world

Trump vetoes lawmakers' measure against border wall

36 Comments
By Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

I guess Trump just couldn't get it negotiated.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Master negotiator, as Super pointed out.

Trump is good at one thing as president, beyond sweet hair and fake tan, obviously: generating lawsuits.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Go for it Trump. The next Democrat President can then use their national emergency powers to push for Medicare for All, Climate Change, and Gun Control.

While Congress is unlikely to muster the votes to override the veto

This is untrue. Congress has more than a plenty of votes to overturn the veto.

The question is whether Republicans have the stones to enforce their Constitutional rights.

They might.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Trump just unilaterally decided the president should have more power than congress. And the right pretends they believe in the words of the founding fathers. Pathetic.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

StrangerlandToday  07:11 am JST

Trump just unilaterally decided the president should have more power than congress. And the right pretends they believe in the words of the founding fathers. Pathetic.

Some of the right also like to pretend that Trump has a popular mandate, which election results have consistently shown is a lot of laughable rubbish. It's Congress that is doing what most Americans want, even some of the Republicans.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Some of the right also like to pretend that Trump has a popular mandate, which election results have consistently shown is a lot of laughable rubbish. It's Congress that is doing what most Americans want, even some of the Republicans.

Congress is the problem.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

Anyway, great news! Go Mr. President, we and so many more are behind you on this.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

McConnell is the poster child for weak Republicans. He clearly said that he does not support Trump's actions, then he voted for it.

What a spineless waste of human flesh. He defines the GOP.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

It’s called a veto. Everyone uses it.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

McConnell and others voted how they feel about how Trump did it. There are few to no Republicans who are against what he needs to do.

If the president had to do what Congress says then Congress would be the president. They are not.

Build the wall.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

McConnell is the poster child for weak Republicans.

He is? Funny, he’s not letting any of the Democrats crazy far left progressive agendas get to the Senate floor. If he’s weak, he’s my weak guy.

He clearly said that he does not support Trump's actions, then he voted for it.

Because Trump is President and the majority of Republicans do support Trump’s actions, even a few Republicans that are up for re-election support him,

What a spineless waste of human flesh. He defines the GOP.

Yeah...lol When Reid was in the Senate and we said that every liberal looked at Reid and respected him more than The Pope.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

President Trump has now vetoed the resolution to terminate his emergency declaration at the border, the first veto of his presidency.

A quick history lesson:

THE LAST 5 PRESIDENTIAL veto numbers:

Obama: 12

W. Bush: 12

Clinton: 37

H.W. Bush: 44

Reagan: 78

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

If the president had to do what Congress says then Congress would be the president. They are not.

*No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;*

--Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States of America

The key word is law, which is what the legislative branch makes, not the executive.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yet Trump will veto the bill and get the money. So there is obviously another law that allows this.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Was there a law that funded Obamacare? Was there a law that funds expenses incurred by DACA? Hmmm

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I guess Trump just couldn't get it negotiated.

I guess Congress just couldn't do their job.

It's a shame Trump has to go through all this BS to do his job. Great job, Mr. President, the real Americans are behind you.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;

--Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States of America

The key word is law, which is what the legislative branch makes, not the executive

Uh-huh...well, in other news it seems newly appointed AG Barr agrees 110% with the President. Now we are getting somewhere! Thank you again, Mr. President!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

How many of those vetos by other presidents ursurped congressional power and that the checks and balances created by the founding fathers?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It's about time we had a president that put the American people first.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Forget the founding fathers

Yes, it's quite clear you guys want to do that.

Except when it's about the 2nd amendment.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It's about time we had a president that put the American people first.

Weird comment considering the fact that both the people and their elected representatives have been clear that they don't want the wall.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

We finally have an Attorney General and a President who are for Americans and not for Globalists.

Now it's Nancy's turn. Good luck with trying to get 3/4 of the House to overrule our president's veto.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

It's time to veto Dumpster's term in office. Everything he has done has been an illegal act, a crime.

For instance, what justification is there for the mass kidnapping of migrant children? Those Trumpettes can't come up with any excuse because they know it's immoral and illegal? Where is the justification for that?

There's no excuse or defending such an awful action!  I haven't heard ONE 'justification' for any of that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

he was democratically elected on building the fence. this is not Venezuela. you can't just change the election results because you wanna steal oil.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

blacklabel: Was there a law that funded Obamacare?

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), often shortened to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or nicknamed Obamacare, is a United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. "

Was there a law that funds expenses incurred by DACA?

It's funded via U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement budget, most likely. And expenses? Not sure what you mean. They just placed a priority on violent criminals but their job was the same.

Serrano: I guess Congress just couldn't do their job.

They did. They voted, and Trump lost.

It's about time we had a president that put the American people first.

Except in his manufacturing. And his resorts. And his wives.

And real Americans support the Constitution over a temporary President who can't negotiate the things he wants.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Texas A&M: We finally have an Attorney General and a President who are for Americans and not for Globalist.

When you establish a pecking order among races, you're establishing the fact that a pecking order exists. Where you make the mistake is NOT realizing that it supports a pecking order within your own race. The uneducated and unskilled portion of Trump's base might not want to do that. The next thing you know, people from your own race will start treating you the same way you treat minorities.

Because that's the pecking order.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

SerranoToday  11:33 am JST

Great job, Mr. President, the real Americans are behind you.

So those people who voted in a Democratic majority in the House aren't "real" Americans?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Was there a law that funded Obamacare?

Yes, it was passed by congress and entitled the Affordable Care Act.

Was there a law that funds expenses incurred by DACA? Hmmm

Yes, the funding bills that allocated money to DHS.

Two swings, two strikes. Cursory research would help you not achieve that third strike.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Strangerland,

I think everyone is well convinced now that the Democrats are out to block everything Trump puts forward, they've continuosly proven that. Lefties still have poopy pants and are more hateful of his character than his actions. Obama spewed the same immigration rhetoric. You are just picking and choosing.

Simon Foston,

I'd consider them traders and liars (that there's no emergency) than not Americans.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

This is the first time in modern political history that a president held a ceremony for a veto signing; a well deserved veto on the liberal/RINO open borders initiative. Before yesterday, they were signed in seclusion and then announced by the media.

As an Angel Parent, I say bravo, Mr. President. Well done, sir.

MAGA/KAG!

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

It's time to veto Dumpster's term in office. Everything he has done has been an illegal act, a crime.

Then if you go by that, the previous President should be at Pelican Bay, come on....

*For instance, what justification is there for the mass kidnapping of migrant children? Those Trumpettes can't come up with any excuse because they know it's immoral and illegal? *Where is the justification for that? 

There was No justification to issue a DACA executive order, but he thought he needed to do it, most Americans didn’t approve of it, Congress absolutely did it and yet, he did.

*There's no excuse or defending such an awful action! I haven't heard ONE 'justification' for any of that.*

I agree.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Since "republican" Sen. Lisa Murkowski has such great concern for all the illegal aliens heading our way by siding with the democrats, President Trump should let her prove it via EO. Alaska to be would be an ideal place to send every incoming "asylum seeker" while they await their court dates. I am sure her constituents would welcome them all without complaint.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Since "republican" Sen. Lisa Murkowski has such great concern for all the illegal aliens heading our way by siding with the democrats, President Trump should let her prove it via EO. Alaska to be would be an ideal place to send every incoming "asylum seeker" while they await their court dates. 

The usual rightwing argument. If you don't personally take asylum seekers into your home, you are a spineless hypocrite for pleading for humanitarian policies from government. Or if you have any kind of a home security system (especially a wall), you must by default support a concrete wall along the entire stretch of the U.S./Mexico border.

I'll give you a better example of spinelessness: Senator Thom Tillis (R) of North Carolina. Writing in the WaPo before the vote:

*--I am a member of the Senate, and I have grave concerns when our institution looks the other way at the expense of weakening Congress’s power. It is my responsibility to be a steward of the Article I branch, to preserve the separation of powers and to curb the kind of executive overreach that Congress has allowed to fester for the better part of the past century. I stood by that principle during the Obama administration, and I stand by it now.--*

At the last minute Tillis ended up voting against the resolution because he was afraid of being ousted by an even more rightwing primary challenger in 2020. So much for principle. MAGA!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If you don't personally take asylum seekers into your home, you are a spineless hypocrite -- comment

So, what's wrong with relocating the "asylum seekers" to Alaska? Last time I checked it is part of the U.S. They get to live their dream of residing in a U.S. state -- whose republican senator voted for a democrat-driven open borders initiative -- until their cases are heard in a court of law. And the leftists get to pat themselves on the back for succeeding in letting illegal aliens with questionable backgrounds into our country. A win/win situation.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Trump vetoes lawmakers' measure against border wall

It's happening, ladies and gentlemen.

The screaming and pulling of hair out has begun.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Yawn. And let's force anti-abortionists into raising other people's children. Oh, look how clever I am. Yawn.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So, what's wrong with relocating the "asylum seekers" to Alaska? Last time I checked it is part of the U.S. They get to live their dream of residing in a U.S. state -- whose republican senator voted for a democrat-driven open borders initiative -- until their cases are heard in a court of law. And the leftists get to pat themselves on the back for succeeding in letting illegal aliens with questionable backgrounds into our country. A win/win situation.

Bingo!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites