This amendment is an amendment, in short form, that says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used with respect to the case State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America. I point out to the body, Mr. Chairman, that that is the case that was filed by then-Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbott, now Governor of Texas, to protect the interest of Texans. It has been signed on to now by 25 States, I believe. And this is in reference to the President's November 20 DAPA policy, his executive amnesty policy. We have watched as this Congress has three times voted to reject the President's initiative, and the debate has been centered on constitutional grounds. The position of this Congress has three times been that the President of the United States is the leader of the executive branch of this government, and the legislative powers are all vested here in the United States Congress, in a House and in a Senate. That is article 1 of the Constitution. That is what the President taught through his 10 years as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and that is what he also uttered at least 22 times as President of the United States--that he didn't have the authority to establish in advance an executive amnesty that would waive the application of the law for some 5 million people.…
Steve King: “This amendment is an amendment, in short form, that says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used…”
Share
More from Steve King
I was unable to vote on August 22, 2020 due to not being in DC. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 179; ``no'' on rollcall No. 180; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 181; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 182. MEMBERS…
I just wanted to make a short comment here on another circumstance that has taken place in this Congress, and it works out like this, that a year ago last week, an unprecedented action took place in this Congress, and that was I did an…
I was unable to vote on June 30, 2020, due to not being in D.C. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: NO on Roll Call No. 130; NO on Rll Call No. 131; NO on Roll Call No. 132; and NO on Roll Call No. 133. Cardenas (Gomez)…





