The "national emergency" in the context of Constitutional Governance


#252

Yup. This is a lowly message board. The real decisions are out in the real world in the courts. It’s what judges do.


#253

Something to jog your memory: Obamacare and John Roberts.


#254

You mean the Chief Justice who had a tweet war with Trump over “obama judges”
.
That chief justice. LOL.

here’s my take John Roberts will be around a lot longer than Donald J Trump.

and he will rule against Trump against the executive power that trump is claiming is his. and things will be right in the world once again. it will again be trump begging for loot for his wall come this September.

Allan

Allan

Allan


#255

Clearly we are talking about those cases reviewed by the SCOTUS. :roll_eyes:


#256

So what???


#257

So you are saying that in the future, Congress and the executive branch will be subservient to the courts whenever a future President declares a national emergency???

The courts in their infinite wisdom will decide if there really is a national emergency?

Is that seriously what you are saying?


#258

Maybe this is the best thing that could have happened. Trump gets 30 or 40 miles of wall and the next democratic president comes in and declares a national emergency on climate change and fixes that global problem.


#259

With the disclaimer that I have only read a few of the intervening posts.

One issue I have seen mentioned and will address.

Is this a legitimate emergency. Obviously, just because the President deems something an emergency does not make it an emergency.

This border situation is not a sudden occurrence. Rather it is a chronic situation. Congress has been in session throughout and has not seen anything it feels is necessary to address. If the elected representatives of the people do not deem this to be an emergency situation, it is implausible to act as if it was an emergency. In judging the constitutionality of Trump’s actions, the courts must necessarily weigh Congress’s decision not to act and weigh the chronic nature of this situation. In the end, they will find that this is nothing more than a policy difference, not an emergency.

Another aspect, hinted at by some posters, is the underlying Constitutionality of the National Emergencies Act itself. For those of you not aware, there is a Constitutional doctrine known as “non-delegation”. Congress may not delegate its law making powers. The National Emergencies Act appears to be so broad, that it constitutes a delegation of law making power. This could be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to strike down the law in its entirety, which would have the immediate effect of ending all current states of emergency and barring the President from declaring any further states of emergency for any reason. I would be thrilled if the Supreme Court actually did that, though sadly I don’t think they will go that far. Such an act would truly bring about a much needed crippling of the Presidency and return power to Congress.


#260

I don’t buy your argument that our founders intended Congress to be the dominant branch.


#261

No, it’s an intentional lie the conservative media use destroy the legitimacy of some courts.


#262

I’m just gonna let this one sit there.


#263

The best thing that could happen would be for this to be tied up in the courts, thus ensuring Trump’s border security arguments remain front and center for the 2020 election.


#264

No- only when there’s doubt that there is, in fact, a properly called national emergency.

Like in this case.

You seem to think the NEA gives the President carte blanche to just call a NE for any old reason and in any old way.

It does not…he has to show which statutes he’s calling on and he has to follow those statutes when citing the emergency.

There’s doubts as to at least two of the statutes, as has been pointed put here.

And there’s doubts as to whether he even believes it’s an emergency, as he unequivocally stated he didn’t have to call an emergency…he simply did it to build the wall faster and do an end run around Congressional appropriations.

The latter was one of the dumber in a long line of dumb statements he’s made in his career as President thus far.


#265

What’s front and center is a big fat failure of Trump to do what he promised.


#266

Once again, the legislation has a built in provision to challenge Trump’s declaration. Why should the courts need to be involved at all???


#267

Works for me. :+1:


#268

Because when suits are brought against a President’s action, it goes to the courts, not Congress.

Do you need a basic civics lesson?


#269

The point I’m making is that there should be no lawsuits. They should be thrown out. It isn’t up to the courts to decide if Trump’s emergency is real. It is up to congress.

That is the sad reality today. DEMs use the radical LW courts to get their way, bypassing congress and the President.


#270

On what legal basis are you going to state that lawsuits cannot be brought?

They’re brought all the time against bills Congress has passed and the President has signed into law and implemented. Why should this be any different?

The courts are one of the people’s checks on the government.

Again…did you fail basic civics?


#271

It was DAPA (Not DACA) that the SC ruled 4 to 4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans