Libertarian-Republican Senator Rand Paul, the National Emergency Declaration, the Constitution, and AG Bill Barr

RAND PAUL, REPUBLICAN SENATOR??? Let's get this straight. Rand Paul is a Libertarian, and so he opposes US military intervention in foreign wars, BUT Senator Paul, the Libertarian who rides on the coattails of the Republican Party, thinks it is okay to let illegal aliens enter the US through unsecured borders and wage a war on Americans in their own country. Got it?? We can't fight them anywhere in the world, but they can fight us right here in America. • • • SENATOR RAND PAUL WILL VOTE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION. Liberty Headlines got it right on Sunday : "Rand Paul to Vote with Dems and RINOs Against Trump’s Emergency Declaration." • Bloomberg, when it said that Senator Paul would vote against the Declaration, said Senator Paul's vote "would probably provide enough votes for the measure to pass the Senate and draw Trump’s first veto." • Senator Paul said : "I can’t vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress.” He was speaking at the Southern Kentucky Lincoln Day Dinner Saturday. The Lincoln Day Dinner is a time-honored REPUBLICAN dinner to pay homage to President Lincoln and support REPUBLICAN candidates and causes. Did the REPUBLICANS at the dinner rise up and denounce the Libertarian Senator with boo's and hisses??? Not likely. That would not be the "Republican" thing to do -- better to let the illegal aliens in to spread disease, bring into the US fentanyl and other drugs, bring in violent gangs like M-13, bring in criminals who prey on and kill Americans. • Is that what Kentucky Republicans really voted for when they re-elected Senator Rand Paul the last time??? Did Rand Paul tell his constituents he would oppose any executive effort to stop the flow of illegal aliens by securing the borders??? Not likely, either. That might have got him booted out of the Senate. • Senator Paul said of Trump’s Feb. 15 declaration, which the president said allows him to take billions of dollars from other parts of the budget to use for a border wall: “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.” Senator Paul also wrote an op-ed for Fox News on Sunday that said the Supreme Court will likely strike down Trump’s emergency declaration, with the president’s two appointments, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, likely voting against giving him the authority to “violate the will of Congress.” Senator Paul thus appointed himself as THE Republican constitutional scholar who can precisely predict what the Supreme Court will do about any issue the good Libertarian-Republican Senator opposes. Pure Rubbish. • The measure opposing the President's National Emergency Declaration needs a simple majority to be adopted and sent to President Trump’s desk, where he will very probably veto it. But, overriding a presidential veto requires a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate, something also very probably uattainable by the Democrats, despite Libertarian-Republican Senator Paul, and RINOs Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Susan Collins of Maine. • While a veto by President Trump would very probably be sustained, the legality of the President’s action will also be fought out in the courts. The facts presented to the federal district chosen will be these -- after a 35-day government shutdown, precipitated by a partisan fight over border security, President Trump agreed to sign a bipartisan spending bill that provided $1.4 billion for physical barriers on the border, far short of what he was demanding. At the same time, he signed an emergency declaration to shift $3.5 billion from military construction accounts to the border wall. • Holding up the US Constitution, Senator Paul explained his reasoning in the op-ed run by Fox News : “I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security. However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.” Pointing to his opposition to President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate, Senator Paul said he is being consistent in his actions, adding that Trump’s declaration goes against the will of Congress -- especially if, as Senator Paul apparently did, we count only the Democratic side of Congress. Senator Paul said : “Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers,” he said. “Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.” The Libertarian-Republican Senator went on to say that President Trump is “wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.” That's when Senator Paul put on his crystal ball glasses and predicted that the Supreme Court will likely strike down President Trump‘s emergency declaration : “Without question, the President’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court. In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.” • • • THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. The President predicted that he would win a legal challenge when he announced the national emergency : “We will have a national emergency and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling, and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully, we’ll get a fair shake, and we’ll win in the Supreme Court, just like the [travel] ban.” • Nationally syndicated talk radio host Mark Levin, a constitutional scholar, turned to social media to slam Senator Paul for his stance, tweeting : "Phony constitutionalist Rand Paul. Pathetic. https://t.co/uRAE8yNadB" — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 4, 2019. • The propagandist ProgDem lapdog mainstream media began its ritual of hysteria even before President Trump declared a national emergency on the southern border to appropriate military funding to build the wall. A headline from NBC News declared Trump is “forcing a constitutional crisis.” Some Republican Senators -- brain dead and absolutely out of their depth when it comes to anything about the Constitution that they routinely trample on -- said the President shouldn’t declare a national emergency. • But, in a Facebook note, Mark Levin tears that argument apart on February 15 : "Leftwing media and RINOs don’t represent the GOP. Nor are they defenders of the Constitution. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 was created by Congress. It has been used scores of times. The media never cared. The RINOs never said a word before. Nor did they act to repeal it. Now they object? Look at Rubio. He opposes the government shutdown, he opposes the bill the Congress passed and the President signed (he’s right about that), and he opposes use of the National Emergencies Act. Effectively, then, he would leave the border wide open since he has no practical solution and objects the to the President using any of his powers to act. And the so-called comprehensive immigration reform he helped author several years ago demonstrated what a failure the Gang of Eight members were in tackling this problem. Many of the same Republicans whining to the leftwing media today have been in office for years and tolerated if not passively supported the current state of immigration chaos. Furthermore, none of these RINOs did anything legislatively that stopped the blatantly unconstitutional Obama/Democrat DACA, which they now support or, again, effectively tolerate, along with sanctuary cities and lawless judges who protect them. So much for their legal and constitutional bona fides. While the National Emergencies Act of 1976 should be rarely used for real emergencies, it has in fact been used over fifty times without controversy. The fact is the leftwing media and the RINOs do not view illegal immigration and the cumulative importation of millions of aliens into our country in violation of federal law as a big deal. If they did, they would’ve acted long before Trump became President. The President rightly does view it as an emergency. The law itself, as used by the President, does not violate separation of powers in this instance as it is applied quite narrowly, with the President moving around funds which he is empowered to do by Congress. Meanwhile, the leftwing media and the RINOs don’t mind at all the creation of the entire massive bureaucracy and the delegation of law-making to it by Congress, over the period of the last century, which delegation has always violated separation of powers. We now call it the administrative state or Swamp. Not a single conservative in Congress has even tried to do anything effective about it. And the pseudo-constitutionalists of today haven’t given a damn about it either." • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Senator who is really a Republican, has not set a firm date to vote on the national emergency disapproval bill, but Fox News pointed to mid-March, perhaps on March 14. McConnell said Monday he always hoped President Donald Trump wouldn’t declare a national emergency to build a US-Mexico border wall, and confirmed the Senate has enough votes to block the move : “I was one of those hoping the President would not take the national emergency route.” McConnell said Trump will veto the resolution of disapproval and “in all likelihood,” the veto would be upheld by the House, which would need a two-thirds super majority to shoot down it down. The Louisville Courier-Journal reports : “I was one of those hoping the President would not take the national emergency route,” McConnell told reporters Monday in Louisville. “Once you decide to do that, I said I would support it, but I was hoping he wouldn’t take that particular path.” The House voted 245-182 in support of the resolution blocking the President’s emergency declaration. McConnell told reporters he was concerned future Democratic Presidents would resort to an emergency declaration to bypass Congress and fund issues like climate change or gun control : “That’s one reason I argued -- obviously without success -- to the President that he not take this route.” • That is very similar to Senator Paul's argument : “I can’t vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress. We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.” • Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina have all said they’ll vote with Democrats. Tillis wrote in a Washington Post op-ed (where else???) : “As a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress. As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing Presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms.” • One thing that is not yet settled is whether Libertarian-Republican Senator Paul will really vote against the President. Senator Paul likes publicity and he likes to be coaxed by Republicans to "do the right thing." With the vote a week or so off, there’s always the possibility that Paul could still change his mind. His sense of his own relevancy gets a boost when he represents what could be the deciding vote. With a little media fanfare and attention from the White House, a change of heart is not out of the question. • Senator Paul mentioned in his op-ed the Supreme Court decision in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that he said "is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power. In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress. To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the President signed into law, thus determining the amount. Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress. Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.This turns that principle on its head." • In Youngstown Steel, President Truman was told that supplies of ammunition in Korea were low, and even a 10-day strike would endanger the Korean war effort. Most of Truman's advisors favored seizure of the steel mills under the inherent powers of the President as commander-in-chief. Rarely has a President’s national emergency declaration been challenged in court, and only once has such a lawsuit prevailed at the US Supreme Court -- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court in 1952 ruled 6-3 that President Harry S. Truman did not have the authority to seize private property just because he was the President. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the Court, said : “In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.” BUT, the Truman and Trump scenarios, although they may seem similar, have one KEY difference -- in 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, giving the President unfettered authority to make a national emergency declaration and use specific statutory powers. Before that, Presidents, including Truman, relied on the authority inherent in the US Constitution. As a result, the Youngstown analysis began with the fact that Congress never gave Truman the power to declare a national emergency. Trump, however, is using a specific statutory power created by Congress for the President. • Truman’s action is different from Trump’s, states Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University. In a phone interview with the Washington Post; Turley noted that President Trump is acting under a congressional grant of authority : “This falls into the category of a self-inflicted wound. Courts don’t protect Congress from itself. Congress removed the long-standing barrier for Presidents, then continued giving billions of dollars with virtually no limitations on the use of the money. Now, those chickens have come back to roost.” • Turley says : "If the odds heavily favor the President, Democrats should also keep the calendar in mind," Turley warned, adding that they may be handing Trump a major court victory that could come down right before the 2020 election. “This could end up being a serious -- political and legal -- blunder by the Democrats.” he said. • In a video that you can watch at < https://youtu.be/MtxDRAsbI8U >, former White House advisor Sebastian Gorka stopped by the Daily Caller’s booth at CPAC to discuss border security and President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the border. Gorka called out the lawmakers who are pushing back against the President’s national emergency order, saying they don’t “understand the Constitution.” • • • DEAR READERS, On Sunday, American Thinker's Robert Arvay asked what could start a civil war. His answers tend toward social issues -- abortion and gender issues. Arvay says : "There are more issues than these two that divide Americans irreconcilably, but they might top the list at the moment. And irreconcilable they are. 'Abortion rights' began with a misguided interpretation of a right to privacy, the right of a pregnant woman to exercise the power of life and death over her unborn child during the first trimester of gestation. From that beginning, it has expanded ever farther, to include so-called late-term abortion. Virginia's Governor Ralph Northam's hideous description of infanticide outside the womb, which he tacitly endorsed as a proposed law, is far beyond any possibility of compromise. Opponents of abortion are accused of being anti-woman. So-called gay rights began with a plea from homosexuals to be free from harassment, but over time, the concept has infringed more and more on religious liberties, and the right of free speech, of others. Policies now in place in certain locales require that everyone speak as if he believed that if a man claims to be a woman, he is one. 'Mis-gendering' someone -- that is, by calling a woman a woman when she identifies as being a man -- is already, in some cases, cause to be fired from one's job, possibly sued in court, and eventually to be imprisoned once the movement runs its course. High school children can be required to shower with members of the opposite sex. Gender issues include such amorphous topics as toxic masculinity, a concept that is beginning to suggest that laws be made forcing parents to raise their children as 'gender fluid' or lose custody. Public schools propagandize small children into points of view held by transgender advocates, with no practicable "opt out" provision for parents who object, nor any mention of opposing points of view, except pejoratively. Statements like these bring charges of fear-mongering, just as a few years ago, the specter of same-sex 'marriage' was scorned by gay rights advocates as propaganda." Arvay adds to the list -- global warming, refusing public displays of Christian crosses, assisted suicide, involuntary euthanasia, racial reparations, sharia law, illegal immigration? • What does it take to start a civil war? Where is today's version of Fort Sumter? I think it will tend to be immigration rather than social issues, many of which can be resolved by families. BUT, immigration -- how can any family or community or state protect itself from the influx of illegal immigrants when one major political party protects them because they represent new voters beholden to that party? The Insane Democrat Party has refused to resolve the Dreamer issue, called for ICE to be disbanded or hampered, refused to pay for a border wall that would eliminate most of illegal alien entries, and is now trying to bring down the effort to secure US borders of President Trump, who has, from the outset, promised to secure the US borders. The combination is much more like the Civil War scenario -- half the country was appalled by slavery (today, half the country, or more, is appalled by inaction to prevent illegals from entering and letting them run free once to commit crimes but receive benefits once in the US). Lincoln defended his actions by citing the need to preserve the Union -- that is, the constitutionally organized United States -- from being dissolved by that acts of one group (today, Trump cites the need to preserve the United States, that is the Union, saying that a country without borders is not a country, and adding that illegals are preying on Americans defenseless to protect themselves). The combination of constitutional and social issues in 1860 and 2019 is very similar. And that combination could strike qt the heart of America when something otherwise insignificant occurs -- such as President Trump losing his national emergency declaration case and Congress flouting the defeat. Or, a serious collapse of order anywhere on the southern border with Americans being attacked. Or, California totally opening its southern border to illegals and defying federal efforts to control it. • And, like Lincoln, President Trump has had no support from Congress or within his own leftover executive Deep State executive branch. BUT, that may now have changed. President Trump has been deprived of a working Attorney General since he took office. BUT, now there is Attorney General William Barr -- AND Barr has now confirmed that he will not recuse himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. The newly appointed Barr's decision follows guidance from "senior career ethics officials" at the Justice Department, a DOJ spokeswoman said. Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, possible collusion by the campaign of President Trump, possible obstruction of justice by Trump, and other issues, as to which President Trump denies any wrongdoing. During his confirmation hearings, Barr had said that if Justice ethics officials urged him to recuse from overseeing the Mueller investigation, but he disagreed with their recommendation, he would not follow it. This has not happened -- the ethics office has cleared him to do his job. Barr also said he "absolutely" would guarantee that Mueller would not be fired as special counsel without good cause. • Democrats have demanded that Mueller's report, when presented to the Attorney General, be given to Congress and be made public. During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr said, "I believe it is vitally important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation. I also believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the Special Counsel's work. For that reason, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law. I can assure you that, where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and will let no personal, political or other improper interests influence my decisions." • That may seem far removed from talk of a civil war. It is not. With a strong Attorney General in place, President Trump at last seems to have at the helm of his legal organization an AG who will defend the President's agenda forcefully and with great legal skill and experience. That will certainly be true if the southern border heats up. It will also, we can expect, provide a strong defense for the President against the Democrats trying to prevent securing the southern border. The Insane Democrats have not faced a truly forceful legal challenge from the Trump administration. That is about to change. And it will likely make building the wall happen, thus making unnecessary any talk of civil war or secession.