President Trump's agreement with Congressional leaders on Friday to reopen the government by February 15 has temporarily halted the confrontation with Democrats over his demand for $ 5.7 billion to build a wall along our southern border postponed.
The House and Senate Both passed a short-term spending bill after President Trump announced the agreement, and the President signed the measure on Friday night, ending the partial closure of the government, which began on December 22. The law does not include funding through the border wall.
Legislation Will Do This 800,000 federal workers will be able to collect paychecks and resume work. But we will be back in first place in three weeks if the Democrats refuse to stand up their stubborn resistance to providing funding for a wall that is obviously needed as an important element of border security.
TRUMP SUPPORTS BILL TO END THE PARTIAL GOVERNMENT
The illogicality of the Democratic opposition to providing funds for a border wall, a fence or another barrier is insane because most Democrats do so Doing several years in the Congress, he agreed in the past for the financing of the border guard.
President Trump was more than wise to compromise with the Democrats. He announced last weekend that he would extend protection against deportation to another 1
This is a major concession for the 700,000 young immigrants illegally brought to the US as children and now protected from deportation by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It is also a big concession to another 300,000 immigrants who are being protected in the US after coming here after natural disasters and other disasters in their home countries.
But if the Democrats refuse to compromise, if they refuse to offer anything money for a border wall or a kind of barrier, we will be back in crisis mode in three weeks' time. That would be bad news for all Americans, regardless of their political affiliation. President Trump said on Friday that if there is no agreement with Congress by 15 February to fund the border wall he has repeatedly promised to declare, a national emergency and US military order would bring the wall along with it To build funds from the Ministry of Defense.
The idea of simply declaring an emergency and building the border wall without the approval of the House and the Senate must be understandable to President Trump.  But my strong advice to the president – as a Republican representing a Pennsylvania district in parliament from 1977 to 1997 – is that under no circumstances should he declare a national emergency to obtain funding for the wall ,
But my strong advice The President – who has spoken as a Republican, representing a Pennsylvania district in Parliament from 1977 to 1997 – is that he should under no circumstances choose to reject a national emergency in order to obtain wall funding ,
Any attempt by the President to visit the Congress to finance a border wall by proclaiming a national emergency would certainly lead to lawsuits. These lawsuits could take years to appeal to the Supreme Court, probably assuring that the wall could not be built in the President's first term.
And if President Trump decided to spend billions of dollars without congressional approval by calling for a national emergency, the Supreme Court affirmed that control and balance in the constitution, which makes Congress an equal government branch, could turn out to be thrown in the window. That would be a terrible and dangerous precedent.
Imagine a future Democratic president declaring climate change a national emergency, ordering a ban on coal and oil and gas wells and the closure of nuclear power plants.
Or imagine a future Democratic president declaring a national emergency for the provision of public health services funded by massive tax increases.
The nightmarish possibilities of "national emergencies" that future presidents could explain are endless. A president empowered to spend money without congressional approval could provide us with what the founding fathers wanted to prevent – the one-person rule of a president with far greater powers who could ignore the will of our elected representatives in Congress.
While $ 5.7 billion That's certainly a lot of money, it's just a tiny fraction of the federal budget. Therefore, for most rational Americans, it is difficult to understand why the struggle for that border wall boundary became a fight between President Trump and Democrats, leading to the longest government deadlock in US history.
The Reason for After the closure process, Parliament spokesperson Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., And President Trump were on a collision course leading to a wreck. President Trump decided Friday that the American people needed the reopening of the US government, so he stepped forward and agreed to the three-week plan to get federal employees back to work without the wall funding they wanted. Now, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., must also make compromises so that there is no further decommissioning or declaration of a national emergency by President Trump.
Candidate Trump clearly stated in his 2016 campaign that he should be secured by building a wall and other important steps. Throughout his presidency, Trump has proven that he wants to keep his election promises.
The President has never failed in his determination to build the Wall, but for various reasons has postponed Congress concerns over the immediate timing of wall funding. He was told that the border security issue would be dealt with at the end of the year. When this promise evaporated, he decided to assert himself.
The election of a democratic majority in parliament exacerbated the situation. This new majority is made up of factions – and a significant number of representatives wanted a change of leadership in their caucus and in the house.
As a result, Pelosi had a difficult fight for the election to elect her as spokesman. Many new Democrat representatives and some firefighters from the past were passionate about Trump and focused heavily on the election of a speaker who would reject President Trump at every turn. For them, the wall was a symbol of everything they hated about the president.
We know that Speaker Pelosi is looking for her job because there were many accommodations available to the Democratic dissident. The question now for Pelosi is: "In the course of your campaign for the conference, did you promise to anyone in your caucus that you would stand for absolutely no funds for the wall?"
I do not know the answer to this question, and I do not know if it was asked. However, there is every reason to believe that the Wall was being discussed as a speaker in Pelosis campaign and that it has led the rebels to believe that they would never allow the wall to be financed. She might be trapped by what she had to promise in her pursuit of power.
The House Rules contain a provision that allows a majority of members to remove the Speaker from office. Such an application was never successful, but if the Left Democrats were upset because Pelosi wanted to fund some border wall funding with Republicans in the future, they might be able to push Pelosi out of speaker practice.
CLICK HERE TO OBTAIN THE FOX NEWS APP
. The threat of this event is likely to undermine Peloso's lack of reasonable compromise with President Trump on border security.
We hope that Pelosi decides to take care of the nation's prosperity from political considerations and the preservation of its position. She and Senator Schumer should meet halfway with President Trump and avoid further closure of the government or declaration of a national emergency by the President. Our national interest requires such a compromise.