We'll see! I'm very excitedActually it looks like Trump is going to bypass congress, after which he'll be able to sign a budget bill. That's unless a rider is attached that explicitly prohibits using emergency power that way.
I trust you've seen the story on the interim deal. But it's just temporary. I still think in the end he'll try to do it as an emergency measure. It's an abuse of the law, but it looks technically legal.
As I understand it, the law pretty much leaves it to the President to define what is an emergency. It's pretty hard to anticipate every kind of emergency, so you just about have to leave it loose. The President has a very scary set of powers, which courts have not normally been willing to challenge. See What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency. I'm not so convinced that Trump is a would-be dictator, but I think building a wall is well within possibility (though in practice it would take a fair amount of time; I wonder whether $5B would actually be spent while he's in office).I question if the courts will agree with the Trump administrating, that threatening calling the "Emergency" and holding it as a leverage in a negotiation tool for over two months, that using it only after negotiations fail does not constitution an "Emergency."
Surely he has to make a plausible case for it?As I understand it, the law pretty much leaves it to the President to define what is an emergency. It's pretty hard to anticipate every kind of emergency, so you just about have to leave it loose. The President has a very scary set of powers, which courts have not normally been willing to challenge. See What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency. I'm not so convinced that Trump is a would-be dictator, but I think building a wall is well within possibility (though in practice it would take a fair amount of time; I wonder whether $5B would actually be spent while he's in office).
I’m not so sure. The whole point is to allow quick responses to emergencies.Surely he has to make a plausible case for it?
I’m not so sure. The whole point is to allow quick responses to emergencies.
The law permitting the president to declare emergencies gives him the power to redirect certain money that's already been appropriated. Since that money was already intended for actual necessary projects, in the end Congress may have to put it back.OTOH, even if he declares an emergency, he can't just generate funds out of thin air. While he can "steal" some money from the unused budget of Homeland Security or, possibly from the Defense Department, Congress would still need to appropriate money for whatever he "declares" -- and likely whatever department Trump took money from would need extra money appropriated, or would have funding issues for the year.
No, the law permitting the president to declare emergencies gives him the power to redirect certain money that's already been appropriated. Since that money was already intended for actual necessary projects, in the end Congress may have to put it back.
You really don't want to run a country the size of the US without giving the chief executive discretion over a few billion dollars. You can't write your laws assuming that your president is going to be someone like Trump.
I’m not so sure. The whole point is to allow quick responses to emergencies.
That’s why it is misuse of the law. But the law by necessity allows the qppresident discretion.Not being able to get funding for a pet project he's been working on for 2+ years seems to be the exact opposite of a "quick" anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?