Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that he will oppose President Trump's national emergency declaration to fund a wall along the southern border, as the Senate prepares to vote on a resolution to block it.

Paul, speaking at the Southern Kentucky Lincoln Day Dinner late Saturday, said that he couldn't "vote to give extra-constitutional powers to the president."

"I can't vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn't been appropriated by Congress. We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn't authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it's a dangerous thing," he said, according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

Paul's stance makes him the crucial fourth Republican senator to support the resolution, marking a setback for the administration that would force Trump to use the first veto of his presidency.

He elaborated in a Fox News op-ed, published on Sunday evening, that he would vote for the resolution of disapproval when it gets a vote in the Senate.

"Every single Republican I know decried President Obama's use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power," he added.

Paul added that Trump's decision to declare a national emergency to get funding beyond the $1.375 billion approved in a recent government funding bill "is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress." He added that if Trump was unsatisfied with the amount provided by lawmakers "his only constitutional recourse" would have been to veto the bill.

"I think the president's own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this. Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. ... I think he's wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits," Paul wrote.

The Senate is expected to vote on a resolution blocking Trump's emergency declaration before leaving town for a weeklong recess set to begin on March 15.

Supporters of the resolution left Washington last Thursday on the brink of having enough votes to block the declaration and force a Trump veto. With all 47 senators who caucus with Democrats expected to support the resolution, they need to flip four Republicans to clinch the 51 votes needed in the Senate.

GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) have already said they will vote for a resolution to block Trump's emergency declaration, which passed the House last week in a 245-182 vote, with 13 Republicans joining Democrats to support it.

Roughly a dozen other Republican senators remain on the fence about Trump's emergency declaration, meaning supporters could pick up several additional GOP "yes" votes before the resolution comes to the floor.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is retiring at the end of the current Congress, urged Trump to back down from his emergency declaration, which he warned was creating a "constitutional crisis." But Alexander declined to say how he would vote on a resolution blocking Trump's action.

"I will announce how I'm going to vote when I know what we're going to be voting on," Alexander told reporters.

"I learned a long time ago in the United States Senate it's not wise to announce how you're going to vote on a vote you may never have to take," he added.

Trump has said he will "100 percent" veto the resolution of disapproval if it reaches his desk. He also appeared to warn Republican senators who are thinking about opposing him, arguing that supporting the resolution would be a "very dangerous thing."

"I really think that Republicans that vote against border security and the wall, I think you know, I've been OK at predicting things, I think they put themselves at great jeopardy," he told Fox News's Sean Hannity last week.

GOP aides predicted that the resolution would likely get a vote next week, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) setting up four nominations on the floor this week.

Trump announced that he would declare a national emergency the day after Congress passed a government funding bill that included $1.375 billion for physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, well below the $5.7 billion that he requested. He's hoping to pull together roughly $8 billion for the border wall by combining the emergency declaration, executive actions and the money from Congress.

- This report was updated at 1:06 p.m.</s>Donald Trump has lost a Republican ally in his bid to find border wall funding, and will likely have to issue his first veto to keep his plans on track.

Senator Rand Paul said this week that he will vote for a resolution denying Trump’s state of emergency regarding immigration, which Trump was using as a way to re-allocate funding to start building the border wall. Paul spoke at a political gathering in Kentucky on Saturday, saying he could not authorize giving “extra-Constitutional powers” to the president.

“I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” Paul said (via the Bowling Green Daily News). “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

Donald Trump’s issuance of a state of emergency has drew bipartisan criticism, with many calling it an overreach of his powers and a reaction to losing a legislative battle over border wall funding. But Trump has vowed to press on, saying he will veto any resolution that would seek to take away the use of emergency powers to build the border wall. It would be the first veto of his presidency.

By using the declaration of a national emergency, Donald Trump is able to divert $3.6 billion originally slated for military construction to begin building the border wall, which had been a chief promise from his 2016 campaign. Trump is using other powers to transfer another $3.1 billion to build the border wall, Fox News reported.

There are already three other Republicans who have said they will vote against Trump’s use of a state of emergency. As Fox News noted, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska and Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., have all said they will break with Trump on the border wall funding.

With Rand Paul also voting no, there now appear to be 51 votes against the measure, making it likely to pass and make it to Trump’s desk.

Some Republicans have said they are fearful at the precedent it would set to issue a state of emergency after losing a legislative battle, warning that a subsequent Democratic president could issue a state of emergency to address issues like gun violence or climate change. Other critics on the left have noted that Trump said repeatedly during the 2016 campaign that he would make Mexico pay for the wall, and now is issuing a state of emergency to take it from taxpayer funds.</s>Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that 'plenty of evidence' points to collusion with Russia by the 2016 Donald Trump campaign.

After the Republican Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee stated last week that the committee’s investigation had found “no factual evidence of collusion between the (Donald) Trump campaign and Russia” in the 2016 presidential election camoaign, as quoted by NBC News, the top Democrat on that committee refuted Burr’s claim in an interview with the NBC political program Meet the Press on Sunday morning.

Virginia Senator Mark Warner said that in fact the committee — and other investigations into the 2016 election — had already uncovered “enormous amounts of evidence” pointing to collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, according to a Politico report.

In January of 2017, the United States intelligence services released a report titled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Election concluding that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election, with the intention of tipping the outcome in Trump’s favor and against Democrat Hillary Clinton. But the intelligence assessment did not say whether the Trump campaign took in active role in the Russian propaganda and hacking campaign.

But in the ensuing two years, multiple investigations have revealed what Warner called large amounts of evidence that the Trump campaign did, in fact, collaborate with Russia on some level, in the election-rigging effort. “There’s no one that could factually say there’s not plenty of evidence of collaboration or communications between Trump Organization and Russians,” Warner told Meet the Press.

Trump himself took to his Twitter feed on Sunday to again protest the investigations into his conduct during the campaign, complaining that he is “an innocent man being persecuted by some very bad, conflicted & corrupt people.”

Also on Sunday, Democrat Adam Schiff who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, in an appearance on the CBS News Face the Nation broadcast, cited several examples of what he called “direct evidence” of collusion — including emails sent to Donald Trump Jr. by the representative of a Russian oligarch offering “dirt” on Clinton, courtesy of the Russian government, as Inquisitr has reported.

“They offer that dirt,” said Schiff. “There is an acceptance of that offer in writing from the president’s son Don Jr. and there is overt acts in furtherance of that.”

Schiff was referring to the June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower in New York between Trump Jr., Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, and a group of Russians led by Kremlin-linked attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, as CNN has chronicled.

Veselnitskaya later attended Trump’s inauguration festivities, as Inquisitr reported, and also later admitted in an interview to being an “informant” for a high-ranking Kremlin official.</s>Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., came out against President Donald Trump’s border wall national emergency declaration this weekend, and in doing so he provided what is likely to be the 51st and decisive vote against it. If nothing changes between now and the vote, that means both chambers of Congress will have combined to void the declaration.

Practically speaking, this signifies less than it might seem. Trump could, and likely will, simply veto it, at which point both chambers would need to produce two-thirds votes to override the veto. Neither chamber has those kinds of numbers voting against the declaration – much less voting for a veto override. The national emergency would then move forward.

But it’s worth taking stock of how significant this moment is – and how it could potentially impact the battle that actually will decide the fate of the national emergency declaration: the legal case.

We have seen over and over again how a closely divided GOP-controlled Senate has come close to rebuking the president. Almost always, holdouts like Paul, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) were prevailed upon the toe the line in the end.

When enough Republicans have crossed over to rebuke Trump, it has almost always been in symbolic ways: Jamal Khashoggi, Trump’s trade wars, the media not being “the enemy of the people,” and the withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan.

This time, there’s meat on the bone. The GOP-controlled Senate would actually be taking concrete action to stop Trump, thereby forcing Trump to veto something. It would be his first veto, in fact. This registers that he is acting in clear opposition to – and overturning – the will of Congress.

That matters from a PR standpoint. Congress not only declined to give Trump the money for his border wall even when he shut down the government over it, but now it would be explicitly disapproving of his effort to get around its decision not to appropriate the money. That’s two rebukes on the same issue, and Trump would be pushing past both of them.

The question from there is whether those twin rebukes might also matter for the legal battle. However people feel about this particular national emergency declaration, Congress did give the presidency rather broad authority to declare such emergencies. When it passed the National Emergencies Act in the 1970s, it handed over some of its constitutional authority over the purse strings of government. That authority has not been tested like it is now, but that does not mean the courts will necessarily say it goes too far.

But Paul, for one, thinks that it will. He is actually predicting that the Supreme Court will strike down the national emergency declaration if and when it comes to that point, and he says Congress’ votes will matter.

“We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion,” Paul said. “Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.”

Ohio State University law professor Peter Shane also thinks the votes could matter:

“The joint resolution underscores the big-picture constitutional dimension of the fight. Congress’ power of the purse is its heavy artillery in the scheme of checks and balances. The Constitution underscores its significance through redundancy. Not only does Article I vest the spending power in the legislative branch, but a separate provision bars the executive branch from spending money unless appropriated. If presidents can find ways to work around Congress’ rejection of their requested spending priorities, Congress’ big gun has been silenced.”

“A joint resolution underscoring that Congress has deliberately rejected the inclusion of border wall fencing in response to a presidential request could well move a court to say that this statute will not help finance it.”

Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School says this is likely to come down to whether the courts (a) decide to narrowly interpret the statute or (b) focus more on whether there is actually an emergency and whether Trump has this authority.

“It certainly adds weight to the idea that this is executive overreach and a blatant and problematic end-run around Congress,” Levinson said. “They not only decided not to appropriate the funds, but are saying even more definitively, ‘Do not do this. Do not go around us.’ ”

Levinson pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s travel ban last year, though, as an example of how it might keep its focus on the statute. The court said in its 5-4 decision that determining Trump’s underlying motives – including about potentially banning Muslim immigration – from his tweets and public comments was beyond its responsibilities. Since then, Trump has appointed and gotten another justice confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh.
• Analysis: Fox News reportedly had Stormy Daniels story and killed it
• Former acting AG Whitaker has left the Justice Dept.
• Rand Paul says he will vote for measure blocking Trump’s emergency declaration, paving way for passage In this case, though, the court would not have to surmise how Congress feels about its authority being usurped. It would have votes on which to base the fact that Congress clearly did not want Trump to take an action involving a power it afforded him.

That does not mean the court will find it compelling, but it does mean that Paul’s decision may not just be another pointless symbolic rebuke.</s>Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said he will vote against a resolution in an attempt to terminate President Donald Trump’s national emergency for border wall funding.

Paul will join a group of three Republicans who have expressed their concerns with Trump’s declaration for a national emergency, saying they do not believe the president should be allowed to override Congress to such a degree.

“I can’t vote to give extraconstitutional powers to the President,” Paul said, to the Bowling Green Daily News Saturday. “I can’t vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” he continued. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.” He was speaking to the Warren County Republican Party.

In the group are Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

“As a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress,” Tillis wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post. “As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms.”

Murkowski said Tuesday she would vote for the resolution, making it clear that the bill will pass the Senate due to support from these Republicans.

Collins said Wednesday she supports a lawsuit challenging Trump’s national emergency, adding that she plans to vote for the congressional resolution.

Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the resolution Friday to block Trump’s national emergency that could allow him to build a wall on the southern border.

Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro introduced the resolution, which he said will pass the House, as 222 cosponsors have jumped on board. Castro sent out a tweet saying his resolution would terminate Trump’s national emergency. Democrats only need 218 supporters to pass the resolution.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to her colleagues Thursday, telling them they need to “move swiftly to pass this bill.”

This comes just days after Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a 2020 hopeful, listed of a number of issues for which she would declare a national emergency if elected president, including “climate change, gun violence, student loan debt — right off the top. That’s what we ought to be working on.”

Trump will still have the option to veto the resolution if passed by the Senate.</s>U.S. Sen. Rand Paul has indicated he'll vote in favor of a resolution seeking to block President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration, giving Senate opponents enough votes to send the resolution to Trump's desk.

During a speech Saturday night in Bowling Green, Paul, R-Ky., said he "can’t vote to give extra-Constitutional powers to the president," according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

“I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” Paul said, as reported by the Bowling Green Daily News. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

A spokesperson for Paul could not be immediately reached Sunday afternoon.

Read this: Mitch McConnell is in a 'perpetual bind' thanks to Trump, Yarmuth says

Trump declared an emergency in February after Congress sent him a bipartisan funding bill that didn't include his $5.7 billion demand for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In declaring an emergency, the president is able to free up billions from other sources to pay for the barrier, which he claims is necessary to reduce the flow of drugs and gang members into the country.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 245-182 in support of the resolution blocking Trump's declaration. Thirteen Republicans joined all Democrats in backing the measure.

Paul joins Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who have all said they'll vote against the national emergency declaration.

The resolution needs 51 votes to pass.

Assuming all the Senate's 47 Democrats and their independent allies vote against Trump, opponents would have the votes needed.

However, Trump is expected to veto the resolution, which would mark the first veto of his presidency.

This story may be updated.

Associated Press and USA TODAY contributed reporting. Reporter Matthew Glowicki can be reached at 502-582-4989 or mglowicki@courier-journal.com. Support strong local journalism by subscribing today: courier-journal.com/mattg.</s>On Sunday night, the U.S. Senate gained the fourth and final vote needed to block Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration when Rand Paul announced that he would support a Democratic measure to overturn the president’s executive action. The bill, which has already passed in the House, would then get sent to Trump’s desk—where the president would almost certainly issue a veto.

Paul, the “libertarian-ish” senator from Kentucky, offered a candid explanation for his decision to rebuke the president’s attempt to circumvent Congress to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. “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,’” Paul wrote in an op-ed for Fox News, referring to his opposition to Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration. “I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama.”

The defection will be keenly felt inside the White House. Paul has been described as the “Trump whisperer,” a fellow political iconoclast who enjoys a deeply personal connection to the president, despite their ideological differences. Though Paul has frequently spoken against Trump’s foreign policy agenda, such as air strikes in Syria, he has also been influential, encouraging the president’s anti-interventionist instincts. At other times, he has been a loyal Republican foot soldier, such as when he decided to support the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh despite Kavanaugh’s past ruling in a mass surveillance court case.

Trump’s choice to circumvent Congress to fund his border wall, however, was apparently a bridge too far in Paul’s book:

Paul joins Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, and Susan Collins in supporting the resolution, which in all likelihood won’t actually put a stop to the state of emergency, but which represents an embarrassing rebuke of the president. Trump has already suffered numerous defeats in his quest for a border wall, many thanks to his own inability to negotiate. After turning down a $25 billion offer from Chuck Schumer early in his presidency, he shut down the government for more than a month to eke out a measly $5.7 billion for what he pitched as a barrier made of “steel slats.” Even if Trump vetoes the resolution, which is a virtual inevitability, Paul warned that the Supreme Court, filled with “the president’s own picks,” would very likely overturn his declaration.

Other Republicans, Paul said, should follow his lead, or risk becoming hypocrites of the highest order. “Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate,” he said. “We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.”

— Ivanka Trump: Americans want to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just like me

— Reading between Mueller’s lines: is the story of Russian collusion hiding in plain sight?

— Bernie Sanders is already repeating some crucial 2016 mistakes

— Look at these Oscar party photos!

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.</s>WASHINGTON—Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday that he would support a resolution that would overturn U.S. President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, appearing to provide the crucial vote needed for the Senate to pass the measure. “I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice,” Paul wrote in an opinion piece published late Sunday on Fox News’ website. “Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.”

“I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding” for a wall along the border with Mexico, he wrote, “so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.” Paul joins three other Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — in backing the resolution. His support appears to provide the slim majority Democrats need to send the measure to the president’s desk, offering a stinging repudiation of the declaration. The House, largely on party lines, passed the resolution Tuesday, and under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, the Senate is required to vote on the resolution in the coming weeks. Trump has said he would veto the measure, and it is unlikely that either chamber could muster the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

Paul, a Kentucky libertarian who frequently rails against government spending and often has no qualms about bucking his party, urged his Republican colleagues to recall their frustration with President Barack Obama’s use of executive power. He warned about the legal merits of the order, writing that “I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.” He had signalled in remarks Saturday at the Southern Kentucky Lincoln Day Dinner that he would vote for the resolution, saying he was opposed to giving “extra-constitutional powers to the president,” according to The Bowling Green Daily News.

But with time before the Senate has to vote, Trump and his allies have an opportunity to lobby Paul. Such tactics have been successful before: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was poised to give Mike Pompeo’s nomination as secretary of state an unfavourable recommendation until Paul bowed to pressure and gave his approval. Trump, who was repeatedly denied wall funding by lawmakers, hopes to use $3.6 billion (U.S.) from military construction projects to fulfil his campaign promise to build a wall along the southern border. He has dismissed concerns about the precedent, saying in a speech Saturday that “they’re going to do that anyway, folks.” Some Republican senators — including Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — have voiced concerns about the effect on military readiness, seeking assurances that projects in their states will not be affected. The Defense Department has yet to release a list of projects affected. Others, including Paul, have objected to a possible overreach of executive power that future presidents could take advantage of. But few have been willing to publicly say how they will vote on the resolution. Sen. Lamar Alexander said it was “unnecessary and unwise to turn a border crisis into a constitutional crisis about the separation of powers” in a floor speech Thursday, where he outlined other means for obtaining funds. “There is no limit to the imagination of what the next left-wing president could do to harm our country with this precedent,” he added. But pressed by reporters, he declined to reveal his planned vote. “I learned a long time ago in the United States Senate, it’s not wise to announce how you will vote on a vote you may never have to take,” he said. Conversely, Collins joined Sen. Tom Udall in introducing a resolution of disapproval Thursday. Murkowski joined the pair in co-sponsoring the resolution.</s>Rand Paul's vote may allow Congress to oppose national emergency declaration

(CNN) - The Senate likely now has enough votes to pass a measure blocking President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration after Sen. Rand Paul signaled his support for the resolution of disapproval.

"I can't vote to give extraconstitutional powers to the President," the Kentucky Republican said Saturday, according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

"I can't vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn't been appropriated by Congress," Paul said at a Warren County Republican Party fundraising dinner, according to the newspaper. "We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn't authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it's a dangerous thing."

The resolution introduced in the House passed the chamber on Tuesday, with 13 Republicans voting with Democrats.

Senate Democrats need four of their Republican colleagues to vote with them for the measure to pass there. Along with Paul, Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina have indicated they'll vote in favor of the resolution.

So unless one of the Senate's 47 Democrats unexpectedly votes against it, the resolution now has enough votes to be sent to the President's desk, where it will face a promised veto -- Trump's first in office.

Trump had said in February that he will veto the resolution "100%."

"We have too many smart people that want border security, so I can't imagine it can survive a veto," the President told reporters in the Oval Office. "But I will veto it, yes."

Congress would then need an overwhelming majority -- two-thirds of its members -- in both chambers to overrule Trump's veto, which is unlikely.

Trump signed a spending bill last month that kept the government open and provided $1.375 billion for a border wall. But he quickly declared a national emergency to unlock billions of dollars in federal funds to build the border wall, bypassing Congress after lawmakers refused to meet his multibillion-dollar request for his top domestic priority.

The President and his administration have argued that there's a "crisis" on the southern border, claiming there's an "invasion" of drugs and undocumented immigrants.

Some Republicans have expressed concerns that Trump's declaration is executive overreach, sets a precedent for a Democratic president to do the same and will face legal challenges, which is already the case.

While they support border security, Republicans Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Mitt Romney of Utah, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Roger Wicker of Mississippi have been outspoken against the national emergency declaration, but have withheld their decisions on whether they'll vote to block it.

When the Senate will vote on the resolution is unclear. It has 18 days from the day the House approved the resolution on Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said the vote will occur before a recess later this month.</s>WASHINGTON — Opponents of President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border appear to have enough Senate votes to reject his move, now that Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky has said he can't go along with the White House.

The House of Representatives has voted to derail the action, and if the Senate follows later this month, the measure would go to Trump for his promised veto.

Three other Republican senators have announced they'll vote "no": Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Paul makes it four, and assuming that all 47 Democrats and their independent allies go against Trump, that would give opponents 51 votes — just past the majority needed.

Congress is unlikely to have the votes to override a veto.

"I can't vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn't been appropriated by Congress," Paul said at a Republican dinner Saturday night at Western Kentucky University, according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

"We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn't authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it's a dangerous thing."

Many lawmakers opposed to the emergency declaration say it tramples on the constitutional power of Congress to control spending and would set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to make such a declaration for their own purposes. They are also concerned Trump would siphon money from home-state projects to barrier construction.

Under the declaration, Trump would divert $3.6 billion from military construction to erect more border barriers. He's invoking other powers to transfer an additional $3.1 billion to construction.
Senator Rand Paul is expected to vote against Donald Trump’s national emergency.