A bi-partisan group of 58 ex-national security officials will denounce Trump’s emergency declaration
The group must be headed by Captain Obvious, since Trump himself admitted it was not an emergency. (“I didn’t have to do this.”) Trump obviously lacks the moral and logical grounds for this action.
BUT
So what? You can’t shame Trump into action. The only weapon that works against him is the law, and all common sense notwithstanding, he may well have the authority to do what he did. I’m not a legal scholar, but it seems to me that the President has just about unlimited latitude to determine just what is a national emergency. The appropriate U.S. code doesn’t define an emergency, or place any constraints on what the President may call an emergency (nice law-writing there, boys).
The law does place one form of constraint on the President. Congress may say, “Sorry, no emergency exists,” but that resolution needs to come from both houses, and it needs Republican defectors to pass the Senate. Moreover, even if it passed the Senate, it can be vetoed, and neither chamber has the votes to override.
This will put the courts in a very difficult position when the declaration is challenged, since they are supposed to interpret laws, and there is really nothing there to interpret. Unless they choose to arrogate power to themselves, their only recourse seems to be to rule, “The law is clear that overriding the President’s judgment is the job of Congress, not of the courts.”
The other remaining question revolves around the proper definition of the President’s powers to move money around. Trump will argue that this law gives him the authority to tinker with the military construction budget. Irrespective of whether the courts support him on that one, I would normally argue that it is politically suicidal to screw the troops by taking money away from military housing for a border wall of debatable necessity. But the rules of normality don’t apply to Trump. He seems to be a genius at knowing how much crazy shit he can do without losing the support of his base.
Um…originally when the law was passed Congress could override a Presidential veto by a simple revote. However, the Supreme Court found that unconstitutional, hence the usual requirement to overcome the veto.
That certainly seems like an obvious ruling from the courts. Congress shouldn’t be able to pass a law saying, “Just this once, the Constitution doesn’t count.”
But that doesn’t seem to have any bearing on the current situation.
The legal argument would be that the president can’t just make words mean things they don’t. The law doesn’t say “the president may declare an emergency, whatever he wants that to mean”. Words mean things. Laws are written using them. This law grants powers in emergencies. This isn’t an emergency. We just need a court to consult a dictionary and explain to Cheeto von Tweeto that this word does not mean what he thinks it means.
The law does create a check on the President, but it must be the Congress which overrides an improper declaration. Apart from the that constraint, the latitude of the President appears unlimited, akin to his pardoning powers.
As I mentioned in my original comment, the courts are pretty much hamstrung, because all they can say is “The law is specific. It’s the job of Congress to determine whether the President has mischaracterized an emergency. They are the ones who must rub the dictionary in his face.” Trump may get some losses from partisan strip mall judges in the lower courts, because there will always be judges on both sides who want to legislate from the bench, but when the big kids come out to play, he will win, as he predicted.
As to whether he can move the money around, that will be a much more complex argument, with both political and legal ramifications.
Oh, there’s a bit of a march toward despotism. It’s not exclusive to Trump, it started with the Patriot Act, continued with the torture regime, reached a new high when Obama drone-murdered an (admittedly shitty) American citizen in cold blood. There’s a whole “theory of a unitary executive” that basically says – in prettier words – that democracy is inefficient, we should have an elected fuehrer.
Even with Trump promising a veto, the Senate should stand up and call bullshit. Not as a D vs. R thing, but just to pretend we still have a working legislative branch. This might get some Republicans re-elected, but: worth it. At least *make* that stupid pimp veto it. Baby steps, baby steps.
I very much agree with Nature Mom.
Waitaminit…. that group ain’t headed up by ME!
Oh, about the subject of this piece – the people protesting Trump’s fake emergency. Uncle Scoopy is right, but I think it is good for the country for people to stand up and be counted in their opposition to him. Failing even to make a gesture would be awful. It would be as if we all acquiesced in his march toward despotism.
I truly don’t understand this “resist trump” movement. He is already halfway through his term. In 20 months you can simply vote him out of office. The drama is getting a little ridiculous. There is no “march toward despotism”. Elections of consequences. Make the next one count.
I think Trump’s base loves him because he is hated by all the people they hate (at least in the form of the stereotypes they have of those people). If that is something like true, then Trump could only lose his base by embracing those people (people of the left, or people of color, or immigrants) or by directly ridiculing his base as the mouth-breathing suckers I think they are.
I guess that is the stereotype I have of THEM, and it is no better than theirs. Now I am sad, and I guess I should be, either about them or about myself. Or both. This is not an easy time to be fair and balanced.
I’d say you’re spot-on.
“Trump’s base loves him because he is hated by all the people they hate.”
Yes, and vice-versa. Dennis Miller pretty much says that outright in his new comedy special. He loves the fact that Trump knows exactly how to troll all the people he dislikes, and he knows exactly which notes to play to get under their skin.
“Trump could only lose his base by embracing those people”
Very true. Case in point: all Trump had to do to get his full friggin’ $25 billion for the wall was to offer a permanent deal for the Dreamers. He had agreed to make that deal, and he had even said he supported the Dreamers. … and then he backed off. …
That deal – Trump embracing the undocumented immigrants – didn’t sit right with his base. (Phone calls with Hannity?)