Trump's Emergency Order Is Unconstitutional

[Robo]

After researching my copy of the Constitution I find that I need to revise my opinion about Trump’s Executive Emergency Order. There’s no power/authority in my copy of the Constitution that allows for the Congress to broaden/add to the Powers of the President without a constitutional amendment. Therefore I have to say that every Executive Emergency Order signed into law by any President was and will be a violation of the Constitution, Including Donald J. Trump’s order.

Just like the War Powers Act laws created by the Congress, there is no constitutional authority for any of them either.

[MMC]

Yes, Trump Has The Authority To Declare A National Emergency On The Southern Border

In the latest “constitutional crisis”� declared on Capitol Hill, Democrats are adamant that they will not fund the signature pledge of Trump to build a border wall. In response, Trump has threatened to start construction unilaterally under his emergency powers if Congress refuses to yield to his demand for more than $5 billion. Critics turned to the Constitution and found clear authority against Trump. Representative Adam Schiff (https://thehill.com/people/adam-schiff), Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, and many others denounced such a move as flagrantly unconstitutional.

The concern is well founded even if the conclusion is not. Congress has refused the funds needed for the wall, so Trump is openly claiming the right to unilaterally order construction by declaring a national emergency. On its face, that order would undermine the core role of Congress in our system of checks and balances. I happen to agree that an emergency declaration to build the wall is unwise and unnecessary. However, the declaration is not unconstitutional.

The problem is Trump does have that power because Congress gave it to him.

More than two decades later, Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally. The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency”� to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities”� of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.”� The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,”� rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”

Democrats have not objected to use of this authority regularly by past presidents, including roughly 30 such emergencies that continue to this day. Other statutes afford additional emergency powers. Indeed, a report by the Congressional Research Service (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf) in 2007 stated, “Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

Congress spent decades yielding authority to the executive branch......snip~

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/01/...-a-national-emergency-on-the-southern-border/ (https://jonathanturley.org/2019/01/10/yes-trump-has-the-authority-to-declare-a-national-emergency-on-the-southern-border/)

[nathanbforrest45]

Perhaps the OP has a different Constitution from the rest of us?

[Private Pickle]

After researching my copy of the Constitution I find that I need to revise my opinion about Trump’s Executive Emergency Order. There’s no power/authority in my copy of the Constitution that allows for the Congress to broaden/add to the Powers of the President without a constitutional amendment. Therefore I have to say that every Executive Emergency Order signed into law by any President was and will be a violation of the Constitution, Including Donald J. Trump’s order.

Just like the War Powers Act laws created by the Congress, there is no constitutional authority for any of them either.
If it's Unconstitutional what Amendment does it violate?

[stjames1_53]

Ever notice that when the Dem/Liberals want to get something from a court against Trump, they always run to CA or NY to get it filed?

[Abby08]

Perhaps the OP has a different Constitution from the rest of us?

He has the one that says....." If any Democrat doesn't like, or, agree with what is being said, or done, it's unconstitutional."

[Private Pickle]

Again I'm wondering what Amendment Trump is violating with his emergency order?

At the same time I think he is opening Pandora's box. If he wins he wins in the short term. The next Democratic President will declare an emergency anytime they want and rightfully so... What's to stop them?

[Newpublius]

After researching my copy of the Constitution I find that I need to revise my opinion about Trump’s Executive Emergency Order. There’s no power/authority in my copy of the Constitution that allows for the Congress to broaden/add to the Powers of the President without a constitutional amendment. Therefore I have to say that every Executive Emergency Order signed into law by any President was and will be a violation of the Constitution, Including Donald J. Trump’s order.

Just like the War Powers Act laws created by the Congress, there is no constitutional authority for any of them either.

You're espousing the nondelegation doctrine here. To be precise here, you are actually arguing that the National Emergencies Act is itself an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Trump's order though isn't itself unconstitutional. Trump's order is made pursuant to an affirmative grant of statutory authority. Until declared unconstituional, that statute is presumptively valid.

[CaveDog]

I’d be surprised to see presidential emergency powers overturned on the basis of non-delegation. Technically right or wrong, it’s been an established principle since Congress authorized Jefferson to go after the Barbary pirates circa 1801-1802. It would be a major break with tradition. The 9th might do it out of spite but my bet would be on the supremes overruling them.

[Hoosier8]

After researching my copy of the Constitution I find that I need to revise my opinion about Trump’s Executive Emergency Order. There’s no power/authority in my copy of the Constitution that allows for the Congress to broaden/add to the Powers of the President without a constitutional amendment. Therefore I have to say that every Executive Emergency Order signed into law by any President was and will be a violation of the Constitution, Including Donald J. Trump’s order.

Just like the War Powers Act laws created by the Congress, there is no constitutional authority for any of them either.
You appear to forget that the Constitution grants power to Congress to pass laws. Congress passed the law used by every President since 1976. The only reason it suddenly became a problem is due to TDS.

[CaveDog]

Plus, think about the can of worms it would open. Can Congress delegate authority to Federal agencies to make policy that carries the force of law? I can’t see the Supreme Court touching that with a ten foot pole.

[MisterVeritis]

Plus, think about the can of worms it would open. Can Congress delegate authority to Federal agencies to make policy that carries the force of law? I can’t see the Supreme Court touching that with a ten foot pole.
But they should. Unelected members of the executive branch are legislating. That is tyranny on its face and unconstitutional, to boot. It is also the reason I believe we are destined for a civil war. The tenth amendment was overturned. It should be restored or the Constitution amended to revoke it.

[Peter1469]

The interesting thing would be whether any of the legal challenges to Trump's national emergency declaration will argue that the underlying statute is unconstitutional.

[MisterVeritis]

The interesting thing would be whether any of the legal challenges to Trump's national emergency declaration will argue that the underlying statute is unconstitutional.
That would be fine with me as long as the end result is the dismemberment of the bureaucratic state.

If the Tenth Amendment is reinstated then we can have open borders. No federal money will flow to the states. Idiot states can have as big a welfare state as its own citizens can stand.

[donttread]

After researching my copy of the Constitution I find that I need to revise my opinion about Trump’s Executive Emergency Order. There’s no power/authority in my copy of the Constitution that allows for the Congress to broaden/add to the Powers of the President without a constitutional amendment. Therefore I have to say that every Executive Emergency Order signed into law by any President was and will be a violation of the Constitution, Including Donald J. Trump’s order.

Just like the War Powers Act laws created by the Congress, there is no constitutional authority for any of them either.

Half of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.

[MisterVeritis]

Half of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.
In my opinion, it is more like 70-75%.
All welfare programs (Medicare, social security, Medicaid and the other 75 programs) are unconstitutional. Revenue sharing with the states is unconstitutional. Giving money to the states for their pet projects is unconstitutional.

Defense and general welfare. That is it.

[Captdon]

You're espousing the nondelegation doctrine here. To be precise here, you are actually arguing that the National Emergencies Act is itself an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Trump's order though isn't itself unconstitutional. Trump's order is made pursuant to an affirmative grant of statutory authority. Until declared unconstituional, that statute is presumptively valid.

He also has the duty to defend our borders from anything or anyone. He can use troop and invade Mexico if the need is there. There is precedent for that.

[MisterVeritis]

He also has the duty to defend our borders from anything or anyone. He can use troop and invade Mexico if the need is there. There is precedent for that.
He cannot invade without a war declaration. But he can defend aggressively (say 100 kilometers deep). :grin:

[Robo]

The problem is Trump does have that power because Congress gave it to him.Then you can recite the article and or the amendment that allows Congress to make such laws, right?
More than two decades later, Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally. The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency” to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities” of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.” The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,” rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”Again I need the article and or amendment to the Constitution that gave Congress such powers. The Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of each of the three branches of government and nowhere in the Constitution’s enumerations within the articles nor in any amendment is Congress authorized to “CHANGE,” “ADVANCE,” EMBELLISH,” or “ADD TO” any of the enumerated powers of any of the three branches off the federal government without passing an amendment for such.
Democrats have not objected to use of this authority regularly by past presidents, including roughly 30 such emergencies that continue to this day. Other statutes afford additional emergency powers. Indeed, a report by the Congressional Research Service in 2007 stated, “Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”And declare unconstitutional wars! All of the above are unconstitutional because none of them are authorized by the Constitution. If these powers were actually deemed as”Necessary and Proper,” then the Congress has the power to add them to the amendments to the Constitution, (see article five)

[Peter1469]

Then you can recite the article and or the amendment that allows Congress to make such laws, right? Again I need the article and or amendment to the Constitution that gave Congress such powers. The Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of each of the three branches of government and nowhere in the Constitution’s enumerations within the articles nor in any amendment is Congress authorized to “CHANGE,” “ADVANCE,” EMBELLISH,” or “ADD TO” any of the enumerated powers of any of the three branches off the federal government without passing an amendment for such.And declare unconstitutional wars! All of the above are unconstitutional because none of them are authorized by the Constitution. If these powers were actually deemed as”Necessary and Proper,” then the Congress has the power to add them to the amendments to the Constitution, (see article five)
Laws passed by Congress are presumed Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise.

[MMC]

Then you can recite the article and or the amendment that allows Congress to make such laws, right? Again I need the article and or amendment to the Constitution that gave Congress such powers. The Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of each of the three branches of government and nowhere in the Constitution’s enumerations within the articles nor in any amendment is Congress authorized to “CHANGE,” “ADVANCE,” EMBELLISH,” or “ADD TO” any of the enumerated powers of any of the three branches off the federal government without passing an amendment for such.And declare unconstitutional wars! All of the above are unconstitutional because none of them are authorized by the Constitution. If these powers were actually deemed as”Necessary and Proper,” then the Congress has the power to add them to the amendments to the Constitution, (see article five)

The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency”� to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities”� of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.”�.....snip~


/98-505.pdf (file:///C:/Users/asyle/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/3E0GEYHL/98-505.pdf)



There are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of emergency powers. With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been subject to certain procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority. The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority; required the President to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated by the declaration, would be used; and provided Congress a means to countermand the President’s declaration and the activated authority being sought. The development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national emergency are reviewed in this report, which is updated as events require.


The National Emergencies Act
The special committee, in July 1974, unanimously recommended legislation establishing a procedure for the presidential declaration and congressional regulation of a national emergency. The proposal also modified various statutorily delegated emergency powers. In arriving at this reform measure, the panel consulted with various executive branch agencies regarding the significance of existing emergency statutes, recommendations for legislative action, and views as to the repeal of some provisions of emergency law.
This recommended legislation was introduced by Senator Church for himself and others on August 22, 1974, and became S. 3957. It was reported from the Senate Committee on Government Operations on September 30 without public hearings or



As enacted, the National Emergencies Act consisted of five titles. The first of these generally returned all standby statutory delegations of emergency power, activated by an outstanding declaration of national emergency, to a dormant state two years after the statute’s approval. However, the act did not cancel the 1933, 1950, 1970, and 1971 national emergency proclamations because these were issued by the President pursuant to his Article II constitutional authority. Nevertheless, it did render them ineffective by returning to dormancy the statutory authorities they had activated, thereby necessitating a new declaration to activate standby statutory emergency authorities.
Title II provided a procedure for future declarations of national emergency by the President and prescribed arrangements for their congressional regulation. The statute established an exclusive means for declaring a national emergency. Furthermore, emergency declarations were to terminate automatically after one year unless formally continued for another year by the President, but could be terminated earlier by either the President or Congress. Originally, the prescribed method for congressional termination of a declared national emergency was a concurrent resolution adopted by both houses of Congress. This type of so-called “legislative veto” was effectively invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1983.58 The National Emergencies Act was amended in 1985 to substitute a joint resolution as the vehicle for rescinding a national emergency declaration.59
When declaring a national emergency, the President must indicate, according to Title III, the powers and authorities being activated to respond to the exigency at hand. Certain presidential accountability and reporting requirements regarding national emergency declarations were specified in Title IV, and the repeal and continuation of various statutory provisions delegating emergency powers was accomplished in Title V......snip~

[Robo]

If it's Unconstitutional what Amendment does it violate?

It's a violation of Article One Section Eight, (the enumerated powers of the Congress).

[MisterVeritis]

It's a violation of Article One Section Eight, (the enumerated powers of the Congress).
I do not think so.

Delegating lawmaking powers to the executive branch clearly is. This does not do that.

[Robo]

He has the one that says....." If any Democrat doesn't like, or, agree with what is being said, or done, it's unconstitutional."

How easy it is to make snide remarks when you haven't a clue what your talking about. Try posting the Article or amendment in the Constitution that authorizes the Congress a power to expand, add to, or embellish the powers of a President.

[MisterVeritis]

How easy it is to make snide remarks when you haven't a clue what your talking about. Try posting the Article or amendment in the Constitution that authorizes the Congress a power to expand, add to, or embellish the powers of a President.
In theory, every action the executive performs flows from laws passed by the Congress.

[Robo]

You're espousing the nondelegation doctrine here. To be precise here, you are actually arguing that the National Emergencies Act is itself an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.Exactly!
Trump's order though isn't itself unconstitutional. Trump's order is made pursuant to an affirmative grant of statutory authority.“Affirmative grant of statutory authority” as authorized by who or what?
Until declared unconstituional, that statute is presumptively valid.I disagree! That which is plainly and most apparently unconstitutional regardless of whoever, whatever anybody or anything says aside from the Constitution itself will always be unconstitutional until such time the Constitution itself is amended thereto for.

[Robo]

I’d be surprised to see presidential emergency powers overturned on the basis of non-delegation. Technically right or wrong, it’s been an established principle since Congress authorized Jefferson to go after the Barbary pirates circa 1801-1802. It would be a major break with tradition. The 9th might do it out of spite but my bet would be on the supremes overruling them.

I agree that Constitutional violations are an established principle in America, that's our most serious problem and the source of our 22 trillion dollar national debt.

[Robo]

You appear to forget that the Constitution grants power to Congress to pass laws. Congress passed the law used by every President since 1976. The only reason it suddenly became a problem is due to TDS.

Surely you can show me the Congressional power to pass unconstitutional laws in our Constitution, then right?

[Captdon]

The President's jobs is to execute the law. Congress passed a law about emergencies. Congress may not be on session when am emergency occurs. They have the power to rescind that action when in session. Thats' what they can do now. Trump's claim is that he is following that law. He is.

Lincoln used that theory for calling up the military in April,1861 because Congress was not in session. What constitutes an emergency can't always be defined in advance. Even if the law is not Constitutional, the action is until Congress says otherwise.

Naturally, SCOTUS is the final arbitrator.

[Robo]

Plus, think about the can of worms it would open. Can Congress delegate authority to Federal agencies to make policy that carries the force of law? I can’t see the Supreme Court touching that with a ten foot pole.

The "CONGRESS" shall make "ALL" laws that shall be necessary and proper! (Article ONE Section EIGHT, last paragraph, US Constitution).

[Robo]

He also has the duty to defend our borders from anything or anyone. He can use troop and invade Mexico if the need is there. There is precedent for that.

I can't find any authority for a President, in the Constitution, to protect our borders without the permission of Congress who has immigration authority and the sole authority to declare all wars

[Robo]

Laws passed by Congress are presumed Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise.

Presumed by who? Surely not by anything I can find in the Constitution!

[Robo]

The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency”� to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities”� of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.”�.....snip~

What Article or amendment in the Constitution is that?

[Robo]

I do not think so.

Delegating lawmaking powers to the executive branch clearly is. This does not do that.

There's no power in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to give the President powers he does not have authorized to him by Article Two of our Constitution! To do that the Congress must pass a constitutional amendment, have it ratified by 3/4 of the States and signed into law by the President.

[Robo]

In theory, every action the executive performs flows from laws passed by the Congress.

In reality, the only acts authorized to a President that are constitutional acts are all listed in Article Two of the US Constitution.

[Captdon]

The "CONGRESS" shall make "ALL" laws that shall be necessary and proper! (Article ONE Section EIGHT, last paragraph, US Constitution).

and they did.

[MMC]

What Article or amendment in the Constitution is that?



[/B]
The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority; required the President to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated by the declaration, would be used; and provided Congress a means to countermand the President’s declaration and the activated authority being sought. The development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national emergency are reviewed in this report, which is updated as events require.


When declaring a national emergency, the President must indicate, according to Title III, the powers and authorities being activated to respond to the exigency at hand. Certain presidential accountability and reporting requirements regarding national emergency declarations were specified in Title IV, and the repeal and continuation of various statutory provisions delegating emergency powers was accomplished in Title V.....snip~


From the PDF.

[Robo]

The President's jobs is to execute the law. Congress passed a law about emergencies. Congress may not be on session when am emergency occurs. They have the power to rescind that action when in session. Thats' what they can do now. Trump's claim is that he is following that law. He is.

Agreed that he's following the law, but that doesn't make the law constitutional, which it isn't!


Lincoln used that theory for calling up the military in April,1861 because Congress was not in session. What constitutes an emergency can't always be defined in advance. Even if the law is not Constitutional, the action is until Congress says otherwise.

Naturally, SCOTUS is the final arbitrator.

NO law is constitutional unless the CONSTITUTION itself says it's constitutional!!!!!

The courts are no better than the crooked politicians that appoint and confirm them. They're famous for legalizing unconstitutional laws.

[Robo]

and they did.

The laws they pass must be "NECESSARY AND PROPER." Unconstitutional laws can be argued to be "NECESSARY," but they're never "PROPER" constitutionally until the Constitution says they're constitutional and there's NO AUTHORITY in the Constitution for the Congress to add to the powers of a President as authorized by Article Two of the US Constitution/.

[Robo]

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority; required the President to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated by the declaration, would be used; and provided Congress a means to countermand the President’s declaration and the activated authority being sought. The development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national emergency are reviewed in this report, which is updated as events require.


When declaring a national emergency, the President must indicate, according to Title III, the powers and authorities being activated to respond to the exigency at hand. Certain presidential accountability and reporting requirements regarding national emergency declarations were specified in Title IV, and the repeal and continuation of various statutory provisions delegating emergency powers was accomplished in Title V.....snip~


From the PDF.

Unless or until you can present authority in an article or amendment in the Constitution granting such powers to a President and or authorizing the Congress to grant such powers, you're wasting your keyboard!

[donttread]

In my opinion, it is more like 70-75%.
All welfare programs (Medicare, social security, Medicaid and the other 75 programs) are unconstitutional. Revenue sharing with the states is unconstitutional. Giving money to the states for their pet projects is unconstitutional.

Defense and general welfare. That is it.

Add drug policy within the states and education.

[Peter1469]

It's a violation of Article One Section Eight, (the enumerated powers of the Congress).
Like Welfare and Obamacare as two examples?

[Peter1469]

Exactly!“Affirmative grant of statutory authority” as authorized by who or what? I disagree! That which is plainly and most apparently unconstitutional regardless of whoever, whatever anybody or anything says aside from the Constitution itself will always be unconstitutional until such time the Constitution itself is amended thereto for.

And the courts let you know that it is unconstitutional. Not me over a pint at the pub.

[Peter1469]

Presumed by who? Surely not by anything I can find in the Constitution!
Who else has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

[MisterVeritis]

Who else has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?
Who should? The State legislatures should.

[Dr. Who]

Presumed by who? Surely not by anything I can find in the Constitution!

SCOTUS has the power of judicial review, but a case must first be brought in a state court challenging the constitutionality of the National Emergencies Act. I believe that there are suits currently being filed. One may eventually be appealed to SCOTUS.

[Newpublius]

in a state court

A state court does not have jurisdiction here. The case will go to a District Court whose names are often confused as being a 'state court' because they have names like, the District Court for the Southern District of New York, etc, but those are not 'state' courts

[Peter1469]

SCOTUS has the power of judicial review, but a case must first be brought in a state court challenging the constitutionality of the National Emergencies Act. I believe that there are suits currently being filed. One may eventually be appealed to SCOTUS.
The suits are filed in various federal district courts. Question: are any of those suits questioning the constitutionality of the statute?

[Robo]

And the courts let you know that it is unconstitutional. Not me over a pint at the pub.

On the contrary. Just because the partisan courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it constitutional, it only legalizes unconstitutional law. I personally don't have to accept anything today's politicians or courts say or do as being my own beliefs just because they say and do it and it's perfectly clear in the Constitution that they're full of shit. Presidential emergency declarations along with a truck load of other laws Congress has passed and instituted and enforced are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they have no authority in the CONSTITUTION.

[Robo]

Who else has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Anybody that can read!

[Peter1469]

On the contrary. Just because the partisan courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it constitutional, it only legalizes unconstitutional law. I personally don't have to accept anything today's politicians or courts say or do as being my own beliefs just because they say and do it and it's perfectly clear in the Constitution that they're full of shit. Presidential emergency declarations along with a truck load of other laws Congress has passed and instituted and enforced are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they have no authority in the CONSTITUTION.
I think that the majority of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional. Does anyone care what I think?

[Robo]

Who should? The State legislatures should.

Only the Constitution can say what's constitutional and if it's not authorized by the Constitution it's unconstitutional whatever the swamp rats say.

[Robo]

SCOTUS has the power of judicial review, but a case must first be brought in a state court challenging the constitutionality of the National Emergencies Act. I believe that there are suits currently being filed. One may eventually be appealed to SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS most usually decides cases by ideological majority. They hardly care one twit about actual constitutionalism. It's every citizen's duty and right to examine the Constitution and the written law and decide by the literal definitions of the English language, common sense and honesty what's constitutional and what's not!!!

[Robo]

I think that the majority of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional. Does anyone care what I think?

I think you're RIGHT!!! So I must care too, huh?

[Dr. Who]

A state court does not have jurisdiction here. The case will go to a District Court whose names are often confused as being a 'state court' because they have names like, the District Court for the Southern District of New York, etc, but those are not 'state' courts
I just meant that the case cannot be filed directly with SCOTUS, but yes I agree it would be filed in a District Court because of the subject matter.

[Newpublius]

I just meant that the case cannot be filed directly with SCOTUS, but yes I agree it would be filed in a District Court because of the subject matter.

SCOTUS does have original jurisdiction but its obviously theoretical at this point, it just doesn't happen. I do believe if a state is a party that the Supreme Court THEORETICALLY could exercise original jurisdiction. Its a little fuzzy to me, and again its more abstract than any real consideration. The case will obviously go to a district court first.

[Dr. Who]

The SCOTUS most usually decides cases by ideological majority. They hardly care one twit about actual constitutionalism. It's every citizen's duty and right to examine the Constitution and the written law and decide by the literal definitions of the English language, common sense and honesty what's constitutional and what's not!!!
The Constitution provided for SCOTUS having judicial review. How would every citizen, who may see the issue differently and have absolutely no legal/constitutional training or proper understanding of the subject matter, come to any kind of agreement? There are many people who can't even manage to file their own tax returns or understand a lease agreement. How are they going to interpret the constitution? There has to be a mechanism involving people who are qualified for the job, however imperfect you may see it.

[Dr. Who]

SCOTUS does have original jurisdiction but its obviously theoretical at this point, it just doesn't happen. I do believe if a state is a party that the Supreme Court THEORETICALLY could exercise original jurisdiction. Its a little fuzzy to me, and again its more abstract than any real consideration. The case will obviously go to a district court first.
I believe that the district courts were created in order the filter the cases that could be appealed to SCOTUS, based on subject matter, not I think to reduce SCOTUS's workload, but to preserve state sovereignty in most matters of law. SCOTUS may only hear directly filed cases involving disputes between the states, and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.

[Don]

Anytime I hear any of these a-holes talk about whats constitutional I https://files.jcink.net/uploads/thecongress//e509987.gif. In the last 20 or 30 years the number of congressmen and senators who live up to their "oath" could probably be counted on one hand. The only part of the constitution 99% of them religiously follow is Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1.........


The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.


Senators and Representatives set their own compensation.

Any support for the rest of the constitution for most of them is only voiced as rhetoric for or against one of their projects or to wield as a weapon against political enemies.

Most presidents in the last 100 years are about the same as far as their "oaths" go and most of the media either actively ignore it or fight to destroy it.

[MisterVeritis]

I think that the majority of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional. Does anyone care what I think?
I do. Now there are two of us.

[MisterVeritis]

Only the Constitution can say what's constitutional and if it's not authorized by the Constitution it's unconstitutional whatever the swamp rats say.
Granted. But not relevant. The Constitution is words on paper. It cannot do anything. But we ought to have several mechanisms for declaring something to be unconstitutional. Five men and women wearing black dresses is tyrannical. But 3/5ths of the state legislatures would be a powerful cure.

[MisterVeritis]

The SCOTUS most usually decides cases by ideological majority. They hardly care one twit about actual constitutionalism. It's every citizen's duty and right to examine the Constitution and the written law and decide by the literal definitions of the English language, common sense and honesty what's constitutional and what's not!!!
Yes. I routinely do this. But I have no impact. Do you?

[MisterVeritis]

The Constitution provided for SCOTUS having judicial review. How would every citizen, who may see the issue differently and have absolutely no legal/constitutional training or proper understanding of the subject matter, come to any kind of agreement? There are many people who can't even manage to file their own tax returns or understand a lease agreement. How are they going to interpret the constitution? There has to be a mechanism involving people who are qualified for the job, however imperfect you may see it.
I suggest reading. I am qualified to pass judgment. So are you.

[MisterVeritis]

Anytime I hear any of these a-holes talk about whats constitutional I https://files.jcink.net/uploads/thecongress//e509987.gif.
I object to you calling me an asshole because I can read and do.

[Dr. Who]

I suggest reading. I am qualified to pass judgment. So are you.
You would still end up with biased interpretation, only it would not be tempered by an underlying dedication to the preservation of the rule of law and the intent expressed in the Constitution. The absence of clarifying definitions in certain portions of the Constitution often leads jurists to seek clarification in other portions of the Constitution or in extraneous documents, which are often contradictory, expressing only the uncompromised beliefs of the writers of said documents and not the entire body of consensus at the time that the document was ratified. It was undoubtedly the lack of clarity in many cases that allowed opposing factions to approve certain clauses. The average citizen has neither the time nor inclination to become constitutional scholars.
,

[MisterVeritis]

You would still end up with biased interpretation, only it would not be tempered by an underlying dedication to the preservation of the rule of law and the intent expressed in the Constitution. The absence of clarifying definitions in certain portions of the Constitution often leads jurists to seek clarification in other portions of the Constitution or in extraneous documents, which are often contradictory, expressing only the uncompromised beliefs of the writers of said documents and not the entire body of consensus at the time that the document was ratified. It was undoubtedly the lack of clarity in many cases that allowed opposing factions to approve certain clauses. The average citizen has neither the time nor inclination to become constitutional scholars.

Despite your concerns, I am qualified to pass judgment. And so are you.

[Captdon]

I can't find any authority for a President, in the Constitution, to protect our borders without the permission of Congress who has immigration authority and the sole authority to declare all wars

The President certainly does have the duty to protect our borders. He has the right to fight any war to defend us.

Article 4 section 4

https://www.google.com/search?q=Constitutiopn+article+4+section+4&oq=Constitutiopn+article+4+section+4&aqs=chrome..69i57.16456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[MMC]

Unless or until you can present authority in an article or amendment in the Constitution granting such powers to a President and or authorizing the Congress to grant such powers, you're wasting your keyboard!


I already presented the authority with the Statute. Hence title 1 thru 5.

Moreover.....from the first link.


Indeed, a report by the Congressional Research Service (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf) in 2007 stated, “Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

Congress spent decades yielding authority to the executive branch......snip~

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/01/...-a-national-emergency-on-the-southern-border/ (https://jonathanturley.org/2019/01/10/yes-trump-has-the-authority-to-declare-a-national-emergency-on-the-southern-border/)


The Congressional Research that the Constitutional Attorney and Professor of Constitutional Law, of the left. Jonathon Turley puts it all in the perspective it is.

[Robo]

Granted. But not relevant. The Constitution is words on paper. It cannot do anything. But we ought to have several mechanisms for declaring something to be unconstitutional. Five men and women wearing black dresses is tyrannical. But 3/5ths of the state legislatures would be a powerful cure.

The constitution is America's written guarantee for the people. We should all be outraged at every violation of it by swamp rats, know how they vote and make them extinct from government for voting to violate our written guarantee.

The court has 9 black dressed ideologues!

[Robo]

Yes. I routinely do this. But I have no impact. Do you?

Impact isn't always apparent!

[Robo]

You would still end up with biased interpretation, only it would not be tempered by an underlying dedication to the preservation of the rule of law and the intent expressed in the Constitution. The absence of clarifying definitions in certain portions of the Constitution often leads jurists to seek clarification in other portions of the Constitution or in extraneous documents, which are often contradictory, expressing only the uncompromised beliefs of the writers of said documents and not the entire body of consensus at the time that the document was ratified. It was undoubtedly the lack of clarity in many cases that allowed opposing factions to approve certain clauses. The average citizen has neither the time nor inclination to become constitutional scholars.
,

I disagree!! Most of the Constitution doesn't require a constitutional scholar. Most teenagers of average intelligence can interpret correctly most of it. It's the written law that needs a judicial scholar to interpret the linguistic gymnastics injected into legislation contrived by lawyers to bastardize, manipulate and end-run the Constitution that needs a whole team of other lawyers to discover whether said legislation meets constitutional muster. Oh so often it's so apparent just on its face that legislation is unconstitutional, especially when the swamp rats tell us they 'had to pass it to find out what's in it." That's actually the definition of a stool sample!

[Robo]

The President certainly does have the duty to protect our borders. He has the right to fight any war to defend us.

Article 4 section 4

https://www.google.com/search?q=Constitutiopn+article+4+section+4&oq=Constitutiopn+article+4+section+4&aqs=chrome..69i57.16456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Not even close!!! Article 4, section 4 guarantees every state a republican form of government and protection against invasion "WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE CONVENED AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE." No such condition exist on our borders.

[Robo]

I already presented the authority with the Statute. Hence title 1 thru 5.

The "statute" you present is unconstitutional by the authority of the Constitution! Again, there's no authority enumerated in the Constitution that gives authority to the Congress TO INCREASE THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT without a constitutional amendment!

[MisterVeritis]

The Constitution is words on paper. It cannot do anything. But we ought to have several mechanisms for declaring something to be unconstitutional. Five men and women wearing black dresses is tyrannical. But 3/5ths of the state legislatures would be a powerful cure.

The constitution is America's written guarantee for the people. We should all be outraged at every violation of it by swamp rats, know how they vote and make them extinct from government for voting to violate our written guarantee.

The court has 9 black dressed ideologues!
Who ensures the Constitution is followed?

[MisterVeritis]

Not even close!!! Article 4, section 4 guarantees every state a republican form of government and protection against invasion "WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE CONVENED AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE." No such condition exist on our borders.These are the actual words:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPUBLIC) Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

We are invaded.

Domestic violence is separate.

[Captdon]

Not even close!!! Article 4, section 4 guarantees every state a republican form of government and protection against invasion "WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE CONVENED AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE." No such condition exist on our borders.

You said the President has no authority. He does.

[donttread]

After researching my copy of the Constitution I find that I need to revise my opinion about Trump’s Executive Emergency Order. There’s no power/authority in my copy of the Constitution that allows for the Congress to broaden/add to the Powers of the President without a constitutional amendment. Therefore I have to say that every Executive Emergency Order signed into law by any President was and will be a violation of the Constitution, Including Donald J. Trump’s order.

Just like the War Powers Act laws created by the Congress, there is no constitutional authority for any of them either.

Unconstitutional is normal for the federal government . They violation the Constitution in many ways on a daily basis. so far , no one , including the so called SC, is willing to do anything about it

[Hoosier8]

Surely you can show me the Congressional power to pass unconstitutional laws in our Constitution, then right?
Show us in the Constitution that prohibits a President from declaring a National Emergency. Did you forget that the Constitution gives the power to Congress to pass the laws that Trump is following?

[Private Pickle]

It's a violation of Article One Section Eight, (the enumerated powers of the Congress).

LOL. No it doesn't.