15 to fund the border-wall that he had repeatedly promised to build, he would declare a national emergency and order the US military to build the wall, using funds from the Ministry of Defense.
The idea of simply declaring an emergency and building the wall of the border without obtaining the approval of the House and Senate must naturally please President Trump. [19659003] But my strong advice to the President – as a Republican who represented a Pennsylvania district in the House from 1977 to 1997 – is that he should in no way declare a national emergency to obtain funding from the Wall .
But my strong advice to the President – speaking as a Republican who represented a district of Pennsylvania in the House from 1977 to 1997 – is that he should in no way lare a national emergency to obtain funding from the Wall.
Any attempt by the president to bypass Congress to fund a boundary wall by declaring a national emergency would surely be a source of legal action. These lawsuits could take years to the Supreme Court, possibly guaranteeing that the wall could not be built during the president's first term.
And if the decision of President Trump to spend billions of dollars without congressional approval declaring a national emergency The Supreme Court confirmed that the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution and make Congress a branch from the government on an equal footing could be rejected. This would create a terrible and dangerous precedent.
Imagine a future Democratic president declaring climate change as a national emergency and ordering the ban on coal mining and drilling for oil and natural gas, as well as shutting down nuclear power plants.
Or imagine a future Democratic president declaring a national emergency to provide government-run health care funded by massive tax increases.
The nightmare possibilities of "national emergencies" that future presidents might declare are endless. A president empowered to spend money without congressional approval could give us exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent: a one-person president led by a president with far broader powers who could ignore the will of our elected representatives in Congress.
While $ 5.7 billion is certainly a lot of money, it 's only a tiny fraction of the federal budget. It is therefore difficult for most rational Americans to understand why the battle for the financing of a border wall has turned into a conflict between President Trump and the Democrats, resulting in the longest closure of the government in the history of the United States.
In reality, the real reason for House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., And President Trump were facing a collision that had resulted in the wreckage.
President Trump ruled Friday that the American people needed the reopening of their government. the three-week plan to bring federal public servants back to their jobs without funding the wall they want. Now, Pelosi and the leader of the Senate minority, Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., must also make compromises to avoid any further closure or emergency declaration by President Trump.
Candidate Trump made it clear during his 2016 campaign to secure the border by building a wall and taking other important steps. Throughout his presidency, Trump has shown that he wants to keep his campaign promises.
The president never hesitated to build the wall, but on several occasions he deferred to Congress the timing of the funding because of the immediate situation. tax concerns. He was told that the issue of border security would be resolved at the end of the year. When this promise evaporated, he decided to take a stand.
The election of a Democratic majority in the House worsened the situation. This new majority is composed of factions – and a significant number of representatives wanted a change of leadership within their caucus and in the House
As a result, Pelosi had a difficult battle to find the votes allowing him to. to be elected to the presidency. Many new Democratic representatives and some of the robbers of the past were passionately anti-Trump and focused on the election of a president who would oppose President Trump every time. For them, the wall was a symbol of all that they hated about the president.
We know that President Pelosi has sought her work, namely, that many accommodations have been made to dissident Democrats. The question that should now be asked of Pelosi is: "During your campaign for the presidency, did you promise a member of your caucus to stand firm with no funding for the wall?"
I do not do not do. know the answer to this question, I do not know if it was asked. But there is every reason to suspect that the wall was a topic of debate in the Pelosi campaign to become a speaker and that she let the rebels believe that she would never allow the wall's funding to continue . She could be trapped by what she promised in her quest for power.
There is a provision in the rules of the House that allows a majority of members to dismiss the chair from office. Such a motion never succeeded, but if far-left Democrats angered Pelosi's future decision to provide parallel funding to a border wall with Republicans, they could possibly force Pelosi to leave the position of president.
CLICK HERE FOR THE APP FOX NEWS
The threat of this happening probably contributes to Pelosi's refusal to make reasonable compromises with President Trump on border security.
Let's hope that Pelosi will decide to put the good of the nation ahead of political considerations and maintaining his position. She and Senator Schumer are expected to meet with President Trump halfway and avoid another government shutdown or a national emergency declaration by the president. Our national interest demands such a compromise.
Source link
