Trump seems to think so, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
What specifically is violated by the items on my list that are not violated by Trumps declaration. (Other than IOKIYAR)
You’re not a fan…but you are going to spend post after post telling us why it shouldn’t be opposed.
What is the opposite of “Damning with faint praise”-“Praising with faint damnation”?
So, as I read it, a emergency declared by the President is “terminated” when (1) “there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency” or (2) “the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency.” 50 U.S.C. 1622.
According to the Senate website glossary, a “joint resolution” is " submitted (just as a bill) to the president for possible signature into law."
So unless I’m missing some relevant provision (entirely possible), the President would need to sign the joint resolution for it take effect and (therefore) could veto it. Which is kinda weird, because if he’s willing to sign the joint resolution, he could just issue the proclamation. But I guess it forces Congress to take partial ownership of ending whatever emergency has been declared.
I think the Senate and the Supreme Court will let this stand. The Republicans aren’t going to defy a Republican President. So Trump will probably be able to start construction of his wall by stealing the money from the armed forces.
Trump’s supporters will believe this is a great thing. Because Trump will tell them to believe that.
In the long run, this is going to end up as another failure for Trump. He can probably divert enough money to get a wall started but he’s not going to be able to complete it without a lot more money from Congress and the House isn’t going to approve it. So Trump will spend five billion dollars or so building a three mile long section of the wall and it’ll stop there. It’ll accomplish nothing except to be a standing demonstration of Trump’s inability to get things done.
Trump will spend eight billion dollars on Russian steel that will sit unused. It’ll accomplish something - just not building a wall.
I don’t care if you oppose it. Go right ahead. Pelosi can author a joint resolution, and bring it up for a vote. It’ll probably even pass in the House.
I don’t know what you expected. Fire-and-brimstone outrage over it? It’s like 0.2% of the federal budget, to do something I’m not opposed to. Sure, I’d prefer he not go about it this way (via an emergency declaration), but I’m not going to wake up in a cold sweat tonight because he did. Like I said, I don’t think it’s especially precedent-setting. It is not, in the words of our former vice president, “a big fucking deal”.
I didn’t see anything in your link that would support Trump’s “emergency” while precluding any of Buck Godot’s.
Presumably the answer is that while Congress has given the President broad emergency powers, you still need to tether your actions to some statutory power. We know what Trump is relying on. I don’t know emergency power allows the President to impose income taxes (to use one of your examples) or issue education or community development grants. They could exist, but we know that they wouldn’t be supported by 10 USC 2808 (the power that, as I understand it, Trump is relying on).
Edit:
Same answer to you, I suppose. The ability to declare the emergency seems to be largely without limit and so maybe you could declare it. But what that emergency allows you to then do is (while broad) limited by the grants of emergency powers.
It’s not a matter of where it is violated, it’s a matter of where does the President have authorization to raise taxes upon declaration of a national emergency. I don’t see anywhere that he does.
The law is written in the format of “the President can do A, B, or C in a national emergency” NOT “the President can do whatever he wants to do in a national emergency except for X, Y, or Z”. You’re asking me to show you where in the list item X is, but that’s not what the list is. The law lists things he CAN do, not things he can NOT do. If “raise taxes” isn’t in the list (and it’s not), he can’t do it.
ETA: ninja’d by Falchion, and much more eloquently.
So logically you are in support of the likely loss of readiness for our military? Don’t think so, but that is where that logic from your post leads.
Military Times, that I quoted there, also did quote Congressman G. K. Butterfield:
Even from very right wing groups, there is the view that this is a very bad precedent to let it stay.
Bottom line, you still support a leader that is doing his best to undermine America just to give some some “good” feelings to his base.
OK, so what’s to stop the next Democratic president from declaring that lack of access to safe abortion is a national emergency, and diverting military funds and personnel to building clinics in Kentucky?
Do you believe your opinions on this topic in general are influenced by your political affiliation?
I feel like I’ve been channeling Bricker all morning.
I believe that POTUS is within his legal rights under the National Emergencies Act to make this declaration. I believe that Congress does not have standing of themselves to bring a suit. And I believe that any suit brought by someone with standing (say, someone hosed by eminent domain seizure) will not prevail.
Which is all to say that here we have yet another law predicated in part on norms and tradition which are increasingly irrelevant. It relies on a rational actor in the White House willing to exercise the law in the way it was intended to be used. But the law was clearly poorly written and subject to being rules lawyered.
Congress could have fixed this, and they can fix it going forward, by clarifying the law if they so choose. But he’s within the bounds of the law as written.
“You could warn them…if only you spoke Hovitos.”
I don’t see that a president’s emergency powers allow for the relocation of prisoners. Same thing regarding medical treatment. But, given his powers as CiC and the nature of the prisoners as “enemy combatants” and / or military hospitals, there might be some other powers the president has that would allow him to accomplish either of those goals.
Aside from the legal aspects, they’re both very likely political suicide. If a president were to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the states, he risks their release into the USA being ordered by a judge, and the potential for subsequent terrorist attacks. He’d be crucified for it. Same thing with military hospitals. The VA has been a total shitshow for years, but if he were to order them to treat illegal aliens for free, as soon as some soldier died while waiting for treatment at an overcrowded military hospital, well … the president’s political career would die with him.
A republican Congress given marching orders to oppose everything the Democratic President proposes, sight unseen…even if they previously supported the idea?
How? Congress can’t stop Trump this time.
Sounds like you’re just backtracking because the President could do either of those things under an emergency.
A few years ago, people would have probably said that there’s no way a President would seize the power of the purse without setting off a firestorm. Today, a fringe political movement is just fine with THIS president doing that.
Well, they surely could if enough of them cared to.
I don’t see where the “backtracking” is. I also still don’t see where either of those things are authorized by the National Emergencies Act. Could you point to a section of code perhaps that you think authorizes either of them?
You might be using a non-standard definition of the word “fringe” here. Anyways, it has set off a “firestorm”. It’s just not one with, I think, much legal basis (the firestorm opposing the national emergency declaration).