Should Congress terminate the national emergency declaration?
Bill Summary
This resolution seeks to terminate the national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019. Under the National Emergencies Act, Congress can terminate emergencies declared by the president. As a joint resolution, this legislation could be considered by both chambers of Congress. To become law, it would need to be signed by The President. This bill has 225 cosponsors, all of whom are Democrats except for Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI-3). Sponsor: Rep. Joaquin Castro (Democrat, Texas, District 20)
View full bill text ➔
How do you feel?
You can still save your opinion to your scorecard, but since the vote has already taken place, your opinion won't be sent to your lawmakers.
Oppose
Support
Opponents say
• "Declaring a national emergency is a sobering act, which is why Congress enacted a statute governing when and how the president can take this action. House Democrats’ angst over Congress’ power of the purse is unwarranted, especially since the commander in chief’s authority to redirect military funds for a national emergency is affirmed in a law passed by their own branch." - House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA-9)
• Congress should seek to support the American people in stemming illegal immigration flows; to support this resolution is to privilege non-citizens over citizens.
• This resolution is more symbolic and divise than it is constructive as even if it passes, the president will veto -- a moralizing, pointless, political play.
• This resolution is more symbolic and divise than it is constructive as even if it passes, the president will veto -- a moralizing, pointless, political play.
Proponents say
• “Historically, Presidents have declared national emergencies for urgent matters of national security. President Trump would unconstitutionally usurp congressional authority by declaring an emergency based upon unfounded hype rather than any substantive emergency. Border crossings are lower than they have been in four decades. There are more law enforcement officers at the border — some stationed there simply to make good on politicians’ anti-immigrant rhetoric — than ever before. Further, such a baseless declaration by President Trump would set a dangerous precedent regarding the constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches.” - Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX-20)
• There is not an immigration crisis on our Southern border (illegal border crossings are down), so to characterize it as such is fallacious at best, malicious at worst.
• Trump’s declaration does not require the use of armed forces, so the use of a national emergency does not apply here.
• There is not an immigration crisis on our Southern border (illegal border crossings are down), so to characterize it as such is fallacious at best, malicious at worst.
• Trump’s declaration does not require the use of armed forces, so the use of a national emergency does not apply here.
- Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Joaquin Castro Moves to End President Trump’s National Emergency Declaration (Press Release)
- Dear Colleague: All Members Encouraged to Cosponsor Congressman Castro’s Resolution (Speaker's Letter)
- Why Trump’s border wall national emergency is constitutional (Washington Examiner)
- The Alarming Scope of the President’s Emergency Powers (The Atlantic)
- How Americans see illegal immigration, the border wall and political compromise (Pew Research)
- Trump Declares a National Emergency, and Provokes a Constitutional Clash (NY Times)
