Skip to main content

Will the Wall Cause Another Government Shutdown?

During the 2016 Presidential Election, President Trump campaigned on the promise that he would build a wall separating the United States from Mexico. However, what he did not account for was the power of the Legislative Branch. Despite being the “leader of the free world”, he is unable to get this wall completely built. The reason for this is because congress have been blocking the funding for the wall. In the United States Constitution, the power to form the budget is in the control of the Legislative Branch (Article 1 Section 8). With this being said, there has already been a Government Shutdown as a result of Congress refusing to pass a budget for the wall, and there is a chance there may be another shutdown. 
In order for President Trump to find funding for his wall, he used some of the military’s budget to fund the wall. However, as the funding for the military is running out and a new budget must be set, congress is arguing over how much should be put towards the military. Like most issues in politics, the Democrats and Republicans cannot agree and are at each other's throats. For example, the Republicans are claiming that the Democrats are blocking the bill because the Democrats do not care about the military (Werner). While on the other hand, the Democrats say their reasoning is because they do not believe the wall should be built on the money the military deserves (Werner). In an article from The Hill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) stated, “the administration asks for it, but the Democrats don’t have to give it.” (Carney) This is the main problem for President Trump. Congress has only until the end of September to reach an agreement otherwise they will risk having yet another Government Shutdown. One of the main concerns for Democrats is the amount of power given to the President. This is because President Trump was allowed to declare a National Emergency in order to fund his wall. Interestingly, due to President Trump using the military funding for the wall, some military budgeted plans may no longer be economically feasible. This places Republicans who are from states where the military building was supposed to occur, in a difficult place. They can either vote in favor of their party, or they can vote in favor of their state’s interest. For as long as the democrats disagree with the bill, there will be no funding allocated to the wall. This is the perfect example of separation of powers. The President can want a legislation to be passed but without approval of the Legislative Branch, there is little he can do. In fact, this is not only a problem that President Trump is facing. When a President is dealing with a divided government, there is little he/she can do to pass more controversial legislation. For example, when President Obama was in office, there was very little legislation he was able to pass after his first midterm (Toobin). In order for this bill to pass, the Senate will need 60 yes votes. However, given the ratio of Republicans to Democrats in the Senate, it will be quite difficult. 

In conclusion, when it comes to the border wall, it is completely in the hands of the Legislative Branch. Whether or not the two political parties will come to an agreement will be determined. They have until the end of September or else they will risk a government shutdown.

Works Cited
“Article I.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei.
Carney, Jordain. “Congress Set to Ignore Trump's Wall Request in Stopgap Measure.” TheHill, The Hill, 16 Sept. 2019, thehill.com/latino/461189-congress-set-to-ignore-trumps-wall-request-in-stopgap-measure.
Toobin, Jeffrey. “Our Broken Constitution.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 9 July 2019, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/our-broken-constitution.
Werner, Erica. “Spending Bill Would Avert Shutdown, Keep Government Open through Nov. 21.” The Washington Post, 19 Sept. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/spending-bill-would-avert-shutdown-keep-government-open-through-nov-21/2019/09/18/21e3cdca-da51-11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html.

Comments

  1. Brennan LittleSeptember 25, 2019 at 3:56 PM

    Eric, it is unfortunate how many problems the wall is bringing about. While I do believe there needs to be a solution to the immigration issue America is facing, I also believe there is a solution out there that the majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, would support. However, I think that the current arguing over President Trump's wall is preventing any moderate solution from coming about. It is hard to believe that a bi-partisan agreement regarding this issue will occur any time soon. I also believe part of the reasoning behind this has to do with the way that our representatives in Congress are thinking and voting. In the podcast our class was assigned, it stated that politicians are always focusing on getting re-elected, which I believe unfortunately has a lot of influence on what they vote for, whether they agree with what they it or not. I think there is a lot more than just the Republicans thinking the Democrats don't support the military or the Democrats not believing that is where the military's money should be used. I think that is more likely just a simple answer that the public will focus on rather than digging deeper. I also think that not all Republicans are truly in support of the wall, even though they say otherwise. Like I said, a lot of what they care about has to do with getting re-elected.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...
Post a Comment
Read more

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more