House plans to vote on bill to terminate national emergency....

So I have to ask this legal and logical question. Doesn't the idea of Congress going ahead with the legal means to terminate the President's executive action regarding the national emergency tell the courts that Congress "IS" the check to the President's authority?

I mean, there is nothing constitutionally anywhere that suggests that the Judicial Branch of the Government has any sort of authority to settle policy disputes. The only manner in which a Judge is constitutionally allowed to get involved is if there a question about the constitutionality of a particular law or action. Or in the rare case where the law otherwise specifically calls for some sort of judicial oversight. 

Contrary to the gaslighting of Nancy Pelosi and the wild-eyed crazed media, the Presidential authority to declare national emergencies regarding situations that are anything but national emergencies is well documented. We have had over fifty national emergencies declared, there are still over thirty active national emergencies, and some go all the way back to the previous millennium and are still in effect. By the shear definition of the term "emergency", doesn't it fly in the face of logic that something can continue to be an "emergency" for two decades? 

Moreover, contrary to other attempts to fool the public, there is nothing unprecedented about the President realigning funds for an emergency. The statutes are very clear, and we have had eighteen national emergencies previously declared that did the exact same thing. 

• Over fifty historical national emergencies. 
• Over thirty active national emergencies. 
• Eighteen emergencies that used shifted funding. 

The only two things that seem really different about this national emergency is that it actually deals with a domestic issue at the border that is unpopular with the left, and the President of the United States is Donald Trump.