As expected, Trump made his “National Emergency” Wall declaration. And I am wondering if this will hold up.
During hs declaration he actually says he “didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster”, so where is the emergency? Do you think this will survive Congress and/or the courts? I hope not…but realistic expectations seem to be a thing of the past.
No. Even if it goes all the way to the supreme Court I don’t think they will consider that good precedent to enact even with it’s current composition.
Gaah. In rational times this would be shot down faster than a duck at the NRA summer barbecue but these are not rational times. One can only hope.
This may free up some funds for him if I understand it, but Trump is never going to build the wall that he promised. The best he can hope for is to redefine what it is that he’s looking for, and then declare that he accomplished it. You see it now with Republicans replacing “border security” for Trumps wall.
The NY AG has threatened to sue; I hope to hell that the ACLU does; and there are bound to be others. I also await the response from House Democrats.
In the end, no wall, Donnie.
I know little about “standing” or how emergency declarations work. I’m hoping someone who knows more can chime in. Who sues?
It will almost definitely survive congress, with McConnell supporting it it is hard to imagine that there will be 20 Republicans in the senate who would vote to override a veto. The courts are a bit more iffy. On the one hand saying that the president can overrule Congress’s power of the purse by saying the magic words “national emergency” is contrary to the checks and balances outlined by the constitution. On the other hand they may not want to risk tying the presidents hands to act in the face of a crisis, and they may argue that Congress gave the power to the president in the first place and if they object they should simply legislate against it. Recently it seems to me that the Supreme court seems to be willing to ignore actual political realities so long as there is a theoretically viable solution available.
In anycase, between the time it takes to go through the courts, and the time it takes to arrange for the land, design work etc. it may be that just about the time the first brick is placed, a new president comes in and declares the national emergency over.
By way of background information, we still have one active national emergency from the '70’s:
There are something like 30 other active national emergencies still. I don’t think “but it’s not really an emergency” is going to be the most fruitful angle of attack on this. YMMV.
If it does, then it is bad for the USA. Bypassing Congress so the Executive branch can have their way for a phony national emergency ought to be very concerning to the USA citizens.
How many of those were declared after funding approval was previously denied by Congress? Or proposed by a President that declared that it wasn’t really an emergency?
But how many of those national emergencies directly circumnavigated Congress’s power of the purse?
Also, just for the record, do you believe that the such a declaration of emergency is legally within Trump’s power?
On the other hand, I’m looking forward to the next Democratic president using federal and military funds to address real, actual emergencies like climate change, healthcare accessibility and gun violence, unencumbered by the need to actually persuade Congress to allocate any money.
The linked executive order was made 10 days after the beginning of the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
Which was legitimately an emergency, in the literal definition of the word as something sudden, unexpected, and urgent. Maybe it’s not now, but you can’t really blame Jimmy Carter for that.
Were any of the other existing national emergencies not actually emergent at the time they were declared?
The situation at the US Southern border is none of those things. If anything, it’s less unexpected or urgent than it has been in the past. And the US government has failed to do something about it not because it happened too fast for them to react, but because we don’t agree on what to do about it. A failure of consensus is not an emergency.
Is a resolution challenging an emergency subject to a veto? My (limited) understanding is that it’s not. If the House passes a resolution, it becomes a privileged resolution that must be voted on in the Senate; and if it passes both chambers by a simple majority, it takes effect and the emergency is consigned to the dustbin of history.
Can someone with more knowledge than I have — not hard — confirm or contradict?
What specifically do you imagine a future president might do with this new-found power (that has existed for decades)? It’s not a do-whatever-you-want card. There are still limits on what powers a president has under a national emergency. He can’t, for example, ban the possession of all semi-automatic firearms.
What specifically is your position on this-Do you support the President’s decision, or oppose it?
No, that’s what Obama and Hillary were going to do supposedly.
I wish Congress hadn’t spent the last several decades giving up power to the executive branch. I suspect this order is legal, but I’m not a fan. I don’t think it’s really setting a new “precedent” either.
Well lets start with an emergency in woman’s health requiring a 1.5 billion dollar grant to planned parenthood to get their clinics to match those required by state law.
Then we will go with an an emergency in minority voting requiring 50 million dollars to revive ACORN.
An emergency in education requiring a $70 billion dollars to allow free community college tuition for those earning less than $125,000
An emergency in healthcare requiring Healthcare to be centralized to a single payer system.
Not to mention the actual global warming emergency which would require that the Green New Deal be implemented in full.
All of this will of course result in a emergency in the budget requiring large tax increases on those earning more than $250,000 a year.
I don’t think you have a very good understanding of what the National Emergencies Act allows. You might want to review this, for starters.
How about relocate Guantanamo prisoners to the United States over the objections of Congress?
How about decide that migrants should be eligible for treatment at military hospitals at no cost to those receiving care?