Would declaring a state of emergency 'set a bad precedent'?

Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here).

Really?

A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future.

To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.

The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.

Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.

Then there are those who say that if Trump declares a national emergency, the wall will never get built, because the declaration will get tied up in court. Andrew McCarthy made the case that the declaration would immediately be blocked in a district court. McCarthy noted that it would take months to work its way through the courts, during which time attention would be deflected from the crisis at the border

to those who say that declaring a state of emergency will be useless because it will be blocked in the courts, Mark Levin has a powerful argument against this perspective. He said this:

” Then I hear it said, look, the courts will block the President. Since when do presidents refuse to take action in anticipation of a court telling them no? Of anticipation of an Obama court telling them no. A President has his responsibilities and let the chips fall where they may in the federal courts, depending on which court it winds up with and so forth. Why? Because these people want to be able to tell you that they told you that the court would say no. Of course, these district courts will say no. That’s not where the battle is.

It’s in the Supreme Court. And many of these people have already told you we’ve got a great court now that we’ve got these two men on there. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Well, let’s see. But you don’t surrender in advance in anticipation of a loss. You don’t fight military battles that way. You don’t fight political battles that way. And you don’t conduct your presidency that way. Well this could take a lot of time. Well so what? The president can’t control that. The status quo on the border is the status quo on the border. In the mean time you’re fighting to try and secure that border.”

60,000 dying every year from the drug poison coming directly from south of the border, a great deal of those deaths young adults and teens. That’s 20 Sept. 11 attacks every year or almost 2 happening every month. Remember when just one happened? What did GW Bush do? Oh that’s right: He declared a state of emergency........

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-4.html

This is the same argument that they used to prevent the Senate from deploying the nuclear option on judges.

"Why if we do it the democrats will too!"

So we played nice, like good little boys.

And the moment they controlled the Senate and White House, (which happened in part because we did not appoint the judges that we should have) guess what they did?

Yep.

Would declaring a state of emergency ‘set a bad precedent’?...

Would you want a leftist President to have such unchecked power?

Do you think a Leftist President would care if he set a bad precedent?

I say (he, she, they or it) would not think twice about it if they saw it as a win for their side?

I say declare it and build the wall.

Might as well do it because when the Dems get in power again they will lead off with the global warming emergency declaration and then pitch the filibuster rules to impose their warped ideology on us all. Republicans, for the most part and with some notable exceptions, have something called honor and respect for law and tradition. The Dems hate this country and seek to turn it into the socialist nirvana they dream about. They won’t give a rats behind that the republicans held back from the emergency declaration and are probably laughing their asses off about it.

I like Mark Levin but he missed the point. If POTUS does declare the emergency it gets immediately stopped by the 9th circus. It isn’t about fear of a court action it is about getting the border secured. If his declaration gets tied up in court the border remains open as it is now so nothing gets done. Even if the SCOTUS rules in favor there is another few hundred thousand undocumented democrats in our country getting automatically registered to vote when they get a drivers license. That is the Dems master plan and it isn’t far from becoming reality

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.