Who Will Vote With Trump Today To Shred The Constitution?

On Wednesday, Pelosi indicated that Joaquin Castro's Joint Resolution of Disapproval will be debated and, presumably, voted on, today. [I was just told the vote will probably be Tuesday, not today.] The resolution is short and sweet:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is hereby terminated. 


Pelosi: "I write to invite all Members of Congress to cosponsor Congressman Joaquin Castro’s privileged resolution to terminate this emergency declaration... The President’s decision to go outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process violates the Constitution and must be terminated." The first co-sponsor was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and there were already 100 co-sponsors by the time Pelosi's "Dear Colleague" letter circulated to all Democrats and Republicans. There was some question whether even Republicans who agree with the Constitution that Trump is shredding the separation of powers with the implications of his fake state of emergency would even vote for Castro's resolution, let alone co-sponsor it.

Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is a member of the Judiciary Committee and this is exactly the kind of powerful and crucial moment in history he takes more seriously than almost anyone. Yesterday he told us that "It may be tempting to dismiss Donald Trump’s declaration of a state of emergency as a laughable attempt to distract everyone from his failure to get either Mexico or the United States Congress to pay for his $35 billion medieval  fantasy border Wall, but the stakes are actually enormous. The hallmark of a Banana Republic is that the Executive unilaterally declares national security and military emergencies and spends the people’s money on his pet projects without legislative consent. If Trump gets away with overriding the clear will of Congress by spending federal money that we have explicitly refused to spend, he puts America squarely in the Banana Republic camp. The House of Representatives must act forcefully to reject this plain violation of the separation of powers and usurpation of our power to appropriate federal funds. It’s a big test to see whether there are any Republicans left who really believe in the Constitution."

Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi comes to a similar conclusion. "This is not about Donald Trump, the border wall or any other topic of the day," he just told us. "This is about the United States of America, the Constitution, the separate branches of government, and our system of checks and balances. Any Republican who is not concerned about this, should be concerned about a future Democratic President who would potentially try and use this precedent to use executive power to overrule an unwilling Congress. Everyone should wake up."

Republican columnist George Will seems to be blowing a gasket over their reticence. On Wednesday he wrote that Republicans who back Trump on this "should be expelled." It's more likely that the Republicans who refuse to back Trump would be the ones facing expulsion. He is worried that "a majority of congressional Republicans seem poised to support Trump’s evisceration of the Constitution’s architecture of checks and balances. By opposing a binding resolution disapproving the president’s declaration of an emergency, they would approve Congress’ acquiescence in the loss of its core power, that of controlling spending. These Republicans raise two questions: Why is there a Congress? And why are such Republicans receiving salaries? Every Republican who supports the president in this trashing of the Constitution, whose creation began here, thereby violates his or her sworn oath to defend it and to 'bear true faith and allegiance' to it. Voters should expel all of them from public life."

GOP leadership, predictably, is sticking with Trump. How many Republican members will break with them and cross the aisle? Will be a tiny handful-- say Justin Amash (MI), Tom Massie (KY), Brian Fitzpatrick (NY) and a couple for random "gypsy moths?" Or will there be significant numbers of Republicans who take this as an opportunity to stand up for democracy? And among Democrats... can Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn hold onto the Blue Dogs whose instincts are to keep their heads down and vote with Trump on something this controversial, especially the real cowardly career types like Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Joe Cunningham (SC), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Elaine Luria (VA), Kendra Horn (OK), Ben McAdams (UT), Max Rose and Tom O'Halleran (AZ) who are always more into the calculus of how to preserve their jobs than to do their jobs.

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) looks forward to debating Trump one-on-one after the primaries. For now, she told me last night that his "action declaring a 'national emergency' is unconstitutional and usurps Congressional authority to authorize and appropriate funds to serve the needs of the American people. This blatant power grab sets a dangerous precedent that threatens our democracy. Both Democrats and Republicans alike must put our country and our constitution first and take action to terminate this emergency declaration immediately."

Shahid Buttar is a constitutional attorney who has written about this very topic for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, where he's the director of grassroots outreach. You may remember him from the 2018 campaign when he made a courageous run against Pelosi in his San Francisco district. (Many people are trying to persuade him to try again in 2020.) Yesterday I asked him about Castro's joint resolution and he told me that Trump's "assertion of emergency powers lacks any basis either in statute or the constitution. In fact, our constitutional system of checks and balances is gravely threatened by baseless claims of emergency powers, which Congress and the courts must resist to restrain the executive branch. Given the right wing’s success at co-opting our federal courts, Congress must be especially assertive here not only to avoid the misappropriation of federal funds, but also to prevent executive power from expanding beyond its already untenable inflation."

You already know Ted Lieu, although do keep in mind that, like Jamie Raskin, he's one of the most activist members of the Judiciary Committee. Here's what he told us last night (and sent along the accompanying cool video): "Republicans had complete control of government for two years and they didn't fund Trump's vanity wall. So now the President is trying to circumvent Congress and our Constitutional system of government to fulfill a nonsensical campaign promise. Putting aside for a moment that there is a mountain of objective evidence showing there is no crisis on our southern border; putting aside that Trump's wall is a stupid idea to begin with; and putting aside that he promised Mexico would pay for it-- Trump's national emergency declaration is a dangerous power grab by the Executive Branch. For decades consecutive congresses have ceded the war-making power, which has had disastrous results for our national security. With this emergency declaration, Trump threatens to do the same with the power of the purse. Congressional Republicans must stand with Democrats against this blatant unconstitutional power grab."