President Trump declares National Emergency

[Rams]

Just curious as to how the forum feels about this.
I personally wish the Dems had worked with President Trump, most of them have voted to support the construction of barriers previously but now that it's President Trump pushing it, it a no go.

Yes, I do expect this to be challenged in court and I fully expect the case to be filed in CA first so that it will have to go through the 9th Circuit Court.     The most Liberal court in the land.

Please keep this civil.

Rams

[bagelboy]

Since I'm in favor of a wall, great! The Dems put forth a bogus healthcare system, negotiated the Bergdahl mess, and gave billions to Iran along with nukes. Who cares what they think!

[The emperor has no clothes]

Just curious as to how the forum feels about this.
I personality wish the Dems had worked with President Trump

I'm assuming you meant personally. They did work with him. The "deal maker" got rolled. He couldn't get his own party to fund the wall for 2 years, then he tries to negotiate with the Democrats and got taken to school. By Pelosi no less.

[Moonshot_1]

Just curious as to how the forum feels about this.
I personality wish the Dems had worked with President Trump

I'm assuming you meant personally. They did work with him. The "deal maker" got rolled. He couldn't get his own party to fund the wall for 2 years, then he tries to negotiate with the Democrats and got taken to school. By Pelosi no less.

I wouldn't consider the Democrats "working" with the President. They didn't work with ICE, they didn't work with Border Patrol, they didn't work with local law enforcement, or Angel Moms either.

Would be great if the Democrats were on the right side on the issue and at one time most were. I could find many speeches made by democrats in favor of barriers to stem illegal immigration.

[Rams]

Just curious as to how the forum feels about this.
I personality wish the Dems had worked with President Trump

I'm assuming you meant personally. They did work with him. The "deal maker" got rolled. He couldn't get his own party to fund the wall for 2 years, then he tries to negotiate with the Democrats and got taken to school. By Pelosi no less.

Yes, I meant personally.  Damn spell checker!  

In this case, I agree, the Republicans appeared to be afraid to pull the trigger.   This, I don't understand.  Most Republicans have supported a barrier bill in the past also.   Just doesn't make sense to me.   

I sincerely believe the Dem resistance is all about making Trump look bad.   Egos are such a PITA!

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

Just curious as to how the forum feels about this.
I personality wish the Dems had worked with President Trump

I'm assuming you meant personally. They did work with him. The "deal maker" got rolled. He couldn't get his own party to fund the wall for 2 years, then he tries to negotiate with the Democrats and got taken to school. By Pelosi no less.

Yes, I meant personally.  Damn spell checker!   

In this case, I agree, the Republicans appeared to be afraid to pull the trigger.   This, I don't understand.

Rams

I think it was pretty evident that the Republicans didn't view building the wall a very high priority. Evidently neither did Trump, as he sure didn't push it with them.

[Rams]

Just curious as to how the forum feels about this.
I personality wish the Dems had worked with President Trump

I'm assuming you meant personally. They did work with him. The "deal maker" got rolled. He couldn't get his own party to fund the wall for 2 years, then he tries to negotiate with the Democrats and got taken to school. By Pelosi no less.

Yes, I meant personally.  Damn spell checker!  

In this case, I agree, the Republicans appeared to be afraid to pull the trigger.   This, I don't understand.

Rams

I think it was pretty evident that the Republicans didn't view building the wall a very high priority. Evidently neither did Trump, as he sure didn't push it with them.

The Presidnt has had many battles to deal with the last two years and, he has been asking for that wall since he took office.    Why Republicans didn't move on this issue is not something I understand.

There is no doubt this will be a 2020 election issue.   How my reps vote on this will definately effect my personal voting.

Rams

[Hacked Valk]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that  private gun ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation. 

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

[Rams]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress has the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress gas the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-congress-national-emergency.html

[Savago]

Today must be a hard day for Trump supporters.

Today you got choose between the Constitution x the current President.

Choose wisely.

[baldo]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress gas the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

Looks like stealing Obama's pick was a smart move......

[Valker]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that  private gun ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Really? Defending our National Borders is in the Constitution as a responsibility of the federal government, and private gun ownership is an unalienable right with limits placed ONLY on the federal government by that same constitution. I'm still waiting for the Wall Haters to take the locks off their houses, leave the doors open for anyone seeking shelter.

[Serk]

I'm just gonna leave this here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/

Looks like stealing Obama's pick was a smart move......

Ya'll are playing checkers, while Trump is playing 3D Chess...

[J.Mencalice]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress gas the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-congress-national-emergency.html

Right.  A simple majority vote from the House and the Senate can torpedo a president's declaration of a national emergency.  It only takes one member to file the motion.  This won't  make it to the Supreme Court.  It happened to Junior Bush during Katrina and there is no reason why it won't happen here.  There is no emergency.  Trump will rightfully lose to the system of checks and balances that the Constitution demands.

[Already, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said on Thursday that he supports Congress taking up a resolution to halt the move.

He also vowed to both examine other legal methods and the actions in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, that could stop the president.

"I will fully support the enactment of a joint resolution to terminate the president's emergency declaration, in accordance with the process described in the National Emergencies Act, and intend to pursue all other available legal options," he said. "The Judiciary Committee will also use its authority to hold the administration to account and determine the supposed legal basis for the president's actions." ]

The above is copied from USA TODAY story from February 15, 2019.

I respectfully disagree with a declaration of emergency.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm just gonna leave this here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/

Looks like stealing Obama's pick was a smart move......

Ya'll are playing checkers, while Trump is playing 3D Chess...

Ann Coulter: "The Only National Emergency Is That Our President Is An Idiot"

Can an idiot even play one dimensional chess ?

[DirtyDan]

Yes they can

Most don’t

I like chess (one dimensional)

Dan

[Rams]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress has the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-congress-national-emergency.html

Right.  A simple majority vote from the House and the Senate can torpedo a president's declaration of a national emergency.  It only takes one member to file the motion.  This won't  make it to the Supreme Court.  It happened to Junior Bush during Katrina and there is no reason why it won't happen here.  There is no emergency.  Trump will rightfully lose to the system of checks and balances that the Constitution demands.

[Already, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said on Thursday that he supports Congress taking up a resolution to halt the move.

He also vowed to both examine other legal methods and the actions in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, that could stop the president.

"I will fully support the enactment of a joint resolution to terminate the president's emergency declaration, in accordance with the process described in the National Emergencies Act, and intend to pursue all other available legal options," he said. "The Judiciary Committee will also use its authority to hold the administration to account and determine the supposed legal basis for the president's actions." ]

The above is copied from USA TODAY story from February 15, 2019.

I don't believe a resolution has any teeth and only indicates what the supporters think/feel.   Carries no weight or authority.

Rams

[Rams]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress hass the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

Looks like stealing Obama's pick was a smart move......

Stealing?   Not really sure what that means coming from you but, ok.   I was thinking Trump won by be rules of the road, fair and square.

If that means you support the wall then, ok.  

Rams

[Rams]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress gas the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-congress-national-emergency.html

Right.  A simple majority vote from the House and the Senate can torpedo a president's declaration of a national emergency.  It only takes one member to file the motion.  This won't  make it to the Supreme Court.  It happened to Junior Bush during Katrina and there is no reason why it won't happen here.  There is no emergency.  Trump will rightfully lose to the system of checks and balances that the Constitution demands.

[Already, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said on Thursday that he supports Congress taking up a resolution to halt the move.

He also vowed to both examine other legal methods and the actions in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, that could stop the president.

"I will fully support the enactment of a joint resolution to terminate the president's emergency declaration, in accordance with the process described in the National Emergencies Act, and intend to pursue all other available legal options," he said. "The Judiciary Committee will also use its authority to hold the administration to account and determine the supposed legal basis for the president's actions." ]

The above is copied from USA TODAY story from February 15, 2019.

Well, if that's correct then the Emergency Declaration will definately have to be challenged in court, it'll never gets past the Senate. 

Rams

[Gavin_Sons]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress hass the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

Looks like stealing Obama's pick was a smart move......

Stealing?   Not really sure what that means coming from you but, ok.   I was thinking Trump won by be rules of the road, fair and square.

If that means you support the wall then, ok.  

Rams

Ron you know these guys only believe what their fake news outlets tell them. No use in correcting them. They have chosen to be on the losing team and they won't ever be done whining about it.

[Hacked Valk]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress hass the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

Looks like stealing Obama's pick was a smart move......

Stealing?   Not really sure what that means coming from you but, ok.   I was thinking Trump won by be rules of the road, fair and square.

If that means you support the wall then, ok.  

Rams

Ron you know these guys only believe what their fake news outlets tell them. No use in correcting them. They have chosen to be on the losing team and they won't ever be done whining about it.

ironic lol

[Oss]

Really ?  
The chief executive's job is to secure protect preserve and defend the country which guess what my friends? that means it includes the border, POTUS must use ICE, the FBI, any agency or establish one to do that and BONUS, the "emergency" does not infringe on any constitutionally established right of any citizen !  That idiot Pelosi would attack the 2nd amendment?  Dont they have any other ideas?

The emergency act allocutes just what is needed and as a Democrat he has my support   5 Billion is not even a fraction of what the government wastes daily.  Bravo for not shutting the government again and doing what Teddy Roosevelt would have done.   If any federal judge attempts to over rule she should be arrested for sedition.

Oss

I also would have supported all previous presidents who went on record as being for border security including Obama, (forget the gun fiasco in Mexico) Bush and Clinton.  Youtubes of all of them advocating for what is now happening are there or do I need to post the links.  This is a non issue except for the people who have no spine to protect the country

[Bighead]

I believe the courts will rule this a clear constitutional violation.  If not then the next president could proclaim that guns ownership represents a national emergency and redirect military budget for gun confiscation.  

Agreed. But, there is the possibility that they don't even rule on it. This is a clear fight between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. If Congress doesn't have enough balls to override a veto, then the Court might just say screw you we ain't getting involved.

I don't believe Congress gas the authority to over ride a National Emergency Declartion.   Per the news, the Presidnt has wide latitude in determining a national emergency.   This is not the same thing as over riding a veto.   It will have to be fought out in the courts.   But, I have no doubt how the 9th will rule.
Hopefully RBG will leave the court soon.   Now some will understand why Conservatives were so anxious to vote.  SCOTUS was in danger of going Liberal had the other candidate won.  Whew!  

Rams

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-congress-national-emergency.html

There is no emergency.

Really?

[Alpha Dog]

National Emergency has been invoked by every President since it becoming law in I believe 1976 well over 50 times.  If this invasion ( with its ramifications of more gangs, sex trafficking, fentanyl and heroin and much more )   at the Southern border does not qualify especially since the Constitution states explicitly the President's most precious duty is to protect this country, then I do not know what does.   If people do not like it than change the law.

[Serk]

Today must be a hard day for Trump supporters.

Today you got choose between the Constitution x the current President.

Choose wisely.

I have mixed feelings about the Democrats forcing President Trump to take such drastic action, but this is one of the very few things that the government IS supposed to do, per the constitution.

Article 4 Section 4 contains the following passage:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Per OED the definition of "invasion" is:

1 An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
1.1 An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
1.2 An unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

For illustrations of definitions 1.1 and 1.2, see the following:

[Psychotic Bovine]

Between the unknown illnesses that the invaders could be bringing with them and the anti-vaxxer movement, we could be looking at a serious medical crisis in the coming years.
I think that counts as an emergency.

[J.Mencalice]

Today must be a hard day for Trump supporters.

Today you got choose between the Constitution x the current President.

Choose wisely.

I have mixed feelings about the Democrats forcing President Trump to take such drastic action, but this is one of the very few things that the government IS supposed to do, per the constitution.

Article 4 Section 4 contains the following passage:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Per OED the definition of "invasion" is:

1 An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
1.1 An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
1.2 An unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

For illustrations of definitions 1.1 and 1.2, see the following:

If those are not pictures taken of people walking on American soil, then your above definitions are invalid for a presently occurring invasion of the United States of America.
If you are illustrating such a breach of  the country of Mexico or any of the other countries that these groups have tread upon in their march to the border of the USA, then I would agree that an invasion of those lands have occurred under said definitions.
Assuredly, an attempted incursion (as illustrated) of the United States of America would meet with opposition by the armed forces of the United States of America; such as would be ordered by our executive and legislative branches of the government.   I see that no such orders for armed resistance have been applied presently; therefore no invasion has occurred according to the definitions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2.
Thank you for enlightening me and relieving any anxiety that my country is being invaded today.

[f6john]

Gotta love a liberal. Close the barn door after the livestock are out. It will only be a National emergency when the Democrats are in power or one of our resident Trump haters families are negatively impacted by an illegal alien.

A catastrophe on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Liberal words to live by unless you can find a political advantage to be exploited.

[Serk]

Close the barn door after the livestock are out.

Gotta have a wall first, before you can have a door to close... 

[¿spoom]

Very much mixed feelings. When a President had about half the voters for and against him, it's hard to declare a mandate. The Democrats are willing to leverage their power while the Republicans fold like a cardboard box at the least bit of pressure. Should Trump have just torn up the budget and said try again? Possibly, but this really is 3-dimensional chess, would more voters blame Pelosi or Trump at the ballot box? Why did the republicans grow mouse balls? It's getting tiresome to watch the party of Ryan trip over their own swords rather than fall on them. There's many valid reasons for and against the national emergency debate, all of them more about the next election. The press is winning.

[Jess from VA]

Today must be a hard day for Trump supporters.

Today you got choose between the Constitution x the current President.

Choose wisely.

I have mixed feelings about the Democrats forcing President Trump to take such drastic action, but this is one of the very few things that the government IS supposed to do, per the constitution.

Article 4 Section 4 contains the following passage:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Per OED the definition of "invasion" is:

1 An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
1.1 An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
1.2 An unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

For illustrations of definitions 1.1 and 1.2, see the following:

You nailed it.  That is an invasion by any rational definition.  Plus the 11 or 12 million illegals already in the country would seem to be some evidence of an invasion.  And the fact we as a nation have sucked in the past at defending our borders and enforcing immigration law, is not some kind of lawful defense to a continuing invasion. 

I'm also a bit unhappy this was not accomplished with a House majority, and now must be fought with a socialist obstructionist majority, but that does not change the fact of invasion.   

And the majority of emergency orders over the years seem to have been against very narrow interests overseas. 

[phideux]

At least Trump is using this Emergency order to help the US. Look at all the times Obama used Emergency Orders to help Burundi, Venezuela, Central African Republic, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. You can see where his loyalties were.

[Alberta Patriot]

Question...How is what the Democrats are doing any different than the muslim invasion of Europe pushed by the European Union with mandatory quotas on member states. How is Trump's campaign to protect your borders any less legitimate than Poland and Hungary blocking these invaders from entering their Nations.

[Jess from VA]

Question...How is what the Democrats are doing any different than the muslim invasion of Europe pushed by the European Union with mandatory quotas on member states. How is Trump's campaign to protect your borders any less legitimate than Poland and Hungary blocking these invaders from entering their Nations.

It's not any less legitimate, it's just that those countries apparently don't have as many obstructionist, scum bag, card carrying lock-step Leader hating low life's elected to office as we do.

And I haven't checked, but I bet those borders are a lot shorter.

[..]

Economy good.

Unemployment low.

What else can the desperate left complain about.

Oh, oh, I know border security and safety.

Even though the hypocrisy vomiters were all for border security when it suited them.

[..]

How far will the lunacy go before they are removed from office at an election?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/beto-orourke-i-would-absolutely-tear-down-existing-walls-at-border/

[old2soon]

          WHY do some many people CHOOSE to remain ignorant? AND I Will leave That There! RIDE SAFE.

[The emperor has no clothes]

At least Trump is using this Emergency order to help the US. Look at all the times Obama used Emergency Orders to help Burundi, Venezuela, Central African Republic, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. You can see where his loyalties were.

His loyalties were to the USA. If you care to learn anything about those emergency orders that DID NOT INFRINGE ON THE CONGRESS’s POWER OF THE PURSE STRINGS, here you go.

https://www.inquisitr.com/5298234/barack-obama-declared-a-national-emergency-11-times-during-his-presidency/