Posted on 02/18/2019 6:38:41 PM PST by usafa92
The Trump 2020 campaign is highlighting examples of the president keeping his promises, advisory board member Marc Lotter says.
The attorneys general of California, New York, and 14 other states on Monday filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit against the White House's recent national emergency declaration over border security, claiming President Trump has "veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making."
President Trump sarcastically had predicted the lawsuit last week. He's slammed the Ninth Circuit multiple times as "disgraceful" and politically biased.
The litigation, brought before a federal trial court in the Northern District of California, seeks an injunction to prevent Trump from shifting billions of dollars from military construction to the border without explicit congressional approval. The suit also asks a court to declare Trump's actions illegal, arguing that Trump showed a "flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution" by violating the Constitution's Presentment and Appropriations Clauses, which govern federal spending.
The litigation additionally includes allegations that Trump is violating the National Environmental Policy Act, by planning to build a wall that could impact the environment without first completing the necessary environmental impact reports.
The states contend they have standing to sue the administration largely because, they allege, the federal funds could have been spent on their defense. "Maine is aggrieved by the actions of Defendants and has standing to bring this action because of the injury to the State and its residents caused by Defendants’ reduction of federal defense spending in Maine due to diversion of funding to the border wall," one section of the suit reads.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
He’s building a wall in New York? Where’s the standing? A suit in New York goes to the 9th Circus? How many ACLU lawyers can fit in a VW bug?
That was different. Blue staters liked him. They don’t like Trump, so he’s violating the Constitution, and being a big meany, and a racist, and a Nazi, and a poopyhead.
AGREED and AMEN! Thank you, Randy Miller from LinkedIn!
The ONE WORD that REQUIRES Donald J Trump to Declare a National Emergency on the border if Congress failed to follow through on their own border bills which they have not done:
TEXAS
Texas has a Supreme Court right under federalism under Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution as well as by Congressional Treaty (1845 Joint Resolution of Annexation of the Republic of Texas to the United States of America) to counter sue the states that do not wish to defend the border. Clearly Texas has been invaded. Statistical records from DPS proves this beyond a shadow of any doubt.
Texas has the superior interest over the 16 states that have sued the Executive Branch over the national emergency.
If Trump does not declare the emergency then the United States is in violation of its duties under the 1845 treaty and Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution.
The 16 states that have sued Trump have no standing on border matters. They have no authority whatsoever to challenge Executive Action on the border. If they choose to withhold support of the border then Texas must sue immediately to recoup damages including DPS wages for law enforcement.
LAW.CORNELL.EDU
Welcome to LII
We are a not-for-profit group that believes everyone should be able to read and understand the laws that govern them, without cost. We carry out this vision by:Publishing law online, for free.Creating materials that help people understand law.Exploring new technologies that make it easier for people...
you continue to misundertsand.
Do abacus search ask the questions who or what do senators represent. Of course elected officials can vote how they choose and then they answer to the electorate.
As a last resort you can explain how two senators represent someone’s or somethings other than the state. I would be interested in your explanation since it is so unique.
I know it’s not new. But the passage of the Emergency powers act explicitly indicates congress has the power to override with joint resolution. I am advocating Trump test the waiter and tell the judges the argument I have been making.
Dayam.......I just knew Oregon would be one of the states
Justice Thurgood Marshall declined to order the military to stop bombing, writing "the proper response to an arguably illegal action is not lawlessness by judges charged with interpreting and enforcing the laws. Down that road lies tyranny and repression."
The Court said it cannot decide a political question; the constitution vests military matters in the Executive and Legislature.
It really is time to launch Civil War 2.0 - and this time we should finish the job.
The present border crisis is very real; the emergency goes to preserving the Constitutional intent--as defined in the Preamble, and as implicitly recognized in the reserved power of the States, if actually invaded, to wage war, in Article I, Sec. 10.
Korematsu vs US (Japanese American internment)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/323us214
New York Times vs US (Pentagon papers)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/1873
Schlesinger v. Holtzman (Cambodia bombing, war powers act)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlesinger_v._Holtzman
Familiar with USSC decisions on emergence. However the NEA was passed in 1976 and proscribes a joint resolution of congress to overturn the president’s declaration. Not a law suit.
This is why Trump should declare that the judiciary has no say in the response to national emergency. The code below gives congress the responsibility for checks and balances on emergency declarations. They can overrule with joint resolution.
You can’t ensure national security when your response is subject to judicial fiat of 1 or 3 judges.
Cal announced they will file a suit against the declaration. The governor says it interferes with their drug interdiction program (LOL),
no standing for a court or state to over turn an emergency decree. Only congress. But Trump’s stamens this morning indicates he will go through the court process possibly delaying construction till he loses the election.
The court should spank Pelosi and send her back to the house without supper. Below is her recourse.
If he cannot build more than 55 miles, he will not be re-elected.
The president should put the court on notice that they have no standing in national emergencies. The check and balance on the president’s emergency powers is the congress. You can’t respond to emergencies when any judge can overrule your actions.
The congress can terminate a president’s emergency declaration. THAT is the check and balance on presidential power. Trump should tell the court, you have no jurisdictions for emergencies. The country cannot respond to emergencies on the basis of judicial fiat.
HERE IS SOME INFO.
What the Law Does
The NEA authorizes the president to declare a national emergency, which declaration activates emergency powers contained in other federal statutes.3 During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, the president’s declaration of a national emergency under the NEA, coupled with the HHS secretary’s prior determination of a public health emergency under Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), permitted the activation of Social Security Act (SSA) Section 1135 waiver authorities. (See Figure A for the text of the 2009 H1N1 NEA declaration.)
How the Law Works
The NEA does not provide any specific emergency authority on its own, but relies on emergency authorities provided in other statutes. A national emergency declaration allows for the activation of these other statutory authorities. Emergency statutory provisions are not activated automatically, however; they must be specifically identified in the president’s declaration before these authorities may be given effect.
Declaration
NEA Section 201 authorizes the president to declare a national emergency. The proclamation of a national emergency must be immediately transmitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register.1,2 Under NEA Section 301, statutory emergency authorities enabled by the national emergency declaration cannot be exercised until the president specifies the provisions of law under which the president or other officials will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration or in subsequent Executive Orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to Congress.
Termination
A national emergency can be terminated if the president issues a proclamation or if Congress enacts a joint resolution terminating the emergency. A national emergency will terminate automatically upon the anniversary of the proclamation unless the president renews the proclamation by transmitting notice to Congress within a 90-day period prior to the anniversary date and publishing it in the Federal Register.
Immunity and Liability Issues
The national emergency provisions of the NEA do not address liability issues or provide any immunity. The act could be used to activate emergency authorities in other federal statutes that provide immunity during emergency events.
How the Law Affects States
National emergency declarations under the NEA can impact states through the federal statutory emergency authorities activated once the NEA declaration is made. The most recent example of this effect was the activation of SSA Section 1135 waiver authority during the H1N1 influenza pandemic.
FIGURE A
DECLARATION OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO THE 2009 H1N1 INFLUENZA PANDEMIC
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
October 24, 2009
“NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and consistent with section 1135 of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5), do hereby find and proclaim that, given that the rapid increase in illness across the Nation may overburden health care resources and that the temporary waiver of certain standard Federal requirements may be warranted in order to enable U.S. health care facilities to implement emergency operations plans, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States constitutes a national emergency. Accordingly, I hereby declare that the Secretary may exercise the authority under section 1135 of the SSA to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance programs and of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule throughout the duration of the public health emergency declared in response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. In exercising this authority, the Secretary shall provide certification and advance written notice to the Congress as required by section 1135(d) of the SSA (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(d)).”4
from lexisnexis
A joint resolution, H.J. Res. or S.J. Res., is a legislative proposal that requires the approval of both Chambers and the signature of the President, just as a bill does, in order to have the force of law.
Joint resolutions from each House are assigned a number in the order in which they are introduced. Joint resolutions may be introduced in either Chamber and generally are used for limited matters such as continuing or emergency appropriations or the designation of a commemorative holiday.
There is little practical difference between bills and joint resolutions, although only a joint resolution may be used to propose amendments to the Constitution. In the case of a Constitutional amendment, the signature of the President is not required, but three-quarters of the states must ratify the proposed amendment before it can become part of the Constitution.
Prior to the 77th Congress (1941), laws enacted by joint resolutions were numbered separately from bills in the Statutes at Large, but since that time there has been no distinction made between laws that were introduced as bills and laws that were introduced as joint resolutions.
Been posting this for 4 days no one has posted a cogent response as to why courts have any jurisdiction over emergency declarations.
“How many ACLU lawyers can fit in a VW bug?”
Depends on which pieces you put in first ;^)
Does Trump and his lawyers get a televised opportunity to make their legal case? I would love for this to be public and we can hear the arguments as how 30 million invaders constitutes a national emergency.
so sad that most forget that ...17th amendment is the undoing of the country
And what effect does this case have for the other fifty something emergencies that are still in effect for former presidents?
Uh yes but the senators are also representing the entire state. If you would search you would see that is what every expert says. Your reluctance to see congressmen represent district and senators state is puzzling
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.