Chadha led to the invalidation of hundreds of provisions of federal law. But if the justices had been worried by the unseemly spectacle of the House picking on a single person to deport, it could have ruled far more narrowly. As Justice Lewis Powell pointed out at the time, the House’s targeting of specific immigrants for deportation might have been struck down as an improper infringement on courts’ authority to decide cases. The Court might have also saved Chadha from deportation by invoking the Constitution’s prohibition on “bills of attainder,” laws that target particular individuals for either civil or criminal penalties. Neither of these rulings would have affected statutes like the National Emergencies Act.<doc-sep>On Friday, Castro called the declaration "an historic power grab." Pelosi argued it "clearly violates Congress's exclusive power of the purse." The Democratic-held House plans to vote on the bill Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters on Friday. On the same call where Pelosi spoke, Castro told reporters that the measure has at least 226 co-sponsors, including one Republican, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan. The number tops the 218 votes the plan needs to pass the House. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, introduced the measure to block Trump's action, which he took last week to divert money to build his proposed border wall. Democrats have called the president's move a power grab sparked by lawmakers denying him the funding he wanted to construct barriers between the U.S. and Mexico. House Democrats challenged President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration Friday, setting up dramatic votes in Congress on whether to rein in the president's flex of executive power. The challenge for Democrats starts when the proposal goes to the GOP-held Senate. Several Republicans have showed concerns about the precedent set by Trump's declaration. The resolution will put pressure on them to choose between acting on professed worries about expanded executive power, or backing a president with strong support among GOP voters. At least one GOP senator — Susan Collins of Maine — will vote for a resolution to block the emergency declaration. To reach the majority needed for the measure to clear the Senate, the 47 Democrats in the chamber would then need only three more Republicans to join them. That could easily happen. However, Trump pledged Friday to veto the legislation if it comes to his desk. The measure would then need veto-proof, two-thirds majorities of 290 and 67 votes in the House and Senate, respectively. Garnering that much support would prove much tougher, considering both House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have pledged to support Trump's declaration. "Will I veto it? 100 percent. ... And I don't think it survives the veto," Trump told reporters on Friday afternoon. "We have too many smart people that want border security." The resolution extends the political and legal dispute over Trump's campaign pledge to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. In several recent lawsuits, including one filed by 16 U.S. states, groups have challenged the emergency declaration. Critics have questioned not only the president's authority to take the step, but also whether migration over the border really constitutes a national emergency. "All Members take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution," Pelosi wrote to colleagues this week. "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." Opponents of the emergency declaration have partly pointed to Trump's comments last week, when he said he "didn't need to" take the action but would rather get money for the wall "much faster." Trump last week signed a spending bill into law to keep the government running through Sept. 30 and allocate $1.375 billion for building border barriers. Trump had pushed for $5.7 billion for a wall — a demand that led to a record 35-day partial government shutdown in December and January. Stymied by Congress, Trump aims to use executive authority to construct the wall, using $8 billion total toward the barriers. The sum includes the funds appropriated by Congress, along with money he plans to divert from other departments through executive action.<doc-sep>It looks like Senate Democrats now have the votes they need to pass a resolution that would block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration to fund his border wall. Four Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul — have said they plan to vote in favor of terminating the national emergency, giving Democrats the 51-vote majority they need to approve the resolution in the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged just as much during a Monday press appearance, though he emphasized that Congress wouldn’t have the votes to override a presidential veto, which Trump is expected to use, CBS News’s Mark Knoller reports. Republicans hold a bare three-seat majority in the Senate, which means Democrats must stay united and peel off at least four Republicans (Vice President Mike Pence could come in with a tie-breaking vote) to get this resolution passed. Paul announced this weekend that he intends to vote to block the emergency, making him the fourth Republican to do so. Paul’s also far from the only Republican who could still go against Trump. In addition to the Republicans who’ve already said how they plan to vote, Democrats are watching a number of others who could cross the aisle, many of whom cited concerns about the declaration’s constitutionality and the precedent it could set for future presidents, Politico reports. This resolution — which has already passed the House — gives Congress the ability to end the emergency. Since Trump is set to veto it, however, it’s not expected to ultimately go into effect. (Two-thirds of members of both the House and Senate are needed to override a veto.) Despite this likely outcome, a congressional rebuke of Trump’s actions would be significant and highlight how many members of his own party also disagree with his actions. Additionally, it could provide more fodder for court cases centered on the national emergency, since it would explicitly highlight Congress’s opposition to this declaration. What’s more, it’s unclear if Trump would actually follow through on a veto, since he has yet to use his veto powers in his presidency. While it remains to be seen just how many Senate Republicans will also come forward on the matter, here’s a rundown of lawmakers to watch. Republicans who will likely vote to terminate the emergency Susan Collins (ME): Collins was the first Republican to say she would back a resolution blocking the emergency. “If it’s a ‘clean’ disapproval resolution, I will support it,” she said recently, according to an Associated Press report. Thom Tillis (NC): Tillis outlined his reasons for backing a resolution terminating the emergency in a recent Washington Post op-ed. He especially emphasized that this declaration could open the floodgates for the use of national emergencies down the line. “Conservatives should take these warnings seriously,” he writes. “They should be thinking about whether they would accept the prospect of a President Bernie Sanders declaring a national emergency to implement parts of the radical Green New Deal; a President Elizabeth Warren declaring a national emergency to shut down banks and take over the nation’s financial institutions; or a President Cory Booker declaring a national emergency to restrict Second Amendment rights.” Lisa Murkowski (AK): Murkowski indicated that she is “likely” to support a resolution blocking the emergency, a sentiment she expressed in a recording obtained by the Associated Press. “I want to make sure that the resolution of disapproval is exactly what I think it is, because if it is as I understand it to be, I will likely be supporting the resolution to disapprove of the action,” she said. Rand Paul (KY): Paul has said he was “disappointed” with the president’s decision to go this route and this weekend announced that he would vote in favor of a resolution terminating the emergency. “I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” he said during a Saturday speech, the Bowling Green Daily News reports. “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.” Republicans on the fence Lamar Alexander (TN): Alexander laid out an alternative option for the Trump administration on Thursday: find the money for the wall elsewhere. “I want to make a respectful suggestion, and that is this: that President Trump ask his lawyers to take a second look at an existing funding authority that the president has to consider construction of the 234 miles of border wall that do not require a formal declaration of a national emergency,” he said in a floor speech. If the Trump administration did this, it may not even have to face a failed vote on the emergency, he seemed to indicate. Alexander, however, did not say just exactly how he’ll vote, according to BuzzFeed News. “I learned a long time ago in the United States Senate, it’s not wise to announce how you’ll vote on a vote you may never have to take,” he told reporters. Roger Wicker (MS): Before Trump declared a national emergency, Wicker was among the Republicans who expressed misgivings about using this tactic to obtain funding. “I would be inclined to vote for the resolution of disapproval,” Wicker said in an interview with HuffPost earlier in February. He hasn’t offered an update since. Marco Rubio (FL): Rubio was among the first Republicans to highlight challenges a national emergency declaration could pose the president, noting that it could clash with Congress’s constitutionally designated “power of the purse.” “We have a crisis at our southern border, but no crisis justifies violating the Constitution,” Rubio previously said in a statement. “Today’s national emergency is border security. But a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal.” Rubio hasn’t said how he’ll vote on a resolution yet, however. Mitt Romney (UT): Romney has also indicated that he is not fully on board with the national emergency, though he’s said he needs to finish reviewing the resolution before deciding on a vote.<doc-sep>WASHINGTON — The House voted on Tuesday to overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the Mexican border, with just 13 Republicans joining Democrats to try to block his effort to divert funding to a border wall without congressional approval. House Republican leaders kept defections low after feverishly working to assuage concerns among rank-and-file members about protecting congressional powers and about the precedent that Mr. Trump could be setting for Democratic presidents to use for their own purposes. “Is your oath of office to Donald Trump or is it to the Constitution of the United States?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked her Republican colleagues in a speech on the floor ahead of the vote. “You cannot let him undermine your pledge to the Constitution.” The resolution of disapproval, which passed 245 to 182, must now be taken up by the Senate, where three Republicans have already declared their support, only one short of the number needed for Congress to ratify a stinging rebuke of Mr. Trump’s efforts.<doc-sep>
The House just voted in favor of blocking Trump’s national emergency. The Democratic-controlled lower chamber voted 245-182 to approve a resolution that would terminate the national emergency, sending the measure over to the Senate, where its fate remains uncertain. Both the House and the Senate will need to approve the resolution by a simple majority for it to ultimately pass. The measure was backed Tuesday by an overwhelming number of House Democrats as well as 13 Republicans, though not enough to reach the lower chamber’s veto-proof 290-vote threshold. Democrats are hoping to use this resolution to stymie Trump’s emergency declaration, which they argue bypasses the spending authority Congress is granted by the Constitution. As part of the National Emergencies Act of 1976, Congress has a legislative check it can use in an attempt to block an emergency. All the resolution needs is a simple majority of lawmakers in both chambers to approve it. Now that the House has passed this measure, what remains to be seen is whether the Republican-dominated Senate will do the same. The 47-member Democratic caucus in the upper chamber will have to stay united and convince at least four Republicans to join them. And even if the resolution passes both the House and the Senate, the White House has already signaled that Trump would veto the measure, which would mark the first veto of his presidency. (Trump has threatened a veto plenty of times before without going through with it.) White House officially issues veto threat on resolution to terminate Pres. Trump’s National Emergency declaration, per @betsy_klein pic.twitter.com/NasvVvU328 — Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) February 26, 2019 What happens next The Senate will take up this resolution in the coming weeks, where the scrutiny will be on Republican lawmakers who’ve expressed concern with the precedent this emergency declaration could set for future Democratic presidents. Because the resolution falls under the purview of the National Emergencies Act, the Senate is required to hold a vote on it within 18 days. Already Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have indicated that they will vote in favor of blocking Trump’s emergency declaration, with Lisa Murkowski indicating that she’s “likely” to do so as well. If Democrats are able to swing one more Republican to their side, it’s probable that the resolution will actually clear both chambers of Congress, only to be vetoed by the president. Since establishing a two-thirds veto-proof majority for the measure in both the House and the Senate is highly unlikely, the resolution is ultimately expected to fail. Democrats, at that point, could continue their fight against the national emergency declaration in the courts.