The 411 on the Latest National Emergency

 

President Trump’s declaration, on 15 February 2019, of a “national emergency,” is quite ordinary, the latest in a long line of such declarations going back to President Carter. Far from creating some dangerous precedent, it only reinforces our constitutional order. While it will certainly be challenged in federal court, this may actually be the opportunity to set Article III courts back on their proper path, ending bad behavior by the lowest level, federal district judges.

The Ricochet editors desk posted the entire text of the declaration in Trump Declares National Emergency at the Southern Border. The text is quoted from the White House page, Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States. C-SPAN has the video and transcript of President Trump’s remarks, followed by some hostile questions on the lawn.

In his remarks beforehand, President Trump repeatedly invoked Angel Moms and had them stand with the photograph of their dead loved one. These women, seated in the front row, turned and put the inconvenient truth into the face of the media who have pointedly ignored their loss. Do watch the video.

Trump pointed out that declarations of national emergency are quite ordinary. We need not take his word for it. Instead, take the word of ABC News: Here’s a list of the 31 national emergencies that have been in effect for years. You can check these yourself in the Federal Register.

Far from creating some dangerous precedent, President Trump is only reinforcing our constitutional order. His declaration conforms, in its contents, to the requirements of the National Emergencies Act. This law is neither too long to read nor too hard to find — especially if you are reading this now. Consider the text of the declaration (emphasis added):

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.  To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to support the Federal Government’s response to the emergency at the southern border, I hereby declare that this emergency requires use of the Armed Forces and, in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments.

He then reinforces the requirement to act in accordance with law (emphasis added):

Section 1. The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of each relevant military department, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law

Sec. 2. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments, shall take all appropriate actions, consistent with applicable law

The declaration cites “sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).” Consider each of these brief sections, emphasis added.

Section 201 provides:

(a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.
(b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be exercised during a national emergency shall be effective and remain in effect (1) only when the President (in accordance with subsection (a) of this section), specifically declares a national emergency, and (2) only in accordance with this chapter. No law enacted after September 14, 1976, shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so in specific terms, referring to this subchapter, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this subchapter.

Section 301 provides:

When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

As laid out in The “411” on “National Emergency,” the words “national emergency” have specific, limited, legal effect. It is not “abracadabra,” giving the President anything he wants. It is only an “open sesame” to access legal authority given in other statutes that specifically refer back to the National Emergencies Act.

Section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, provides for involuntary activation of National Guard and drilling Reserve personnel, together comprising the “Ready Reserve”:

(a) In time of national emergency declared by the President after January 1, 1953, or when otherwise authorized by law, an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may, without the consent of the persons concerned, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in the Ready Reserve under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty for not more than 24 consecutive months.
(b) To achieve fair treatment as between members in the Ready Reserve who are being considered for recall to duty without their consent, consideration shall be given to—(1)the length and nature of previous service, to assure such sharing of exposure to hazards as the national security and military requirements will reasonably allow;
(2) family responsibilities; and
(3) employment necessary to maintain the national health, safety, or interest.
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such policies and procedures as he considers necessary to carry out this subsection.
(c) Not more than 1,000,000 members of the Ready Reserve may be on active duty, without their consent, under this section at any one time.

Section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, provides:

(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.
(b) When a decision is made to undertake military construction projects authorized by this section, the Secretary of Defense shall notify, in an electronic medium pursuant to section 480 of this title, the appropriate committees of Congress of the decision and of the estimated cost of the construction projects, including the cost of any real estate action pertaining to those construction projects.
(c) The authority described in subsection (a) shall terminate with respect to any war or national emergency at the end of the war or national emergency.

President Trump telegraphed in his remarks that he expects to lose at the federal district court and appellate levels in the Ninth Circuit. He also expects to win at the US Supreme Court. While his declaration will certainly be challenged in federal court, this may actually be the opportunity to set Article III courts back on their proper path, ending bad behavior by federal district judges. I explained how this could play out in Declare National Border Emergency, Kill Two Birds with One Stone:

Done right, this is the opportunity to force the Supreme Court to confront the issue of nationwide injunctions, that has already been addressed by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii. The idea that a district court judge would dare to claim to bind the whole nation, and so all his judicial peers, by his decision flies directly in the face of common sense, legal tradition, and, arguably, the Constitution.

While the Supreme Court has not yet seen the need to rule on the issue, it would be forced to if the Fifth Circuit asserted its rights over its geographic area and rejected claims by the Ninth Circuit to have any binding authority in the same space.

As Mark Davis says, “President Trump makes everyone better.” He is putting the courts in a position to remedy overreach by district judges. He is, once again, showing Congress that campaign promises can and must be kept. He is showing the difference between using limited statutory authority and “pen and phone” executive overreach. It has been another good day in America.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 27 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Thanks for providing the specific language cited in Trump’s Declaration as well as the link back to your prior post with additional statutory language.  It is very helpful to be able to quickly access it.

    • #1
  2. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    You have me convinced. Great post.

    • #2
  3. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    The immediate legal question that jumped out at me looking at these statutes is whether under Section 2808 these are “military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces“.

    I followed your links and found this definition of “military construction“:

    (a)The term “military construction” as used in this chapter or any other provision of law includes any construction, development, conversion, or extension of any kind carried out with respect to a military installation, whether to satisfy temporary or permanent requirements, or any acquisition of land or construction of a defense access road (as described in section 210 of title 23). (b)A military construction project includes all military construction work, or any contribution authorized by this chapter, necessary to produce a complete and usable facility or a complete and usable improvement to an existing facility (or to produce such portion of a complete and usable facility or improvement as is specifically authorized by law). (c)In this chapter and chapter 173 of this title:

    • #3
  4. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Clifford A. Brown: response to the emergency at the southern border

    Thanks, Cliff.  Of the 31 active states of emergency 16 have nothing to do with a direct threat to the US, but are typically… well, I’ll just list them here.

    • those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia
    • an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.
    • response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.
    • in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.
    • in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.
    • in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.
    • froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
    • addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.
    • in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.
    • South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
    • in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.
    • in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.
    • in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.
    • Trump Dec 20, 2017: imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.
    • Trump Sep 12, 2018: attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.*
    • Trump Nov 27, 2018:in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
      ***
    • Trump Feb 16, 2019; response to the emergency at the southern border

    Do any at all of these look like a national emergency?!  On par with securing our own actual border against illegal ingression by foreign nationals, drug smugglers, violent gangs and committed terrorists entering?

    Again, this looks like one of the very few real “national emergency” emergencies.  All the others, that have to do in some way with protecting the US from nuclear proliferation or international criminal activity actually are all conducted overseas and directed at overseas activities.  This is the only one actually involving the US geographical area proper.

    To anyone who argues Trump is a madman or usurping authority or unduly  using federal or executive power, you can say:

    Of the 31 current “emergencies” still in effect, going all the way back to Jimmy Carter in 1976, this is the only one effecting the geographic United States, and it’s protecting the border.

    • #4
  5. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    Coincidentally I have been reading this missive which denies that the President has authority under the Constitution.  It is pretty persuasive, at least to me.

     

    • #5
  6. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    As I read through this it strikes me there are two issues. 

    Does the President have the authority to declare a national emergency on this subject?  Given the lack of definition and other such declarations he may very well.

    Can he use the military for the purpose he wants (constructing the wall)?  To me, the definition cited above raises some question as to what the answer is.

    • #6
  7. Jack Hendrix Inactive
    Jack Hendrix
    @JackHendrix

    There’s no denying this is one of the best attempts to persuade a skeptical public Trump is not acting ultra vires. 

    But…(you knew there was a but, right?) I’m not convinced. I think the famous Jackson concurrence in the Steel Siezure Cases applies here.

    Surely Congress spoke clearly when it said “you shall spend this much of the citzens’ money and you shall spend it this way branch number 2” when it passed (and Trump signed) the appropriation bill.

    Per Jackson, that puts the XO in the category where the president’s power is at a low ebb. Yes yes, there are other acts of Congress but the exact action taken in the XO was discussed by the only branch capable of appropriating tax payer dollars and it did not choose to spend as the president wished.

    • #7
  8. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    I came across this at Redstate which, if accurate, puts a different light on the emergency declaration, and specifically the funding for action:

    Some quick notes on early coverage of President Trump’s announcement today that pretty much all reporters are missing 1/

    The WH did not make one executive action today. In reality they made three, only one of which involved an emergency declaration. 2/

    First the WH announced they would be funding $601 million in wall construction from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, relying on 31 U.S.C. § 9705. This does not require an emergency declaration. 3/

    Second, the WH announced they would be funding $2.5 billion in wall construction under 10 U.S.C. § 284 (this is MilCon $ for combating drug trafficking). This does not require an emergency declaration. 4/

    Finally, the WH announced they would be funding $3.6 billion under 10 U.S.C. § 2808. This money does require an emergency declaration. 5/

    According to the WH this money will be spent sequentially so the § 9705 money will be spent first then the § 284 money then the § 2808 money. 6/

    So depending on how fast they can begin construction, they will have to spend over $5 billion (including the $1.3 billion in fencing appropriations) before any of the emergency money is ever tapped 7/

    One note on the $1.3 billion in the appropriation bill signed by the president is, as others have noted, the conditions imposed on that expenditure mean it will never be spent.  However that still leaves $3.1 billion to spend before any emergency declaration funds would be tapped.

    • #8
  9. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    Thanks Gumby!  With building under 4 authorizations, we can expect lots of action in the courts.  Happy to 10-284 invoked. I suspect the declaration of emergency is just a side-show.

    I would still like to see Trump shutdown the legal points of entry until Mexico agrees to stop human trafficking.  Trump stands a better chance negotiating with Mexico, since they don’t have RINOs in charge.

    • #9
  10. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    As I read through this it strikes me there are two issues.

    Does the President have the authority to declare a national emergency on this subject? Given the lack of definition and other such declarations he may very well.

    Can he use the military for the purpose he wants (constructing the wall)? To me, the definition cited above raises some question as to what the answer is.

    To my mind, this is what an Army Corps of Engineers is for.  (Except for when they are deployed in other countries.) 

    • #10
  11. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    There’s no denying this is one of the best attempts to persuade a skeptical public Trump is not acting ultra vires.

    But…(you knew there was a but, right?) I’m not convinced. I think the famous Jackson concurrence in the Steel Siezure Cases applies here.

    Surely Congress spoke clearly when it said “you shall spend this much of the citzens’ money and you shall spend it this way branch number 2” when it passed (and Trump signed) the appropriation bill.

    Per Jackson, that puts the XO in the category where the president’s power is at a low ebb. Yes yes, there are other acts of Congress but the exact action taken in the XO was discussed by the only branch capable of appropriating tax payer dollars and it did not choose to spend as the president wished.

    Except that current law provides express authority to reallocate specific funds, if the president declares a “national emergency.” Funds for the relevant program have been allocated for this fiscal year, and have not all been obligated. Per the express terms of the National Emergencies Act, courts are not permitted to construe future laws (like the appropriations bills just signed) against the “national emergency” provisions unless Congress specifically cites the National Emergencies Act section it intends to amend.

    That statute comes far later in time than the Steel Seizures Case.

    • #11
  12. Jack Hendrix Inactive
    Jack Hendrix
    @JackHendrix

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    There’s no denying this is one of the best attempts to persuade a skeptical public Trump is not acting ultra vires.

    But…(you knew there was a but, right?) I’m not convinced. I think the famous Jackson concurrence in the Steel Siezure Cases applies here.

    Surely Congress spoke clearly when it said “you shall spend this much of the citzens’ money and you shall spend it this way branch number 2” when it passed (and Trump signed) the appropriation bill.

    Per Jackson, that puts the XO in the category where the president’s power is at a low ebb. Yes yes, there are other acts of Congress but the exact action taken in the XO was discussed by the only branch capable of appropriating tax payer dollars and it did not choose to spend as the president wished.

    Except that current law provides express authority to reallocate specific funds, if the president declares a “national emergency.” Funds for the relevant program have been allocated for this fiscal year, and have not all been obligated. Per the express terms of the National Emergencies Act, courts are not permitted to construe future laws (like the appropriations bills just signed) against the “national emergency” provisions unless Congress specifically cites the National Emergencies Act section it intends to amend.

    That statute comes far later in time than the Steel Seizures Case.

    I don’t think that’s right. You presume that the emergency statutes at issue give clear grant of power to the president to take the specific acts he did in the XO. Respectfully, that is not as clear as you think. It’s hotly debated among conservative and liberal lawyers alike. The fact Congress so clearly constrained the president’s ability to take the acts in the XO will not help him convince a skeptical court he is within the emergency acts.

    • #12
  13. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Clifford A. Brown: President Trump telegraphed in his remarks that he expects to lose at the federal district court and appellate levels in the Ninth Circuit. He also expects to win at the US Supreme Court. While his declaration will certainly be challenged in federal court, this may actually be the opportunity to set Article III courts back on their proper path, ending bad behavior by federal district judges. I explained how this could play out in Declare National Border Emergency, Kill Two Birds with One Stone:

    What I am most curious to know is how many of  the prior declarations under former presidents have been challenged in court by the opposition.

    • #13
  14. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    TBA (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    As I read through this it strikes me there are two issues.

    Does the President have the authority to declare a national emergency on this subject? Given the lack of definition and other such declarations he may very well.

    Can he use the military for the purpose he wants (constructing the wall)? To me, the definition cited above raises some question as to what the answer is.

    To my mind, this is what an Army Corps of Engineers is for. (Except for when they are deployed in other countries.)

    Management will be by ACOE, actual work done by private contractors.

    • #14
  15. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    As I read through this it strikes me there are two issues.

    Does the President have the authority to declare a national emergency on this subject? Given the lack of definition and other such declarations he may very well.

    Can he use the military for the purpose he wants (constructing the wall)? To me, the definition cited above raises some question as to what the answer is.

    To my mind, this is what an Army Corps of Engineers is for. (Except for when they are deployed in other countries.)

    Management will be by ACOE, actual work done by private contractors.

    The question I see is, regardless of who manages or does the work, is it “military construction” per the definition above.

    • #15
  16. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    There’s no denying this is one of the best attempts to persuade a skeptical public Trump is not acting ultra vires.

    But…(you knew there was a but, right?) I’m not convinced. I think the famous Jackson concurrence in the Steel Siezure Cases applies here.

    Surely Congress spoke clearly when it said “you shall spend this much of the citzens’ money and you shall spend it this way branch number 2” when it passed (and Trump signed) the appropriation bill.

    Per Jackson, that puts the XO in the category where the president’s power is at a low ebb. Yes yes, there are other acts of Congress but the exact action taken in the XO was discussed by the only branch capable of appropriating tax payer dollars and it did not choose to spend as the president wished.

    Except that current law provides express authority to reallocate specific funds, if the president declares a “national emergency.” Funds for the relevant program have been allocated for this fiscal year, and have not all been obligated. Per the express terms of the National Emergencies Act, courts are not permitted to construe future laws (like the appropriations bills just signed) against the “national emergency” provisions unless Congress specifically cites the National Emergencies Act section it intends to amend.

    That statute comes far later in time than the Steel Seizures Case.

    I don’t think that’s right. You presume that the emergency statutes at issue give clear grant of power to the president to take the specific acts he did in the XO. Respectfully, that is not as clear as you think. It’s hotly debated among conservative and liberal lawyers alike. The fact Congress so clearly constrained the president’s ability to take the acts in the XO will not help him convince a skeptical court he is within the emergency acts.

    “XO?” We are not talking hugs and kisses. Nor are we talking an “executive order,” although anti-Trump/anti-MAGA voter “conservative” lawyers may wish to conflate a presidential proclamation with an executive order, so as to muddle the issue with Obama’s “pen and phone.”

    If Congress is truly opposed to building the wall and securing the border, they have the opportunity, under the National Emergencies Act, to vote against the president’s declaration. Let’s see a majority in both chambers do that. Then let’s see the veto override vote. That, of course, would be the truly conservative and constitutionalist position, and it is telling that the focus is on trying to litigate instead.

     

    • #16
  17. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    As I read through this it strikes me there are two issues.

    Does the President have the authority to declare a national emergency on this subject? Given the lack of definition and other such declarations he may very well.

    Can he use the military for the purpose he wants (constructing the wall)? To me, the definition cited above raises some question as to what the answer is.

    To my mind, this is what an Army Corps of Engineers is for. (Except for when they are deployed in other countries.)

    Management will be by ACOE, actual work done by private contractors.

    The question I see is, regardless of who manages or does the work, is it “military construction” per the definition above.

    The National Emergencies Act provides a clear remedy: a vote by Congress to end the national emergency. It is telling that everyone is avoiding this statutory remedy and trying to spin Article III courts into taking their side. The responsible, conservative, constitutionalist position for the courts to take is just this: Congress has created its own remedy, let it exercise that remedy.

    • #17
  18. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    According to John Yoo in an article written on the AEI site:

    “If Trump declares a border emergency, Section 2808 of Title 10 of US law provides authority to build a wall: When a national emergency “requires use of the armed forces,” the Defense Department “may undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

    As commander in chief, Trump has already ordered 3,000 troops to defend the nation’s territorial integrity at the southern border. A wall, arguably, would support those troops by protecting them and reducing the need for more troops. And other, similar laws would allow Trump to redirect funds from civil works projects and drug interdiction programs toward construction of a wall he decided was needed during a national emergency.”

    • #18
  19. toggle Inactive
    toggle
    @toggle

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):
    What I am most curious to know is how many of the prior declarations under former presidents have been challenged in court by the opposition.

    Isn’t that the gist of the matter ?
    Ds stonewall. They understand Trump’s success has proven to be the greatest threat to their power in more than a generation.

    • #19
  20. Jack Hendrix Inactive
    Jack Hendrix
    @JackHendrix

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    There’s no denying this is one of the best attempts to persuade a skeptical public Trump is not acting ultra vires.

    But…(you knew there was a but, right?) I’m not convinced. I think the famous Jackson concurrence in the Steel Siezure Cases applies here.

    Surely Congress spoke clearly when it said “you shall spend this much of the citzens’ money and you shall spend it this way branch number 2” when it passed (and Trump signed) the appropriation bill.

    Per Jackson, that puts the XO in the category where the president’s power is at a low ebb. Yes yes, there are other acts of Congress but the exact action taken in the XO was discussed by the only branch capable of appropriating tax payer dollars and it did not choose to spend as the president wished.

    Except that current law provides express authority to reallocate specific funds, if the president declares a “national emergency.” Funds for the relevant program have been allocated for this fiscal year, and have not all been obligated. Per the express terms of the National Emergencies Act, courts are not permitted to construe future laws (like the appropriations bills just signed) against the “national emergency” provisions unless Congress specifically cites the National Emergencies Act section it intends to amend.

    That statute comes far later in time than the Steel Seizures Case.

    I don’t think that’s right. You presume that the emergency statutes at issue give clear grant of power to the president to take the specific acts he did in the XO. Respectfully, that is not as clear as you think. It’s hotly debated among conservative and liberal lawyers alike. The fact Congress so clearly constrained the president’s ability to take the acts in the XO will not help him convince a skeptical court he is within the emergency acts.

    “XO?” We are not talking hugs and kisses. Nor are we talking an “executive order,” although anti-Trump/anti-MAGA voter “conservative” lawyers may wish to conflate a presidential proclamation with an executive order, so as to muddle the issue with Obama’s “pen and phone.”

    If Congress is truly opposed to building the wall and securing the border, they have the opportunity, under the National Emergencies Act, to vote against the president’s declaration. Let’s see a majority in both chambers do that. Then let’s see the veto override vote. That, of course, would be the truly conservative and constitutionalist position, and it is telling that the focus is on trying to litigate instead.

     

    Ha! I’m being upbraided for conflating a presidential proclamation with an XO  as if in the context of executive arrogation there is any difference.

    But you make clear this is just a partisan matter for you. You weaken your case when charge reasoned critics as unconservative and unconstitutional.

    • #20
  21. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    There’s no denying this is one of the best attempts to persuade a skeptical public Trump is not acting ultra vires.

    But…(you knew there was a but, right?) I’m not convinced. I think the famous Jackson concurrence in the Steel Siezure Cases applies here.

    Surely Congress spoke clearly when it said “you shall spend this much of the citzens’ money and you shall spend it this way branch number 2” when it passed (and Trump signed) the appropriation bill.

    Per Jackson, that puts the XO in the category where the president’s power is at a low ebb. Yes yes, there are other acts of Congress but the exact action taken in the XO was discussed by the only branch capable of appropriating tax payer dollars and it did not choose to spend as the president wished.

    Except that current law provides express authority to reallocate specific funds, if the president declares a “national emergency.” Funds for the relevant program have been allocated for this fiscal year, and have not all been obligated. Per the express terms of the National Emergencies Act, courts are not permitted to construe future laws (like the appropriations bills just signed) against the “national emergency” provisions unless Congress specifically cites the National Emergencies Act section it intends to amend.

    That statute comes far later in time than the Steel Seizures Case.

    I don’t think that’s right. You presume that the emergency statutes at issue give clear grant of power to the president to take the specific acts he did in the XO. Respectfully, that is not as clear as you think. It’s hotly debated among conservative and liberal lawyers alike. The fact Congress so clearly constrained the president’s ability to take the acts in the XO will not help him convince a skeptical court he is within the emergency acts.

    “XO?” We are not talking hugs and kisses. Nor are we talking an “executive order,” although anti-Trump/anti-MAGA voter “conservative” lawyers may wish to conflate a presidential proclamation with an executive order, so as to muddle the issue with Obama’s “pen and phone.”

    If Congress is truly opposed to building the wall and securing the border, they have the opportunity, under the National Emergencies Act, to vote against the president’s declaration. Let’s see a majority in both chambers do that. Then let’s see the veto override vote. That, of course, would be the truly conservative and constitutionalist position, and it is telling that the focus is on trying to litigate instead.

     

    Ha! I’m being upbraided for conflating a presidential proclamation with an XO as if in the context of executive arrogation there is any difference.

    But you make clear this is just a partisan matter for you. You weaken your case when charge reasoned critics as unconservative and unconstitutional.

    Nothing especially reasoned about calling exercise of statutory authority, in fulfillment of a core GOP presidential campaign promise, “executive arrogance,” while running to the courts, rather than calling on Congress to exercise the statutory remedy baked into the National Emergencies Act.

    • #21
  22. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Flicker (View Comment):
    in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

    I’d argue that this is in US national interest.

    Freedom of navigation permits US commercial traffic to engage in international commerce. 

    • #22
  23. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

    I’d argue that this is in US national interest.

    Freedom of navigation permits US commercial traffic to engage in international commerce.

    But not a state of emergency.  I did mean to star* that for the reason you point out.  But still it’s not a direct threat to the US except to shipping that uses that route.  And that’s about the worst one in the bunch.  These are as often as not being used as punishment for in-house nastiness in foreign countries rather than emergency threats to the US.

    • #23
  24. formerlawprof Inactive
    formerlawprof
    @formerlawprof

    My contribution to these mega-issues is almost always to sigh and say that “it’s a much closer issue than people on both sides think,” or, more simply, “just as there is no crying in baseball, there are no slam-dunks in law.”

    John Yoo and David French had a terrific (and deeply respectful) debate on this on a Federalist Society podcast–don’t know if I am allowed to upload it. John and David have both written follow-up pieces, and, to round out the cast of characters, Victor Davis Hanson has weighed in with a slightly different take– criticizing the President for the manner in which the whole thing was handled.

    There is general agreement that the declaration of the emergency itself, while not without logical and factual weaknesses–illegal aliens killing our citizens is a horror show, but it’s not even a statistical blip or rounding error compared to the weekly carnage in Chicago–is probably valid under the National Emergencies Act. (Chiefly because the Act is one of the worst congressional punts out there, and provides no standards for defining an emergency, only a process for declaring and reporting one. It is of a piece–not coincidentally, from the same time period–as the War Powers Act.)

    Declaring an emergency only “unlocks,” as many have phrased it, certain other courses of action. But not every course of action is created equal. For example, if the national emergency is an onslaught by MS-13, the President could not respond by closing down all public transportation in Chicago!

    So that brings us to the Military Construction statute. Is the emergency at the Southern Border something that requires the use of the Armed Forces? There are no slam-dunks in law, and it would not be absurd to say yes, but the far stronger answer is NO. It is true that the President could deploy troops for this purpose, and he has done so in the past, but it would be what lawyers call a “bootstrap” to turn that into a situation in which use of the military is required.

    If that is correct, then it makes the “construction necessary to support” those troops argument a double bootstrap. Not a crazy argument; just wrong, in my view.

    Victor Davis Hanson thought that the President should have just quietly gone about the business of moving funds around, rather than take such an in-your-face victory lap. I’m with Victor on this one too, but for a slightly different reason. Just when Trump had done well in the State of the Union, here he committed one unforced error after another–like admitting that he didn’t really “need” the money, he just wanted it to speed things up! Some emergency.

    If the public record wasn’t so clear to the contrary, I would have said that the President was drunk! Or maybe in a fugue state!

     

    • #24
  25. Jack Hendrix Inactive
    Jack Hendrix
    @JackHendrix

    FWIW Clifford, I said arrogate, not arrogant.  Comment 24 sums up nicely how there are in fact reasonable disputes to your position. To be clear, I find your argument reasoned as well and am chagrined you don’t extend a similar courtesy.

    • #25
  26. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Flicker (View Comment):
    But not a state of emergency. I did mean to star* that for the reason you point out. But still it’s not a direct threat to the US except to shipping that uses that route. And that’s about the worst one in the bunch. These are as often as not being used as punishment for in-house nastiness in foreign countries rather than emergency threats to the US.

    Except that the US Flag means that upon the waters, that vessel is US territory. Piracy is a direct assault upon US sovereignty.  

    • #26
  27. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    But not a state of emergency. I did mean to star* that for the reason you point out. But still it’s not a direct threat to the US except to shipping that uses that route. And that’s about the worst one in the bunch. These are as often as not being used as punishment for in-house nastiness in foreign countries rather than emergency threats to the US.

    Except that the US Flag means that upon the waters, that vessel is US territory. Piracy is a direct assault upon US sovereignty.

    Technically, yes, but an order of magnitude different.  What did Jefferson do.  Built a navy and went to war with the Barbary pirates — and I believe there might have been a financial settlement given to the pirate governments as well.  This is what this declaration of emergency is dealing with, but not in any way what it was doing.  It was playing with money and freezing bank accounts.

    • #27
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.