Will trump be forced to use national emergency to build wall

[busybee01]

About national emergencies: (excerpts)

Obviously, the president lacks any inherent authority to spend money. Article I, Section 9 unambiguously states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” However, The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated that DHS “construct fencing “along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.” So, in this case Congress has explicitly authorized fencing at the border, and although it did not appropriate the funding, the president can rely on funding through a declaration of a national emergency. Whether this rises to the level of an emergency or not is the subject of a political debate that should be settled between the political branches, not the courts.

Further:

Section 2808 of the National Emergencies Act of 1976 allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects” that are “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” in the event that the president declares a national emergency. A parallel statute, <33 U.S. Code § 2293, allows the secretary, during such a declared emergency, to redirect “the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

There are no parameters governing the criteria for such a declaration or defining the types of projects that might be in order. The only thing the secretary of defense has to do is to communicate the nature of the decision and its costs to the relevant congressional committee, but he does not need to obtain congressional approval. One might legitimately feel uncomfortable with such broad authority delegated to the president, but nonetheless, this is the law on the books. Congress has delegated a lot of authority to the president for the purpose of protecting our sovereignty and security, like it or not.

Nobody likes broad delegated authority on appropriations, but given that Congress has delegated such authority to spend the money, I have no problem using it on a project that has already been authorized under statute. Section 102(a) of the The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the secretary of homeland security “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads … in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” And there is the afore-mentioned Secure Fence Act of 2006, supported by a significant number of Democrats BTW.

Yes, the president has the authority to build the wall


Back to the question of whether the border wall rises to the level of a national emergency, I am doubtful that the Courts are in a position to make that call, or should do so. If both Houses of Congress were to pass resolutions specifying that it does not, then I could see the Courts taking that into account, but quite frankly I'm not sure that some of the democrats in red districts would want to vote for that, and in any case the Senate wouldn't do it. I do believe that the Dems will not agree to fund the wall after this temporary period is over, and I think Trump will declare the NE. And it'll go through the Courts, which delays the process. Will the delay last long enough? Don't know, but if Trump is voted out of office, he would have until January 20, 2021 to get as much done.

You are so full of bullshit. The Congress has to authorize the money to be spent especially when we are talking about $5 billion dollars. There is no threat of invasion by the armed forces of a foreign country. This is clearly meant for a military operation not a enforcement of civilian law. The fact that there are no parameters is why this will be tied up in the courts because this directly contradicts the Constitution.

You need a Congressional authorization to spend money. Authorizing a law does not mean you get the spending automatically.

The Courts are in a position to make a call. No they do not the House and Senate to sue. They only need the House since all spending bills must originate in the House. If the Democrats take the White House, they could declare a national emergency and spend money to tear down anything Trump built. They can take the remains and dump it at Mar-A-Largo. Trump should take all of his garbage with him.,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

Recognizing the need for the President to take action when Congress cannot act effectively on an issue the Congress passed laws in 1979 that in effect have Congress rubber stamping whatever the President does under a declaration of national emergency. Certainly, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from doing that. If a President abuses this authority, Congress still have the power to impeach him and convict him, hence removing him from office.

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are so full of bullshit. The Congress has to authorize the money to be spent especially when we are talking about $5 billion dollars.

So you are correct and PolitiFact is wrong?

 

[busybee01]

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

The president has very broad powers to declare emergencies
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg1255.pdf

You are talking about statutes. They do not take precedence over the Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no threat of invasion by the armed forces of a foreign country.

There doesn't have to be.

You need a Congressional authorization to spend money. Authorizing a law does not mean you get the spending automatically.

The money was already authorized, just under a different category. So it's not unconstitutional.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is different but the principle is the same. Presidents have declared states of emergencies because of inflation or logjams in shipping goods and all kinds of other problems when Congress was unable to take effective action over 500 times.

I don’t have a list of all these instances but I’d bet I would be in agreement with less than 5% of them, based on basic Constitutionality.

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It is a Constitutional issue as using a national emergency to build a wall would directly contradict the Constitution which gives Congress the power of the purse. Laws cannot override the Constitution.

lol There is no contradiction of the Constitution. From the earliest days of the republic all three branches of the government recognized that situations may occur when Congress is unable to act effectively and the President must make decisions on these issues. In 1979, Congress passed laws defining what powers the President would have under a declaration of national emergency and what procedures he would have to follow to make such a declaration. Declaring a state of emergency to build the border fence does not in any way violate these laws.

"Congress has the power of the purse" is a meaningless slogan, since Congress appropriate or disperse any money for anything without the approval of the President.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

Recognizing the need for the President to take action when Congress cannot act effectively on an issue the Congress passed laws in 1979 that in effect have Congress rubber stamping whatever the President does under a declaration of national emergency. Certainly, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from doing that. If a President abuses this authority, Congress still have the power to impeach him and convict him, hence removing him from office.

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

 

[jillian]

I think it will happen because democrats hate american values

Forced? For a made up “emergency” that is nothing but a lunatics ego trip?

Why wasn’t there an emergency when the rightwingnut teumpacum had bothhousss of Congress?

Pathetic little trumpkins

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

The president has very broad powers to declare emergencies
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg1255.pdf

You are talking about statutes. They do not take precedence over the Constitution.

Again, there is no Constitutional issue here. Since the current laws regarding presidential power under a declaration of national emergency were passed in 1979, there have been 58 such declarations and 31 of them are still in effect.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

Recognizing the need for the President to take action when Congress cannot act effectively on an issue the Congress passed laws in 1979 that in effect have Congress rubber stamping whatever the President does under a declaration of national emergency. Certainly, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from doing that. If a President abuses this authority, Congress still have the power to impeach him and convict him, hence removing him from office.

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

Well misdemeanors do have a definition, but I don't know if there is a legal definition for high crimes. You are correct, the Congress may try it anyway, but Piglosi herself said she's not anxious to exercise impeachment unless it's a good enough reason. She may get her girdle in a bunch, but I don't think she'd get pissed off enough to try an impeachment over a wall.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I think it will happen because democrats hate american values

Forced? For a made up “emergency” that is nothing but a lunatics ego trip?

Why wasn’t there an emergency when the rightwingnut teumpacum had bothhousss of Congress?

Pathetic little trumpkins

Clearly, you have no idea how Congress works. To pass legislation the Democrats opposed in the Senate would have required 60 votes and the Republicans never had 60 votes, so your claim the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress is false.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

The president has very broad powers to declare emergencies
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg1255.pdf

You are talking about statutes. They do not take precedence over the Constitution.

Again, there is no Constitutional issue here. Since the current laws regarding presidential power under a declaration of national emergency were passed in 1979, there have been 58 such declarations and 31 of them are still in effect.

I really think Busybee may be from another country and simply doesn't understand. The President is not spending any additional money not authorized by Congress. They are simply moving money already spent from one place to another.

 

[JoeB131]

The law does not give the courts a say in what an emergency is or not--only the President.

Actually, it does...

Trump can declare an emergency, but when it comes to seizing land, and spending money, he has to prove it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The law does not give the courts a say in what an emergency is or not--only the President.

Actually, it does...

Trump can declare an emergency, but when it comes to seizing land, and spending money, he has to prove it.

Yes, but that's a different category altogether. Eminent Domain is constantly used in this country. In most instances the landowner loses the case.

 

[Anathema]

The president has very broad powers to declare emergencies.

Let me try this again... Congress cannot grant powers it never had to someone else (even POTUS).

 

[toomuchtime_]

The law does not give the courts a say in what an emergency is or not--only the President.

Actually, it does...

Trump can declare an emergency, but when it comes to seizing land, and spending money, he has to prove it.

The right of eminent domain is well established and the courts have no jurisdiction over individual cases if the government follows established procedures. Some politically motivated lower courts may slow the process down a little, but the legal principle is well established and the President will prevail.

Under a declaration of national emergency, the President can and other presidents have moved money that has already been appropriated around to prioritize objectives Congress never intended to fund, and that is what President Trump will do if the Democrats continue to stonewall negotiations.

 

[danielpalos]

And the Courts will slap him down when he tries it, assuming someone in the Justice Department doesn't talk some sense into him before he tries it.

The President can both Constitutionally and legally declare a National Emergency, and the courts can't stop him from building the Wall. ...

The courts can stop him as the Constitution gives the Congress the power of the purse. It doesn't say but or if. The Congress can defund any action a President says even a military action.

No they can't, not if there is a law permitting the President to do just that. In order for the courts to stop Trump, they would have to rule that the Emergency Act of 1976 is unconstitutional, and good luck with that one.

Declaring an emergency does not involve Congress because it doesn't give the right for a President to pass a budget. It gives the President a right to use funds already appropriated and transfer those funds to his claimed emergency. In other words, it won't strip Congress of their power of the purse and won't cost the taxpayers one additional cent. It will likely transfer money from our defense budget to build the wall.

The Congress authorizes all spending. It does not have to do anything with a budget. The Constitution overrides a law. He has to have a Congressional authorization to SPEND the money. The courts would only have to rule that a Congressional authorization is required. They would not even have to rule on a national emergency. If the Congress was unable to perform their actions due to a natural disaster or a man-made disaster then they may have a case. But Congress is fully functional.

Again, it has nothing to do with Congress. The money has already been allocated. It's just Trump is taking that allocated money from one entity and placing it in another which the law allows him to do with or without congressional approval.

Congress has delegated broad powers allowing a president to repurpose funds after declaring a national emergency, but there are still laws to follow. Declaring a national emergency does not automatically get Trump $5.7 billion for a border wall.

According to some media reports, the White House has asked the Army Corps of Engineers to examine if funds from its budget for civil work projects, including flood control projects in areas affected by recent natural disasters, could be used for the border wall.

"He would have to try to use statutory powers previously given by Congress that purportedly allow him to reallocate money for that purpose," Boyle said.

Could Trump declare a national emergency for a border wall?

there is no express wall building clause. we have no common defense problem on our border it is a refugee problem.

 

[danielpalos]

It is not really a constitutional issue. In saner times Congress passed laws granting the President vast powers to act when he deems Congress is unable to act effectively, and these laws strip Congress of the power to rescind these powers without the consent of the President.

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

The president has very broad powers to declare emergencies
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg1255.pdf

You are talking about statutes. They do not take precedence over the Constitution.

Again, there is no Constitutional issue here. Since the current laws regarding presidential power under a declaration of national emergency were passed in 1979, there have been 58 such declarations and 31 of them are still in effect.

I really think Busybee may be from another country and simply doesn't understand. The President is not spending any additional money not authorized by Congress. They are simply moving money already spent from one place to another.

He may need to show a Constitutional wall building power.

 

[OldLady]

The law does not give the courts a say in what an emergency is or not--only the President.

Actually, it does...

Trump can declare an emergency, but when it comes to seizing land, and spending money, he has to prove it.

The right of eminent domain is well established and the courts have no jurisdiction over individual cases if the government follows established procedures. Some politically motivated lower courts may slow the process down a little, but the legal principle is well established and the President will prevail.

Under a declaration of national emergency, the President can and other presidents have moved money that has already been appropriated around to prioritize objectives Congress never intended to fund, and that is what President Trump will do if the Democrats continue to stonewall negotiations.

other presidents have moved money that has already been appropriated around to prioritize objectives Congress never intended to fund,
That's really interesting. Can you give us some details on that--like what President, for what purposes and what funds he appropriated?

 

[playtime]

Actually there has been an emergency for several years now, except nobody wanted to acknowledge it. Just ask any Angel family. Trump wanted to get this matter settled last month, it was by force he reopen the government and show restraint.

he had 2 years to do it. that will be taken into account.

Taken into account by whom? One more time, the courts do not have the ability to rule whether something is an emergency or not. They can only rule on the constitutionality of the issue or if if the law was followed properly.

correct. & if they decide his 'national emergency' really isn't - based on constitutional law --- like his abuse of power --- then that will be that, won't it? & he might even be gone by the time the courts decide anyhow.