Trump's Phony National Emergency-- And His Vulnerability In 13 States He Won In 2016

A new national Gallup poll shows Trump underwater in every single state he lost in 2016 but also underwater in 13 states he won in 2016! His job approval is between 49 and 40% in Arizona (43%), Texas (41%), Louisiana (49%), Florida (43%), Georgia (44%), North Carolina (45%), Pennsylvania, Ohio (48%), Indiana (48%), Michigan (42%), Wisconsin (42%), Iowa (45%) and Nebraska (49%). Two other states have Trump at a 50% approval rating, which says to me that if Bernie runs an effective campaign based on Medicare-For-All and the other key points in his platform, Democrats could see flips in South Carolina and Kansas to boot, with Montana, Idaho and Oklahoma (each at 51%) worth going after as well.

Yesterday Anita Kumar and Maggie Severns reported for Politico about the realization among Republican donors that Trump is more than likely to lose in 2020, regardless of who the Democrats nominate. They worry that there's no strategy to win reelection and wonder how he intends to prevail again in the Rust Belt states that voted for him in 2016, but where Democrats performed strongly in last year's midterms. But there are also concerns about whether the president's fundraising apparatus is up to the task, and whether Trump will trample on any strategy or message the campaign does develop, as he frequently does...Trump’s strategy in the midterms was mostly confined to rallying his base at raucous rallies in states that backed him for president, while largely ignoring moderates and independents."

By now, you've probably heard that 58 former national security officials-- from both parties-- released a declaration that challenges Trump’s national emergency proclamation to spend billions of dollars Congress hasn't appropriated to build his vanity wall. There are even some former Trump Regime officials, including former ambassadors to Mexico and Panama, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and Assistant Secretary for International Engagement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. They wrote that they "support the President’s power to mobilize the Executive Branch to respond quickly in genuine national emergencies" but state that "under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the President to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border."

• Illegal border crossings are at near forty-year lows;
• There is no documented terrorist or national security emergency at the southern border;
• There is no emergency related to violent crime at the southern border;
• There is no human or drug trafficking emergency that can be addressed by a wall at the southern border;
• This proclamation will only exacerbate the humanitarian concerns that do exist at the southern border;
• Redirecting funds for the claimed “national emergency” will undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests;
• There is no basis for circumventing the appropriations process with a declaration of a national emergency at the southern border; and
• The situation at the border does not require the use of the armed forces, and a wall is unnecessary to support the use of the armed forces.

Meanwhile 23 Republican former senators and congressmembers signed an open letter to current Republican members of Congress, urging them to to honor their pledges to protect and defend the Constitution by voting against Trump's Nazi-tinged fake national emergency. "It has always been," they wrote, "a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to presidents or party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional republic we must act within the borders of the Constitution. Our oath is to put the country and its Constitution above everything, including party politics or loyalty to a president."

We offer two arguments against allowing a president-- any president, regardless of party-- to circumvent congressional authority. One is the constitutional placing of all lawmaking power in the hands of the people’s representatives. Article 1 of the Constitution, which vests the legislative branch with specific powers, states in section 9: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The power of the purse rests with Congress because it is comprised of 535 representatives of the taxpayer and is the most direct connection between those being governed and those governing. If you allow a president to ignore Congress, it will be not your authority but that of your constituents that is deprived of the protections of true representative government.

The second argument goes directly to the question each of you must face: how much are you willing to undermine both the Constitution and the Congress in order to advance a policy outcome that by all other legitimate means is not achievable? The current issue-- a wall on our southern border-- has gone through the process put in place by the Constitution. It has been proposed by the President, it has been debated by Congress, and the representatives of the people allocated funding at a level deemed appropriate by Congress. We understand that there are many Members of Congress who disagree with the final funding compromise reached by a bipartisan group of legislators. To you, we ask this question: what will you do when a president of another party uses the precedent you are establishing to impose policies to which you are unalterably opposed? There is no way around this difficulty: what powers are ceded to a president whose policies you support may also be used by presidents whose policies you abhor.

Ro Khanna (D-CA) went quite a bit further than any of these Republicans would ever go. He cautioned the Pentagon to be careful about following Trump down an un-Constitutional rabbit hole. In a statement yesterday, Khanna said that he "strongly cautions Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford against violating the clear terms of the national emergency statute (10 U.S. Code § 2808 ) in the 1976 National Emergencies Act (PL 94-412). This administration would violate this statute if the proposed $3.6 billion were diverted for an expansion of the border wall. The national emergency statute only authorizes the Department of Defense (DoD) to divert funds for usage in the U.S. for the purpose of enhancing the use of military facilities on property owned by DoD. It does not authorize the diversion of funds to property owned by other branches of the U.S. government, which in this instance, would be the case. Additionally, the construction of the wall requires seizure of property owned by private citizens and Native American tribes. As made clear by the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus, this statute prohibits the president from using the military to enforce domestic law. The Congress, which is given the “power of the purse” by our Founding Fathers, appropriated these funds solely for military construction and family housing funding-- not a border wall. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Rep. Joaquin Castro’s House Joint Resolution 46, and I will strongly support and vote for it to terminate the President’s manufactured 'national emergency' and prevent our Defense Department’s money from illegally being spent on an unnecessary and ineffective border wall."

The House is slated to vote today and McTurtle will stall for a couple weeks before allowing a vote. In an editorial at The Bulwark, a right-wing, anti-Trump neoCon website, assert that "this should not be a difficult vote for Republicans, especially those who (1) were outraged by President Obama’s use of his executive powers, (2) care about the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, (3) wish to protect Congress’s Article I powers, and (4) recognize the dangerous precedent that the declaration of emergency creates for future presidents...Trump will veto the congressional action, but even if the votes to override aren’t there, it is right and proper to put our elected officials on record at this moment of truth. They will have to choose whether they are willing to cross this red line for a fictional emergency and an imaginary wall. We hope that this will be the moment when senators such as Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Marco Rubio, and Ron Johnson put their constitutional obligations ahead of their party loyalties. But all members of Congress take the same oath of office (see Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code):

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

"This is their moment," wrote the editors, "to live up to that oath." My personal favorite scenario would have Martha McSally (R-AZ) crossing the aisle to vote for the Constitution, while Kyrsten Sinema, the most useless Trump-Dem in the Senate crossing in the other direction to vote with McTurtle. She should also announce she's switching parties at that moment, which won't cause Schumer to give a second thought about recruiting far right-wing Democrats, but will at least give activists a weapon to clobber Schumer with for the rest of his miserable career.

UPDATE: Green New Deal

Finally there's an official list of co-sponsors for AOC's Green New Deal Resolution. There's an interesting ideological contrast. The progressives like Ro Khanna, Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu, Joe Neguse, Barbara Lee, Ayanna Pressley, Jamie Raskin, Mike Levin, Ilhan Omar, Debra Haaland are all on board-- but so are a surprising number of New Dems and Blue Dogs like Seth Moulton, Sean Patrick Maloney, Adam Schiff, Juan Vargas. Still now Republicans though. Here's the whole list, 90 members.