Can Trump legally use emergency powers to build a border wall? Experts weigh in

[Chris]

Congress gave Presidents the statutory authority to protect our borders so the statute is there to refer to.

Was Congress empowered to do that? Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment?

[Max Rockatansky]

Was Congress empowered to do that? Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment?

If you're talking about the National Emergency Act, it's existed since 1976. Since then, no constitutional challenges.

[Chris]

If you're talking about the National Emergency Act, it's existed since 1976. Since then, no constitutional challenges.

Right, that. Who would have standing to challenge it?

[MisterVeritis]

To be able to arbitrarily make up an "emergency" and essentially allow for dictatorial powers.

Well, no.

The Constitution is clear: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Article II Section 2.


Are you complaining because the Congress gave Presidents the authority to declare a national emergency and then use budgeted money to meet it? That is an issue of Statute. Did you complain the last 50 times it was used?

[MisterVeritis]

Congress gave Presidents the statutory authority to protect our borders so the statute is there to refer to.

The Constitution give the President all of the authority he needs.

See Article II Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

[Max Rockatansky]

Right, that. Who would have standing to challenge it?

You should be smart enough to know you can sue anyone for anything in this country. Winning the case is a different matter. In this case, throwing up a Constitutional challenge on previous declarations of emergencies could have eventually made it to SCOTUS is there was merit to it. In over 40 years there hasn't been anthing to stop it.

[The Xl]

Well, no.

The Constitution is clear: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Article II Section 2.


Are you complaining because the Congress gave Presidents the authority to declare a national emergency and then use budgeted money to meet it? That is an issue of Statute. Did you complain the last 50 times it was used?

So what of him being the commander in chief? Doesn't change the made up emergency and the dictatorial powers.

And yes, I have a big issue when both the left and the right do this kind of stuff. My positions have always been clear.

[MisterVeritis]

So what of him being the commander in chief? Doesn't change the made up emergency and the dictatorial powers.
And yes, I have a big issue when both the left and the right do this kind of stuff. My positions have always been clear.

You argued there is a constitutional issue. There isn't.

[The Xl]

You argued there is a constitutional issue. There isn't.

There absolutely is, though. Being commander in cheif doesn't give one carte blanche to do whatever they wish.

[MisterVeritis]

There absolutely is, though. Being commander in chief doesn't give one carte blanche to do whatever they wish.

It gives the President the primary responsibility for securing the nation. A statute long ago passed into law and used about 50 times gives the President all the authority he needs to move unobligated funds to resolve the national emergency.