Posted on 03/06/2019 2:44:51 PM PST by rintintin
Senator Rand Paul has announced that, despite supporting improvements in border security, he will vote against President Trump’s emergency declaration on the grounds that it’s an abuse of executive power — and he’s absolutely right.
“Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate,” Paul wrote in an opinion piece for Fox News. “We were right then.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
And it's not hard to say that without vilifying or insulting Paul or Timpf or National Review.
Libertarians are NEVER AGIANST the DEMONCRATS!! NEVER!
THAT is FUNNY!!
I thought there was a difference between an “emergency declaration” and an executive order.
I’m sorry, but everytime I see your screenname, I just die laughing. I don’t know what it is, I just get this mental image and just start guffawing.
The Commander in Chief is fully authorized by the constitution to defend the US without anyone’s approval.
Congress long ago gave up its control over spending.
The
Horse
Is
[long]
Gone
POTUS needs to promise McConnell near monthly EO’s on border issues in the run up to 2020. If they want to stab him in the back on one then make it 10. The fecklessness of the donor class controlled GOP will be exposed to all voters.
Paul is simply a headline seeking ASS!
I agree, but the Commander in Chief doesn’t need an EO to defend the USA
Declaring a humanitarian crisis on the border that is compromising our sovereignty can be declared an emergency, I see no problem with that.
That is NOT the same as BO’s EO’s.
A more accurate statement would be that the NEA of 1976 has never been challenged in Federal Court. The Youngstown decision, when the Supreme Court struck down23o Truman's emergency action in a Steel Strike during the Korean War happened before the enactment of the NEA.
I don’t think either party wants to challenge the act in court. It was passed after a history of court rulings on emergency powers and was intended to remedy the court concerns. It also seem written to eliminate a role for the judiciary putting the onus on congress to check the president’s power. You can;’t run country with an emergency by the fiat of 1 or a small group of judges, who have no army or intelligence gathering apparatus.
Pelosi has threatened to use 'National Emergency' under a democrat President to enact gun control. Absent a majority in Congress to end/stop such an edict from a democrat President, the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 & 1602) could prove to be an abusive provision, similar to what we've seen with Executive Orders.
from lexisnexis
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.
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.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies
GOP Sen. Susan Collins says she’d back resolution against Trump emergency declaration
2/20/2019, 4:45:10 PM · 67 of 76
morphing libertarian to morphing libertarian
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
I wonder if that brutal beating from the neighborin 2018 has impaired his judgment.
Did Senator Paul ever organize a rejection of ANY Executive order” issued by President Obama?
No?
Did Senator Paul ever read the Supreme Court’s 1983 Decision on The Emergency Declaration Law that CONFIRMED the President’s legal right to “declare national emergencies” and legal right to VETO Congressional resolutions passed to “nullify” those declarations?
NO?
Does Senator Paul think that the sailors who returned fire on the Japanese bombers at Pearl Harbor acted “illegally”, because our Congress had not yet exercised its “exclusive” Constitutional “right” to declare war on Japan?
Why not?
Thomas Jefferson had it right: “To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
Emergency Powers Act. He should put forward legislation to rescind it if he doesn’t like it.
Timph has ALWAYS gotten on my last nerve, but this takes the cake!
Try supporting the President chickie!
We agree!
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.