Emergencies Do Not Trump the Constitution

drbrumley

Well-known member
Emergencies Do Not Trump the Constitution
By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
February 26, 2019

After Congress rejected President Trump’s request for 5.7 billion dollars for the border wall, the president declared a national emergency at the southern border. Present Trump claims this “emergency” gives him the authority to divert funds appropriated for other purposes to building the border wall.

President Trump’s emergency declaration is not just an end run around Congress. It is an end run around the Constitution. Article One of the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to allocate federal funds.

While President Trump’s order may be a particularly blatant abuse of power, it is hardly unprecedented. Most modern presidents have routinely used so-called national emergencies to expand their power, often at the expense of liberty. For example, Present Franklin Delano Roosevelt used “emergency powers” to justify internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two.

President Trump, like other recent presidents, is relying on the 1976 National Emergencies Act for legal justification for his emergency declaration. This act gives the president broad powers to declare national emergencies for almost any reason. All the president need do is inform Congress he has declared an emergency. Once the emergency is declared, the president simply needs to renew the declaration once a year to maintain a state of emergency. Since this act passed, 59 emergency declarations have been issued, with 31 of those still in effect.

Another statute giving the president broad “emergency” powers is the Defense Production Act. Under this law, the president can force private businesses to produce goods for the military. The law also enables the president to impose wage and price controls and even make loans to private businesses. All a president need do to invoke these vast powers is submit “findings” to Congress that “national security” requires the president seize near-dictatorial control of certain industries or even the entire economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, some presidents have invoked the Defense Production Act without making the required findings to Congress, and the act has been used to justify federal interference in areas having little or nothing to do with national defense.

Section 606(c) of the Communications Act gives the president “emergency” power to seize control of every television network, radio station, smartphone, laptop, and other electronic devices.

Emergency powers are not the only means by which presidents violate the Constitution. The 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF), which only authorizes the president to use force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks, has been used to justify military interventions that have no relationship to those attacks. The 2001 AUMF has been used to justify mass surveillance, indefinite detention, and even “kill lists.” Fortunately, Representative John Garamendi has introduced the Walter B. Jones Restoring Power to Congress Act that would pay tribute to a true champion of peace by repealing the 2001 AUMF.

Many neoconservatives and progressives who defended prior presidents’ abuses of power are critical of President Trump’s emergency declaration. These “never-Trumpers” will no doubt resume their love affair with the imperial presidency when the Oval Office is again occupied by someone who shares their agenda.

This week, the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution terminating President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency. Hopefully, this precedent will be used against all future presidents who use spurious claims of national emergencies to expand their powers and shrink our liberties.
 

TrumpTrainCA

BANNED
Banned
Mark Levin, Constitutional Expert:
'I Don't Need Lectures on the Constitution': Levin Blasts Congressional Opponents of Trump Nat'l Emergency Declaration
https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/03...gress-blocking-trump-national-emergencies-act

"Life, Liberty & Levin" host Mark Levin said Saturday that the National Emergencies Act, among other statutes, give President Trump the power to declare a national emergency on the border and react accordingly.

During a CPAC forum moderated by his wife, attorney Julie Strauss Levin, Mark said that the Act, introduced by former Rep. Peter Rondino (D-N.J.) and signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976, has been utilized "over 50 times by presidents of both parties."

"There are parts I don't like, but so what, that's the statute," Levin said. The event was streamed on Fox Nation.

He said that Trump also has authority over financial levers that integrate with powers given to him by the Act.

Levin blasted Democrats for trying to stop Trump's actions, and singled out three top Republicans who are siding with them.

"I dont need lectures from [Sens.] Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) or Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) about the Constitution," Levin, a Constitutional attorney and former Reagan DOJ official said.

"I don't need lectures from the phony experts that you put on your cable shows," he said, addressing the media in the back of the room in National Harbor, Md.

Levin said Democrats' threats to use the Act to institute gun control are hollow, because no statute can "change the Second Amendment."

"That same bill of rights that protects [the media] protects us too," he said.


I repeat: "He said that Trump also has authority over financial levers that integrate with powers given to him by the Act. Levin blasted Democrats for trying to stop Trump's actions, and singled out three top Republicans who are siding with them. "I dont need lectures from [Sens.] Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) or Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) about the Constitution," Levin, a Constitutional attorney and former Reagan DOJ official said. "I don't need lectures from the phony experts that you put on your cable shows," he said, addressing the media in the back of the room in National Harbor, Md.

I would add that this forum doesn't not need anti-Trump falsehoods from false conservatives in this forum. Trump is 100% withing his rights to do what he is doing. Ron Paul is a has been who never passed one piece of legislation in his life.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
That is an absolutely false statement, plain and simple.
Wrong and I like trump. I want him to succeed. But for some reason, he has as aligned himself with liberals disguised as conservatives...

Here is my observation:

On the economy, Trump is a Keynesian.

On foreign policy, he is becoming more neoconservative.

On social issues, he is liberal, esp. when he deals with homosexuality. Abortion, he is a personhood never guy. He talks a great game, I am open to correcting on this point.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

TrumpTrainCA

BANNED
Banned
Wrong and I like trump. I want him to succeed. But for some reason, he has as aligned himself with liberals disguised as conservatives...

Here is my observation:

On the economy, Trump is a Keynesian.

On foreign policy, he is becoming more neoconservative.

On social issues, he is liberal, esp. when he deals with homosexuality. Abortion, he is a personhood never guy. He talks a great game, I am open to correcting on this point.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

For the moment lets leave out social issues. He is great on the Life issues, and the other issues are not currently of supreme importance at this time.

I have heard enough experts on the wall issue say that Trump is NOT violating the constitution here. At the very least, and I am being fair, there is enough of an argument on both sides that it can go to SCOTUS for a decision. But I cannot accept anybody just flat out saying he is violating the constitution. Nobody here is knowledgeable enough to make a flat out absolute statement like that. My money is that he would win with SCOTUS.


As for economics, his tax policies are very Reaganesque, and they are working wonders, so we should all be happy with that. Same goes for his massive deregulation. As for tariffs, he does not like or dislike tariffs, he just sees them as long overdue against China since China has had them on us for decades, under various disguises. On that I agree.

As for spending, I would agree that he is not addressing that well, but he has a ton of stuff on his plate, and he needed to get the economy booming first so that people would pay taxes so that the deficit would go down. Congress did not help him much on this issue either.

But foreign policy? A necon? He is withdrawing troops, not getting us into more wars, so I don't see how you can say that.

And I think Korea was a success, which I posed about in another thread.

....Let's compare what Trump did to what Obama did.

Obama gave away truck loads of cash in the middle of the night to the number one terrorist nation in the world, and all he got for it was a fake treaty that was unenforceable.

But Trump? He did not give away one single thing. Trump DID manage to obtain a few takeaways, getting prisoners returned and stopping nuclear missile testing. Not quite what we wanted but it's something. But what did he give away? Nothing, not a darn thing,

Unlike the buffoon Obama who gave away the store, Trump gave away nothing and at least got a few things anyway. That makes him a winner. That alone makes this thread ridiculous.

But let's look at the wider picture and get out of the OP's shallow thinking. Trump is already winning for the upcoming China negotiations. By walking out of the North Korea negotiations he already laid down the marker for China and told them in no unmistakable terms that he will not be satisfied with a few peanuts. He is a man who gets everything he wants or else he walks away, and now China knows it. China is bleeding money right now from every vein thanks to Trump and they need Trump to stop what he is doing. If they come to him with a few little peanuts the negotiations will fail and they know it. Right now we are hurting China in Trump will get what he wants at the China negotiation.

Smart people are seeing this North Korea visit in The Wider context. Trump is a million moves ahead of never-Trumpers and is already looking at China.
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
That is an absolutely false statement, plain and simple.

Did Trump sign into law a budget that said NO to his border wall? Yes
Did Trump then violate his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the balance of powers, by abusing his emergency powers to subvert that law? Yes.
Plain and Simple.
 

TrumpTrainCA

BANNED
Banned
Did Trump sign into law a budget that said NO to his border wall? Yes
Did Trump then violate his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the balance of powers, by abusing his emergency powers to subvert that law? Yes.
Plain and Simple.

Apparently you do not seem to understand that THE LAW says he can call this emergency and fund it too. You seem to be in denial about quite a few things, whether it be this issue, or the fact that Democrats now embrace killing babies after they are born.

I have no time to discuss things with people who are detached from reality. Such a discussion is pointless since I am arguing against things that does not exist.
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
Apparently you do not seem to understand that THE LAW says he can call this emergency and fund it too. You seem to be in denial about quite a few things, whether it be this issue, or the fact that Democrats now embrace killing babies after they are born.

I have no time to discuss things with people who are detached from reality. Such a discussion is pointless since I am arguing against things that does not exist.

I know what the excuse that is being made because the Emergency Powers Act is poorly written.

I ask you can the Congress pass a simple law that invalidates the Constitution in part or in whole short of an amendment? No, they cannot.
So this excuse is invalid.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
sure they can - they do it all the time

those are the laws that keep the scotus busy
That's right, they do....thereby unconstitutional. Dont need 9 black robed Gods to tell the rest of yall.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
That's right, they do....thereby unconstitutional. Dont need 9 black robed Gods to tell the rest of yall.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

All the more reason why it needs to be opposed now. We saw the same type of self-inflicted damage to Congress with the War Powers Act. At least there they put some better safeguards in. The Congress should never have allowed a simple veto to allow the President to subvert the intent of the Emergency Powers Act to literally steal Congressional power.
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
the left wasn't complaining that the law was unconstitutional when bammy was using it :idunno:

I'm not sure that anything President Obama did directly subverted the checks and balances but you might gather I don't play favorites on this subject. If Obama was abusing it, it is all the more reason to put a stop to it. This is more important than party politics.
 

TrumpTrainCA

BANNED
Banned
That's true too. Which is another reason why the supreme court is a joke

Was the law challenged in SCOTUS?

If a law is on the books you cannot charge Trump with doing something unconstitutional. He is using the law. I would too. If the law is challenged then that's fine, that's what SCOTUS is for.

Some people say that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional but every president has used it. If a few dollars for a wall gets people agitated then the War Powers Act should have you in a frenzy. Which one is the bigger deal after all.

And remember: U.S.C. section 284 gives the president and the Defense Department the power to build the wall anyway. Section 284 provides that the Secretary of Defense “may provide support for the counter-drug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” by measures that can include the “construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.” The DOD’s authority under Section 284 to construct fences appears to extend only to “drug smuggling corridors.”

This limitation may only permit the construction of the wall in certain places, but there appears to be no statutory definition of what constitutes such a corridor.

While negotiating for a full wall, which requires congressional authorization, he could proceed to construct the section 284 wall in drug corridors.

Obviously, opponents would go to court to seek an injunction to stop the construction.

But, if the president, the DEA and the DOD can provide evidence that the locations for the wall are, indeed, drug corridors, the construction should be allowed.
 
Top