Sen. Rand Paul Explains His Decision To Vote Against Trump’s Emergency Declaration

On Sunday, we found out that Sen. Rand Paul planned to vote against President Trump’s national emergency declaration, thereby giving the other side the majority. He’s joining Republican Sens. Collins, Murkowski and Tillis. If it indeed goes that way, it’ll go to President Trump. If you recall, he already pledged to veto it.

It’s not that Paul disagrees with a physical barrier on the border. It’s not about that. He says it’s about checks and balances. He explained his decision in an op-ed.

He said he would lose his “political soul” if he refused to treat Trump’s executive actions like Obama’s.

In September of 2014, I had these words to say: “The president acts like he’s a king. He ignores the Constitution. He arrogantly says, ‘If Congress will not act, then I must.’

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)

He was sure to remind everyone that he supports Trump and his position on national security. However, he cannot support Trump’s use of emergency powers. It’s as simple as that. He outlines his reasoning further:

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding. First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders, and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders? As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power. In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

He even went as far as saying that Trump’s Supreme Court picks “may rebuke him ” on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

I look forward to working for a constitutional way to deal with our border security issue.

It’s not an unreasonable argument.

Is it as straightforward as Paul makes it?

None of this would even be an issue if everyone stopped playing these stupid political games.