Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Responding to Conservative Critics of Trump using the National Emergency Law on 1976
I saw this article two days ago and I think it is spot on. I have some quotes, but please, read the whole thing. (All quotes from this article except the table on how Reagan, too, shredded the Constitution by using the 1976 law)
Now come all the great Washington “conservatives” lambasting President Trump for threatening to declare a “national emergency” so he can finally build the promised southern border wall that got him elected president.
These out-of-the-blue “constitutionalists” have lined up alongside the open border Democrats who for years have airily dismissed U.S. citizens’ alarm over the open border as a “manufactured crisis.”
These critics are all of a sudden worried that Mr. Trump will overreach his executive authority. Even more fundamentally, they cringe, this action by a president will forever grant unchecked new powers to every future president.
Give me a break. These are the same goons in Congress who for decades have handed over congressional authority to any president in the White House who happens to wear the same color jersey they do. Democrats have done it for Democrat presidents and Republicans have done it for Republican presidents.
Indeed. I guess when Reagan did it it was OK:
| Reagan | October 14, 1983 | December 20, 1983 | Trade[18] | Continuation of Export Control Regulations (Executive Order 12444)[20] – expiry of the Export Administration Act of 1979 | |
| Reagan | March 30, 1984 | July 12, 1985 | Trade[18] | Continuation of Export Control Regulations (Executive Order 12470)[20] – expiry of the Export Administration Act of 1979 | |
| Reagan | May 1, 1985[21] | March 13, 1990[22] | Sanctions[18] | Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua (Executive Order 12513)[21] – The United States embargo against Nicaragua,[23]followed the victory by Sandinista candidate Daniel Ortega in the 1984 Nicaraguan general election over the U.S.-backed Contras | |
| Reagan | September 9, 1985 | July 10, 1991 | Sanctions[18] | Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (Executive Order 12532)[20] – response to the initial attempt by Senate Democrats to pass what would be the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 | |
| Reagan | January 7, 1986 | September 20, 2004 | Sanctions[18] | Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya (Executive Order 12543)[20] – followed the 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks | |
| Reagan | April 8, 1988 | April 5, 1990 | Sanctions[18] | Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Panama (Executive Order 12635)[20] – deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and General Manuel Noriega |
Why did Congress invent the National Emergencies Act in the first place if it is such a threat to the Constitution? And where has all this angst been the five dozen times presidents have declared national emergencies since the law was created in 1976?
Yep. Which party first ran for a third term? Which party abused the filibuster? Which party decided to unwind the filibuster?
The truth of most of the political class is they don’t want to protect the border.
Because Congress won’t do its job. Its members are all willing to just pass the buck and do nothing. More on this here.
If Congress did not want this to happen, it could have stopped it, and still could stop it. Congress gave the power to the Executive and they can take it away.
Published in General
Congress is useless. The GOP Senate in particular. Look at this spineless statement from Rob Portman (R-OH) …
The President gave these clowns more than enough time to “work together to find a legislative solution”….
Supposedly they have been working on this for more than sixteen years now, right?
They don’t want it. Congress does not want to own anything.
Hasn’t your president repeatedly called for ending the filibuster?
I admit I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen any of the critics of Trump’s declaration say they generally objected to the president having some emergency powers. Everyone seems to think that is necessary and appropriate to some extent. The question is whether this particular declaration exceeds the president’s authority or not.
The mere existence of prior declarations really doesn’t affect the argument of those who oppose this one. Maybe the prior declarations were legitimate and maybe the weren’t, but the argument is that this particular one is not regardless of what happened before.
As I pointed out in another thread, the references back to the prior declarations serve to highlight the danger that the present declaration will be used as a precedent, and thereby increase the risk of a permanent expansion of executive power. For me, and many who oppose this action, this has nothing to do with Trump and the circus surrounding him. We would make the same arguments against Obama, Clinton, Reagan, etc….
I’ve been ambivalent about the wall as there has been much discussion about it with no result for a long time, but Trump has convinced me otherwise. It would have been easy for George W. to get it done after 9/11 when patriotism and concern about terrorists from the Middle East coming across the border was at its zenith. The time is now or never since we finally have an executive committed to building the wall. As for his power to declare an emergency on the border, there is no question unless a politically opposed federal court rules otherwise; however, it would undoubtedly be overturned by the Supremes.
Seems to me, this falls under the “Scalia Rule”: STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL.
Just because a presidential order is constitutional, it doesn’t mean conservatives have to like it.
Just because Congress is too feckless to get the two-thirds majority needed to end a “national emergency”, it doesn’t mean conservatives have to like it when a Republican president declares one.
Just because Congress ill-advisedly delegates a power to the Executive Branch, it doesn’t mean that an individual President has to use it, and that nobody has grounds to complain about its use.
As long as a dissenter recognizes that a particular presidential order is constitutional, I think it’s fair game for criticism as simply a bad idea.
I guess he’s not your president, eh?
Fred and I have as much in common with ol Maxine as a fish does with a bicycle to use an old saying.
It’s best not to get hung up on the term “national emergency.” Those words don’t mean what you think they mean. How do you feel about some these other national emergencies? For example,
Did you raise your voice against that one? Or were you even aware that it existed? It’s still in effect, btw.
Since Trump became our President, Fred has decided he’s too good to be American.
I think you’re confused about that saying; it’s not what you think. But the clear implication of the quoted passage is that, at least, Fred has one thing in common with Mad Maxine. Maybe you too? [Asking for a friend.]
Yes, I agree with you. And the congress can also simply override the president’s declaration.
Beyond that, as you mentioned, at least half of these Emergency Declaration were about fairly mundane stuff that had nothing to do with the US except that we occupy the same planet. Things like a general illegally interfering in his own nation’s elections in a country half a world away. This is a nation emergency? Even piracy off of Somalia is not a great emergency in the ships can always take the long way around.
It’s not like an attack on the US Homeland or an ingression of illegal aliens and terrorists who will disappear into the crowds never to be seen again until they break the law.
How would it exceed his authority, any more than say, messing with a general in a foreign country who messes with his own country’s elections?
Or do they all exceed his authority?
Well, I wasn’t even of voting age in 1995…
Your President also.
Yeah, but how about now? That order is still in effect today, as I mentioned.
Spot on. Just because something is legal does not mean it is good. Lots of bad acts may be legal but still bad.
And that’s assuming this was legal.
I’m as disappointed with our pusillanimous Congress as the next guy, but, for those who like their government generally sluggish and ineffectual (on the theory that most of what it does is bad, so the less done the better), there’s an up-side to at least some of their cowardly delegation to the executive: the President, even with the latitude allowed him by an AWOL legislature, has nowhere near the freedom of action that the Congress enjoys. The President remains constrained by the law; Congress invents the law.
Not much of a bright side, I admit.
As has been mentioned before (apologies for not linking the thread, with the appropriate attribution), has any prior national emergency been challenged ? Or, is this one just because Trump ?
For example,
Friendly Reminder: Obama Selected The List Of Muslim Countries in Trump’s Executive Order
Trump’s Executive Order was challenged—because Trump.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks, when we hear those who deny because Trump is the reason for the controversy of border security now.
What is our President supposed to do with his duty to defend and protect ?
Pelosi’s Congress passes a bill with this much money to extent additional security so many miles. Trump adds to that certain provisions Congress has already passed to extend border security many miles more.
Why can’t he do that ? Because Trump.
When a segment of our population suggests our President’s defense of our border is a greater threat to our security than the trafficking across it, then that indeed qualifies as a national emergency.
Does he realize that? Because he acts like he’s only President of the Trumpkins.
I wish Trump would pull and Obama and announce that people could declare any charitable deduction without any proof. It would be like DACA for people that don’t want to pay taxes on their income. Tax payers are dreamers too!
I’m sure Trump personally has something to do with the outrage and I’ll even grant his action is pretty milquetoast as these things go. I don’t really see how that diminishes my argument echoed by many here at Ricochet and in the greater conservative movement that this act is not within the spirit of the Constitution even if (a big if) it is found legal.
Am I not permitted to challenge the constitutionality of the acts of a politician, even if I agree with his policies 90% of the time?
The Comstitution is mere parchment. Only public respect for its tenets keeps it in place. I don’t see how overzealously patrolling its outer limits is anything but laudable. In these days of separation of parties and not powers, intra-party criticism is all the more required.
How is this any different than any from the other current examples of emergency declarations that I’ve posted.
I’m not going to write you a brief. It is enough that I claim this act is ultra vires. A president took an action, invoked a specific statute and gave a rationale. Congress meanwhile took an additional act. Correct me if I’m wrong but I did not see you or anyone else cite a previous invocation of the specific military construction statute with respect to the border. Surely we can judge this case on it’s on merits and facts?
More importantly, I am worried about the greater trend in executive arrogation. You may desire a more powerful president, many do. I do not.
How is this any different than any from the other current examples of emergency declarations that I’ve posted.
Suppose I’m having some cash flow problems and need a few thousand dollars, I decide to tell my insurance company that my car was stolen and I need a check. When their inspector/adjuster comes over the car is in my driveway. I tell him ” oh sure, the car isn’t really gone, I just decided to deem it gone for purposes of getting a check out of you guys.”
How is that different than Trump signing a bill saying no funding for the wall, declaring an emergency to move funds to build the wall, then having a press conference saying there is no emergency he just had to say there was one to free up the money?
I, for one, have acknowledged that there’s basic merit to the argument. However, I find the alarmism – and coming from people who generally a) don’t support a wall and/or don’t see mass illegal immigration as a threat to America or a potential threat to their personages ( since they have personal walls and other protection) and b)who also generally don’t like Trump, his policies or both, to be quite tortured. ( like that last sentence- )
I wonder why people get so triggered whenever I say that.
Typical Fred. Respond to just one little thing.
By the way, he is our President.
Well, they are not, but it is clear you need to see it that way. It is clear you have a deep need to see yourself as rational and objective and everyone else as irrational and emotional. It colors all your posts, and it is the reason you come across as you do.
And the need that everyone accept, praise, honor, cherish, and glorify Donald Trump tends to color the posts and comments that many Trump supporters make.
Dissent is not to be tolerated. We much acknowledge, sanction, and be thankful for Him.