The Democrats in the U.S. house of representatives proceed legally against the President, Donald Trump has imposed a state of emergency on the border to Mexico. With their majority in the chamber of the U.S. Congress, they filed before a court in Washington lawsuit against trump’s state of emergency Declaration. The Chairman of the house of representatives, the Democrat Nancy Pelosi announced on Friday evening (local time). Trump visited on the same day, the border, where he was again sentiment against undocumented immigrants.
In the lawsuit, the Democrats argue, among other things, that Trump aushebele with the state of emergency Declaration, the sovereignty of the Congress for the authorization of budgetary funds. Pelosi said that Congress must defend its constitutional responsibility and the System and the separation of powers protect.
Trump had declared in mid-February a National emergency, without parliamentary approval the construction of a wall on the border to Mexico. In his most important election campaign of the Republicans has promise so far, nothing solid to show for it: The Democrats oppose the wall, and deny to the President the Congress the approval to the requested sum for the construction project. With the help of the state of emergency Declaration Trump wants to raise the additional billion from other Sources. His action is legally controversial.
Trump speaks for months of a severe crisis at the Mexico border, which critics consider to be exaggerated. On Friday, the US President said during a visit to a border section in California, the USA could not absorb illegal migrants. His message to migrants on the way to the USA: “We can not accommodate you.” The country was full. “Turn around,” said Trump. “We have no place.” Several times he repeated this message and emphasized: “If it is full then it is full.” As simple as that. The President met in the city of Calexico with employees of the U.S. customs and border protection, which complained that the influx of migrants was not cope. The capacities are exhausted.
daily mirror tomorrow location
for Free order
Trump had originally threatened to close the border between the two countries, if the Mexican government is intensifying its actions against immigrants that want to come through the Land in the United States. In the meantime, he has moved again and is threatening Mexico is now a priority with the imposition of car duties.
Trump had filed in March, the first Veto of his term in office
The Democrats had initially tried to prevent the emergency Declaration with a Resolution in the Congress. The Initiative received both in the house of representatives, as well as in – of the Republicans of the Senate was dominated by the necessary majority, because even politicians from the ranks of the trump Republicans on this issue against the course of the President.
Trump had to insert then in mid-March, the first Veto of his term of office, in order to prevent the lifting of the emergency. To override this Veto, would have been in the house of representatives as in the Senate, by a two-thirds majority needed. The not came but. Therefore, the Democrats will now go the legal way. Also, several U.S. States have already filed a class-action lawsuit against trump’s state of emergency Declaration.
It is not the only point in the Democrats Trump. With their new majority in the house of representatives they promote diligent investigations against the President and his environment. Ask for insight into his tax returns. The democratic Chairman of the Finance Committee in the U.S. house of representatives, Richard Neal, was requested by the tax authority, the IRS statements by Trump and several of his companies for tax years 2013 to 2018. The authority is under the Ministry of Finance.
More about
Trump border to Mexico to attended “Our Land is full of – so fights back”
Trump in a legal way. A lawyer Trumps, the Ministry of Finance, in a Letter called on Friday, the tax returns of his clients. In the letter, several US media published, it is the claim of the Democrats was purely politically motivated and accomplish any legislative purpose. It would be an abuse of power, to the benefit of the disclosure of tax returns in order to harm a political opponent, wrote the lawyer. The tax authority would meet the requirement, this would be a dangerous precedent. (dpa)
