Cruz Statement on Trump's National Emergengy Border Declaration

DD88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Today, the National Emergencies Act required the Senate to answer one question: whether there is an ongoing emergency at our southern border. I voted to support the President's declaration because, as Texans realize all too well, there is one.

This was a difficult vote. I understand my colleagues' real concerns regarding the vast emergency powers that Congress has given the President over the last half-century. I share those concerns.

The press will spin today's vote as a rejection of border security, as opposition to a wall, and as a rejection of President Trump's commitment to building the wall. All of that is false.

Here's what I believe: Number one, we have crisis on our border. A heartbreaking emergency, which I've seen first-hand in Texas, over and over again. Countless human lives hurt or lost by drug traffickers, human traffickers, and unchecked illegal immigration. For example: In 2018, Customs and Border Protection apprehended 396,579 people at our border. In the first 4 months of 2019, CBP has caught another 201,497. If that rate continues, we'll apprehend over 600,000 people in 2019. These hundreds of thousands include a record-high number of families, including over 1,700 identified cases of an adult lying about a relationship to a child in order to get into our country. Each of those children are at serious risk of sexual assault or physical abuse nobody compassionate should want even a single boy or girl in the custody of human traffickers. Between 2012 and 2018, border authorities seized over 7,300 tonsalmost 14,700,000 poundsof cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. Of these, fentanyl seizures alone increased by almost 400% from 2016 to 2018. And in just 2014 to 2018, Border Patrol agents captured 1,630 members of MS-13 alone. That's one member of MS-13 almost every day. This is a crisis and a tragedy, and we must fix it.

Number two, we need to build a wall. From the first day I ran for Senate, I've fought to build a wall. I urged the President and the Senate to take up budget reconciliation and fully fund the wall last yearwhen we still had majorities in both houses of Congress. I've introduced the EL CHAPO Act to build the wall, and pay for it using the billions criminally forfeited from El Chapo and other drug dealers.

Number three, the Constitution matters. Profoundly. My whole life, I've fought for the Constitution. The Constitution protects our fundamental liberties, and every President should be bound by it, whether Republican or Democrat. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I made that promise to the People of Texas. When President Obama violated the Constitution through executive amnesty, I led the fight against that lawless action. Unlike President Obama, here President Trump is acting pursuant to explicit statutory authority. The National Emergencies Act gives the President the authority to activate more than a hundred distinct emergency powers, including those he is exercising here. That statute is, I believe, over-broad. It invites abuse.

Indeed, it is easy to imagine a future Democratic president using this statute to try to implement a radical, far-left agenda over the will of Congress and the American people. A President Warren could declare climate change a national emergency and try to suspend offshore drilling. A President Sanders could declare a national emergency in the Middle East and try to freeze the bank accounts of Americans who do business with Israel. And a President Sanders, or Warren, or some other avowed socialist, could try to reallocate billions of dollars, without the consent of Congress, to advance their socialist policies to address those and other so-called emergencies. That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee's ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. This bill would end any new national emergency if Congress does not approve it within 30 days. Combined with a thorough review of ongoing emergencies, this proposal would reduce the danger of an abuse of national emergency powers by any of the dozens of far-left candidates seeking the Democratic nomination.

And I am grateful that the President announced todayat the urging of many of usthat he will support our efforts to reform this law, and guard against potential abuse by a lawless future president, Democrat or Republican.

Yet while I support reforming the National Emergencies Act, that wasn't what the Senate voted on today. Current law empowers the President to declare a national emergency and activate statutory emergency powers when he determines there is one, and Congress can then vote to determine whether or not an emergency exists. And make no mistake: an emergency absolutely exists on the border, and it is a national and humanitarian disaster.

We cannot end this emergency without securing our southern border, and we cannot secure our border without building a wall.

I support the President's efforts to build the wall and secure our border. And I will continue to work with the President and my colleagues in Congress to reform our national emergency system and protect Congress's Article I authority.

But today's question was whether there was an emergency at our southern border. There is, and I voted to recognize that tragic fact.

Looks pretty solid to me.
vettmaster99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The President's job is to protect the sovereignty of the country from foreign invasions. I see no issue with this.
Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well spoken as always!
CyclingAg82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Too many in both parties have their heads in the sand. Cruz is spot on.
redsquirrelAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We need that man in the supreme court eventually.
Old_Ag_91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He nailed it. Well done Cruz. This about our border and protecting our citizens not some constitutional power grab.
MaroonStain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That is a great write-up, Ted, but the vote failed. Please continue working on FUNDING the wall.
leakypipes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MaroonStain said:

That is a great write-up, Ted, but the vote failed. Please get to work on FUNDING the wall.


Establishment Repubs are the problem here. Not Cruz.
To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. That's what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul - would you understand why that's much harder?

-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Farmer1906
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MaroonStain said:

That is a great write-up, Ted, but the vote failed. Please get to work on FUNDING the wall.


He has. He ever covers it in the statement.
ArbAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So glad Ted beat "Beto" in the Senate election, at least most Texans can assess the difference between a true Constitutionalist and a flash in the pan opportunist.
MaroonStain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Farmer1906 said:

MaroonStain said:

That is a great write-up, Ted, but the vote failed. Please get to work on FUNDING the wall.


He has. He ever covers it in the statement.


Ammit! I read most the post but my reading time ended.
Tom Hagen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MaroonStain said:

That is a great write-up, Ted, but the vote failed. Please continue working on FUNDING the wall.
Not really. 41 is more than enough to prevent a veto override.
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ArbAg said:

So glad Ted beat "Beto" in the Senate election, at least most Texans can assess the difference between a true Constitutionalist and a flash in the pan opportunist.


I think Ted put more effort into his statement than he did into his entire reelection campaign.
ArbAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And despite his lack of reelection focus still beat an faux Latino (Leftist darling) at the polls.
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hypothetical future emergencies he has conjured and attached to political opponents (reallocate billions to advance socialism, freeze bank accounts of people who do business with Israel), are "so-called." Well yeah, you just made them up.

So Trump gets this one, but shutting it down in the future.

Hilarious stuff. The future emergency ones had to be written over chortles by the speech writers. "They're going to eat this stuff up!"
IslandAg76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TLDR all of it...BUT
time to stop the BS rhetoric. Both parties have been talking about controlling the border for decades and they have done- essentially nothing.

Time to support, or get out of the way of, the only guy actually trying to do something
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faustus said:

Hypothetical future emergencies he has conjured and attached to political opponents (reallocate billions to advance socialism, freeze bank accounts of people who do business with Israel), are "so-called." Well yeah, you just made them up.

So Trump gets this one, but shutting it down in the future.

Hilarious stuff. The future emergency ones had to be written over chortles by the speech writers. "They're going to eat this stuff up!"
Several Democrats actually brought up using this power for climate change and gun control...Including Nancy Pelosi.

So, his point wasn't that far fetched...
WHOOP!'91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trump should publicly say he would sign a bill that repealed the emergency powers act.
A & M, GIVE US ROOM!

Dallas82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
" That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee's ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. "

So I'm going to support the President violating the Constitution just this once.....
WHOOP!'91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dallas82 said:

" That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee's ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. "

So I'm going to support the President violating the Constitution just this once.....
How is the president no exercising powers under the law as passed by congress?

This isn't like Obama's DACA end-run I don't remember you having a problem with, or his cash to Iran deal.
A & M, GIVE US ROOM!

Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dallas82 said:

" That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee's ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. "

So I'm going to support the President violating the Constitution just this once.....
Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

It wasn't violating the Constitution. Cruz even ****ing says that...

biobioprof
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WHOOP!'91 said:

Dallas82 said:

" That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee's ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. "

So I'm going to support the President violating the Constitution just this once.....
How is the president no exercising powers under the law as passed by congress?

This isn't like Obama's DACA end-run I don't remember you having a problem with, or his cash to Iran deal.
Trump said no to Lee's Article 1 Act before the vote, IIRC. And Pelosi said it was DOA in the House.
WHOOP!'91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
biobioprof said:

WHOOP!'91 said:

Dallas82 said:

" That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee's ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. "

So I'm going to support the President violating the Constitution just this once.....
How is the president no exercising powers under the law as passed by congress?

This isn't like Obama's DACA end-run I don't remember you having a problem with, or his cash to Iran deal.
Trump said no to Lee's Article 1 Act before the vote, IIRC. And Pelosi said it was DOA in the House.
This is the only article I saw on it, and it doesn't comment on Trump's position but does mention that Pence has been meeting with R leaders to discuss it. That seems to indicate Trump isn't a "no".

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900060131/utah-sen-mike-lee-just-introduced-a-bill-to-prevent-president-donald-trump-from-acting-like-a-king-national-emergency-article-one-act-border-wall.html
A & M, GIVE US ROOM!

biobioprof
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WHOOP!'91 said:

biobioprof said:

WHOOP!'91 said:

Dallas82 said:

" That is why I am an original co-sponsor of Senator Lee's ARTICLE ONE Act, which significantly narrows how these emergency powers can be used going forward. "

So I'm going to support the President violating the Constitution just this once.....
How is the president no exercising powers under the law as passed by congress?

This isn't like Obama's DACA end-run I don't remember you having a problem with, or his cash to Iran deal.
Trump said no to Lee's Article 1 Act before the vote, IIRC. And Pelosi said it was DOA in the House.
This is the only article I saw on it, and it doesn't comment on Trump's position but does mention that Pence has been meeting with R leaders to discuss it. That seems to indicate Trump isn't a "no".

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900060131/utah-sen-mike-lee-just-introduced-a-bill-to-prevent-president-donald-trump-from-acting-like-a-king-national-emergency-article-one-act-border-wall.html



DentalAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He said there are 201k in the first 4 months of 2019, but it's not yet the end of March. In other words, they are not predicting 600k but 800k. Wow.
thirdcoast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I voted to support the President's declaration because, as Texans realize all too well, there is one.


How will border patrol deal with the Texas river bank on other side of wall?

How will law on setting foot on US soil be applied at Texas riverbank?
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag with kids said:

Faustus said:

Hypothetical future emergencies he has conjured and attached to political opponents (reallocate billions to advance socialism, freeze bank accounts of people who do business with Israel), are "so-called." Well yeah, you just made them up.

So Trump gets this one, but shutting it down in the future.

Hilarious stuff. The future emergency ones had to be written over chortles by the speech writers. "They're going to eat this stuff up!"
Several Democrats actually brought up using this power for climate change and gun control...Including Nancy Pelosi.

So, his point wasn't that far fetched...
I purposefully left out the climate change one, as that's not far-fetched that a Democratic president could invoke that.

I was more amused at grouping it with the other tailored scare emergencies hitting on partisan topics, attaching the conjured emergencies to specific political opponents, and then declaring the need to stop the "so called" emergencies he himself fabricated and attached to them. Like I said, his writers were probably fairly amused with themselves.

Responses "well-spoken," "great write up," "covered it all."
Page 1 of 1
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.