Senate to pass measure that inhibits Trump's national emergency


Breaking News Emails

Get interrupted news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered everyday morning.

By Rebecca Shabad

WASHINGTON – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Admitted on Monday that he believes the supreme chamber will vote this month to terminate the National Emergency President, Donald Trump, declared at the US-Mexico border.

"I think what is clear in the Senate is that there are enough votes to forward the decision of disapproval, which will then be vetoed by the president and so likely that the veto will be maintained in Parliament," he said at a press conference in Capitol.

The Senate is expected to vote on the decision – like that Parliament last week lasted in a 245-182 vote – no later than 15 March before the Senate's next recess. Thirteen Republicans joined Democrats in Parliament to vote in favor of the resolution.

McConnell must bring the decision to the vote because of 1976 National Emergency Actduring which Congress has the ability to attempt to end a state of emergency introduced by the President. If such a decision passes Parliament, federal law requires the Senate to take the action within 18 days.

During the weekend, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky Fourth Senate Republican to say he expected to vote in favor of the decision – an obligation that would ensure that the measure would probably pass the GOP-controlled Senate.

"I support President Trump. I supported his struggle for funding for the wall of Republicans and Democrats, and I share his view that we need more and better border security," Paul wrote in an updated article published by Fox News. "However, I cannot support the use of emergency forces to get more funding so I will vote to reject his statement when it comes to the Senate."

"I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump differently from President Obama," he continued.

Paul also expressed his opposition to Trump's statement in comments Saturday to a group of Republicans on the Southern Kentucky Lincoln Day Dinner in Bowling Green.

"I can't vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn't been granted by Congress," said Paul, according to The Bowling Green Daily News. "We might have more money for border security, but Congress didn't approve it. If we remove those checks and balances, it's a dangerous thing."

Assuming all Senate Democrats should support the decision, only four Republicans need defective Democrats to secure the 51 votes needed to send it to the President's desk.

The other three Republicans who voted for the decision are Sens. Thom Tillis from North Carolina, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. Both Tillis and Collins are up for re-election next year.

But there is still plenty of time for one of these Republican defects to change their minds – and Paul has had a track record of turning over important voices.

Last year, he threatened to vote against the nomination of Mike Pompeo to serve as a secretary because of his support for the Iraq war. Before the committee voted Paul tweeted that he had repeatedly spoken to Trump and met and talked to Pompeo and received assurances that Pompeo now believed the war was a mistake; he eventually voted to report the appointment out of committee.

Similarly, Paul had suggested that he would not support Brett Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court, but eventually voted to confirm him.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Joaquín Castro, D-Texas, aims to stop the President's use of billions of dollars in existing federal funds to build a wall on the southern border without congressional approval.

Late. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Who does not plan to re-elect in 2020, has also suggested supporting the decision. In the comments on the Senate floor last Thursday, he called on Trump to ask his lawyers to take another look at existing funding agencies who would not require a formal emergency declaration.

"I support what the president does in border security. I do not support the way he has been advised to do so," Alexander said. "There has never been an instance where a US President has asked for funding, Congress has rejected it, and the President then used the national emergency action to justify spending the money anyway."

"There is no limit to the imagination of what the next left president can do to harm our country with this precedent," he added.

Trump, for his part, went against democratic attacks on his emergency statement in his more than two-hour speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday and praised most of the House Republicans for defending him.

"There is a lot of spirit in Parliament and I also believe in the Senate, but we have to see because we have a voice coming up," he said about the Senate's vote. "And many people talk about precedent. Precedence. That if we do this, the Democrats will use national emergency powers for something we do not want. They will do it anyway, folks. The best way to stop is to make sure I win The choice is the best way to stop it. They will still do it. They will do it anyway. "

Meanwhile, 60 percent of Americans say they do not accept Trump's national emergency statement, according to a new NBC News / Wall Street Journal.

Last week, McConnell would not finally say whether he believed the president's decision was legal. He said Senate Republicans had had a "robust and energetic discussion" about the legality of the flight during a closed door lunch with its conference attended by Vice President Mike Pence and a lawyer from the Justice Department.

"Now we are weighing it," McConnell said when asked if he believed the statement was legal. "The lawyer was there to make his argument, there were some counter-arguments. I have not reached an overall conclusion [it]…. but we had some real serious lawyers in there who discussed the very problem. "

Frank Thorp V contributed.