Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Would declaring a state of emergency 'set a bad precedent'?
American Thinker ^ | 01/28/2019 | Carol Brown

Posted on 01/28/2019 8:04:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind

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" (herehereherehere, 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


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: borderwall; stateofemergency
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
To: SeekAndFind
I think we need to see how President Trump plays this out. I'm sure he is aware that there is going to have to arguably be a lot more border wall up and being built by 2020. How hard he has tried will count for nothing.


41 posted on 01/28/2019 9:16:13 AM PST by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sanjuanbob

They’ve already flipped Virginia using the same strategy.


42 posted on 01/28/2019 9:37:47 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

Yep, saw WAY worse between 2008 and 2016.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can’t find a worse precedent than Precedent Obama.


43 posted on 01/28/2019 9:40:06 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

According to Justice Thomas the circuit courts have no authority to encumber the President once an NE is declared.

And all the experts say the president can use funds available for the wall and other funding to hire more border policing and monitoring equipment.

About time the 9th circuit found out who is the boss.


44 posted on 01/28/2019 9:47:40 AM PST by Zenjitsuman (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Zenjitsuman

The court refused to take up DACA and shirked its duty to end that clearly illegal program.
They have not slapped down other actions, either.
Thomas is still in the minority.


45 posted on 01/28/2019 9:52:00 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Its been done several times before. Not precedent setting at all.


46 posted on 01/28/2019 10:06:07 AM PST by Don Corleone (Nothing makes the delusional more furious than truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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.

obummer declared or extended 12 national emergencies, so no precedent is required by President Trump for any future demonRAT pResidents.

'Lil marco' rubio is just caving to his puppet masters.

47 posted on 01/28/2019 10:13:16 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke all mooselimb terrorists, today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The President is boxed in. He is being blocked at every turn and WILL be stopped by a POS black robed tyrant at the very least beyond 2020 and I do not trust the Supreme Court as it is filled. I have a feeling the “wall” will never come to fruition.


48 posted on 01/28/2019 10:19:21 AM PST by shanover (...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.-S.Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No, the humanitarian crisis on the border is what is setting a new precedent and that is the scariest part of this whole situation.

FREAKIN’ INVADING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS.


49 posted on 01/28/2019 10:20:39 AM PST by Maris Crane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maris Crane

I called 3 of Rubio’s offices only one answered the phone
and it was not a staff person available so I had to just leave a message.

Rubio was gang of 8 wanting amnesty for anyone, regardless of whether they had criminal backgrounds. At that time there were 11 million illegals in country. Now according to Harvard there are between 22 and 29 million illegals in country and Rubio still isn’t supporting a wall.


50 posted on 01/28/2019 10:29:45 AM PST by Zenjitsuman (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
"Would you want a leftist President to have such unchecked power? "

One already did.

51 posted on 01/28/2019 10:31:01 AM PST by mass55th ("Courage is being scared to death, but saddling up anyway." ~~ John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zenjitsuman

God bless you for doing that.

I hope that little worm, Rubio, gets a real good taste of backlash. There are so many Cubans who would be better at representing their constituents than he.

Hopefully, one will emerge before long.

Keep calling, you are calling for all of us.


52 posted on 01/28/2019 10:39:59 AM PST by Maris Crane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

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

This is NOT unchecked power. This is the DUTY of the President -— to secure our borders. If the Commander in Chief cannot use that power FOR THIS PURPOSE, I don’t know what else he can do.

Ask yourself — Is there an invasion? Check. Are drugs pouring in our Southern Border? Check. Is Building a Wall a Defensive Task? Check.

Also, consider this — 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.

What’s the problem then? It’s not as if this national emergency is not a national emergency. IT IS !!


53 posted on 01/28/2019 11:26:00 AM PST by SeekAndFind (look at Michigan, it will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have yet to see a modern Democrat sticking to a process because a Republican did.


54 posted on 01/28/2019 11:41:59 AM PST by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (Go Egypt on 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I understand that building a wall is a promise the President made to his base, and his failure to deliver on it might cost him his base. I get it.

I also understand that the southern border is such that it can be exploited by people who want to do us harm.

But...

It's been that way for quite some time now, far longer than this one presidency. If southern border security were such a dire emergency, it should've been Priority One, Day One, when the President had control of Congress. That it wasn't leads me to believe that calling it an "emergency" now is a term of art, or a term of political necessity, rather than a term of any true accuracy.

An "emergency," to this observer, is something tangible and immediate, and unless dealt with swiftly, outside traditional channels of power, poses a disastrous threat to the Republic. A military invasion. A federal reaction to a specific incident of a manmade or natural disaster. These are what I would consider "emergencies," because in plain language, they are.

To this observer, our immigration issues do not rise to his level. Not yet. A large intangible gap between cause and effect still exists between what's happening and what could happen. This relationship, I believe, is similar to AOC's dire warnings about climate change necessitating her Green New Deal bravo sierra before the world ends in twelve years.

For God's sake, reform our immigration law, set up some real security around our southern (and northern) borders - both soft and hard - and get it done. We can't keep on going from manufactured "crisis" to "crisis" around here: governing with your hair constantly on fire is not a good way to govern.

I, for one, would absolutely not trust one of my political opposites in power with this sort of executive gameplay legitimized..."oh, just call it an emergency, and I can do whatever I want." Can you imagine the sierra hotel india tango a President Elizabeth Warren would try to pull?

55 posted on 01/28/2019 12:00:12 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

RE: .”oh, just call it an emergency, and I can do whatever I want.”

Then what’s the point of the National Emergencies Act of 1976 when a justifiable invocation of it is deemed a bad precedent ? When is an Emergency an emergency?

We might as well repeal this act if we’re afraid to use it even when there is justification to do so.

You can’t compare Climate Change with the Swarm of Caravans after Caravans coming our way every month (another is on its way now even as I write this ).

Are tens of millions of illegals, nearly half of them coming from our Southern borders with the ensuing tens of millions of dollars we have to spend feeding, housing, educating and securing them not enough to declare an emergency?

Whereas, the so called Global Warming has been proven to be a non-crisis ( the world’s climate has gone COOLER the past two decades ).

One can be observed EMPIRICALLY, the other is scientifically disputed.

In November 1979 this power was invoked by the Carter administration blocking Iranian government property under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IT IS STILL IN EFFECT TODAY.

We already have a precedent and that precedent is not even in our borders.

If invocation of this act is justified, IT IS BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE.


56 posted on 01/28/2019 12:27:40 PM PST by SeekAndFind (look at Michigan, it will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

My rule of thumb on issues like this is “if the Donks were in control would they hesitate to act on their beliefs” and I always realize the answer is no, they wouldn’t. IMHO this is our last, best, chance to build the wall and prevent globalist usurpation of American soverignty and, potentially, civil war.


57 posted on 01/28/2019 12:30:52 PM PST by vigilence (Vigilence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It would set a Constitutional precedent.

The UniParty cannot have that.


58 posted on 01/28/2019 4:32:33 PM PST by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - J. R. R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

You are correct. Congress can vote
to stop an emergency declaration, or
a landowner can sue if his property
is being seized via eminent domain.


59 posted on 01/28/2019 4:48:03 PM PST by Lean-Right (Eat More Moose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
You asked: Would you want a leftist President to have such unchecked power?

I asked you if you missed the leftist's years of clintoon and obamaroid, both of whom declared more than once a state of emergency.

60 posted on 01/28/2019 5:19:11 PM PST by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson