By Sentinel Staff
Alaska’s Sen. Lisa Murkowski was a co-sponsor of a resolution introduced in the Senate Thursday that would “terminate the president’s national emergency declaration and uphold the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution,” Murkowski said in a news release today.
Murkowski, who has previously said she did not agree with the president’s emergency declaration, joined fellow Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire in sponsoring the resolution.
It is a companion resolution to H.J.Res 46, which passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 245-182 earlier this week.
The Washington political newspaper The Hill said the resolution is expected to come up for a vote within a few weeks. The paper said the measure can count on the votes of all Democrats in the Senate but is presently short of one Republican vote necessary for passage, and it faces a veto threat by the president if it is passed.
Trump’s Feb. 15 declaration of a national emergency at the southern border would divert funding already appropriated for military construction and other projects toward a border wall.
In the news release today Murkowski pointed out that the president made the declaration “despite the fact that Congress alone holds the ‘power of the purse’ to appropriate taxpayer funds.”
The joint resolution introduced in the Senate today would terminate the national emergency declaration and uphold the separation of powers, Murkowski’s office said.
“This is not about whether or not I support President Trump on border security,” Murkowski said in the news release. “I absolutely agree we must address security along our southern border, which is why Congress just appropriated $22 billion for border security – from investments in physical barriers to technology, custody enhancements, and law enforcement personnel. This resolution is about making sure that we respect the lanes of authorities that are laid out in the U.S. Constitution. This national emergency declaration creates greater precedent for expansion of executive authority by legislative acquiescence. The power to appropriate rests with the legislative branch and we are right to defend that. We have a solid system of checks and balances in this country, as long as we respect the powers and authorities of each branch of government.”
Udall said:
“There is no legal or factual basis to justify the president’s emergency declaration because there is no national security emergency at our southern border. But regardless how you feel about the president or his wall proposal, this declaration is an end run around the Constitution, designed to raid critical military funding to for money that Congress did not provide, after a long and difficult debate just a few weeks ago.”
Collins said:
“Let me be clear: The question before us is not whether to support or oppose the wall, or to support or oppose the President. Rather, it is: Do we want the Executive Branch—now or in the future—to hold a power that the Founders deliberately entrusted to Congress?. . .The President’s Emergency Declaration is ill-advised precisely because it attempts to short-cut the process of checks and balances by usurping Congress’ authority. This Resolution blocks that overreach, and I urge my colleagues to support it.”
Shaheen said “it’s time for the Senate to follow the House in reaffirming that constitutional authority.” She said “the very real and present military threats” from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are what make the President’s declaration to pull critical funding from defense construction projects to pay for his ineffective border wall so dangerous.”
She said the funding President Trump is trying to redirect could come from important projects at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the New Hampshire National Guard.
“That’s unacceptable,” she said in the news release. “I hope we can move quickly on this resolution in the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote.”
