President Donald Trump has declared a national emergency in order to build a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, despite the lack of a legitimate basis for such a national emergency.
This is, by far, easily the most controversial national emergency declaration in U.S. history. Usually, a national emergency is declared by the president for a legitimate reason, such as, to use historical examples, the Great Depression and the 9/11 attacks. Trump's national emergency declaration to build a border wall is the first instance in U.S. history of a national emergency being declared for the purpose of achieving a purely political objective instead of due to the presence of a legitimate national emergency. Prior to today, the previous instance of a national emergency declaration being controversial was when then-President Richard Nixon declared a national emergency due to a postal workers' strike in 1970, in which members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard were used as replacement workers to deliver mail. However, there was a legitimate basis in Nixon declaring a national emergency in that instance, but there is no legitimate basis whatsoever for Trump declaring a national emergency to build a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, since federal law enforcement agencies that are responsible for policing the border, such as the U.S. Border Patrol, are not overwhelmed to the extent that would warrant such a national emergency declaration; in fact, unauthorized border crossings into the United States from Mexico are at their lowest levels in recent history. It's also important to note that Trump only began floating the idea of declaring a national emergency to build a border wall after the Democratic Party gained a majority of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, meaning that Trump is declaring a national emergency because he is completely unwilling to work with people that he doesn't agree with. That's not a valid basis to declare a national emergency.
Yesterday, former George W. Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer wrote this piece for the beltway media website Politico Magazine in which he pointed out that Trump's national emergency declaration creates a slippery slope, in which Trump's national emergency declaration to achieve a right-wing political goal would give political legitimacy to a future Democratic president declaring a national emergency. As a progressive Democrat, I don't normally find myself agreeing with political allies George W. Bush, but that is one instance where I agree with Latimer. I would strongly oppose any effort by a future Democratic president to abuse emergency powers just as much as I strongly oppose Trump abusing emergency powers.
Already, the corporate media is engaging in whataboutism when it comes to Trump's national emergency declaration, claiming, or at least insinuating, that whoever the next Democratic president happens to be is planning to use national emergency powers to achieve a purely political goal, such as implementing the Green New Deal or banning civilian ownership of assault weapons. This is nothing more than an attempt by the corporate media to attack Democrats for Republicans abusing power.
While global warming and gun violence are legitimate national emergencies, using presidential emergency powers to circumvent Congress, or even the Constitution itself, for any reason, is abuse of power. National emergencies should be declared for situations in which an immediate response by the executive branch of the federal government is warranted and not to circumvent Congress's legislative powers or provisions in the Constitution for political reasons.
If Trump's national emergency declaration is not legally voided by either Congress or the federal judiciary, that would set an absolutely destructive precedent, in which the president would be far more powerful than the Constitution intended the president to be. The U.S. Constitution establishes a federal government consisting of a legislative branch, Congress, with federal legislative power, an executive branch, led by the President, with federal executive power and legislative power limited to signing or vetoing legislation passed by Congress, and a judicial branch, consisting of the Supreme Court and lower-level federal courts, in which the federal judiciary power is vested. Trump's national emergency declaration fundamentally imperils the American form of government.
The federal National Emergencies Act allows Congress to override a presidential declaration of a national emergency. I strongly encourage Congress to override Trump's national emergency declaration and assert its co-equal power as the legislative branch of the federal government.
This is, by far, easily the most controversial national emergency declaration in U.S. history. Usually, a national emergency is declared by the president for a legitimate reason, such as, to use historical examples, the Great Depression and the 9/11 attacks. Trump's national emergency declaration to build a border wall is the first instance in U.S. history of a national emergency being declared for the purpose of achieving a purely political objective instead of due to the presence of a legitimate national emergency. Prior to today, the previous instance of a national emergency declaration being controversial was when then-President Richard Nixon declared a national emergency due to a postal workers' strike in 1970, in which members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard were used as replacement workers to deliver mail. However, there was a legitimate basis in Nixon declaring a national emergency in that instance, but there is no legitimate basis whatsoever for Trump declaring a national emergency to build a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, since federal law enforcement agencies that are responsible for policing the border, such as the U.S. Border Patrol, are not overwhelmed to the extent that would warrant such a national emergency declaration; in fact, unauthorized border crossings into the United States from Mexico are at their lowest levels in recent history. It's also important to note that Trump only began floating the idea of declaring a national emergency to build a border wall after the Democratic Party gained a majority of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, meaning that Trump is declaring a national emergency because he is completely unwilling to work with people that he doesn't agree with. That's not a valid basis to declare a national emergency.
Yesterday, former George W. Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer wrote this piece for the beltway media website Politico Magazine in which he pointed out that Trump's national emergency declaration creates a slippery slope, in which Trump's national emergency declaration to achieve a right-wing political goal would give political legitimacy to a future Democratic president declaring a national emergency. As a progressive Democrat, I don't normally find myself agreeing with political allies George W. Bush, but that is one instance where I agree with Latimer. I would strongly oppose any effort by a future Democratic president to abuse emergency powers just as much as I strongly oppose Trump abusing emergency powers.
Already, the corporate media is engaging in whataboutism when it comes to Trump's national emergency declaration, claiming, or at least insinuating, that whoever the next Democratic president happens to be is planning to use national emergency powers to achieve a purely political goal, such as implementing the Green New Deal or banning civilian ownership of assault weapons. This is nothing more than an attempt by the corporate media to attack Democrats for Republicans abusing power.
While global warming and gun violence are legitimate national emergencies, using presidential emergency powers to circumvent Congress, or even the Constitution itself, for any reason, is abuse of power. National emergencies should be declared for situations in which an immediate response by the executive branch of the federal government is warranted and not to circumvent Congress's legislative powers or provisions in the Constitution for political reasons.
If Trump's national emergency declaration is not legally voided by either Congress or the federal judiciary, that would set an absolutely destructive precedent, in which the president would be far more powerful than the Constitution intended the president to be. The U.S. Constitution establishes a federal government consisting of a legislative branch, Congress, with federal legislative power, an executive branch, led by the President, with federal executive power and legislative power limited to signing or vetoing legislation passed by Congress, and a judicial branch, consisting of the Supreme Court and lower-level federal courts, in which the federal judiciary power is vested. Trump's national emergency declaration fundamentally imperils the American form of government.
The federal National Emergencies Act allows Congress to override a presidential declaration of a national emergency. I strongly encourage Congress to override Trump's national emergency declaration and assert its co-equal power as the legislative branch of the federal government.
Comments
Post a Comment