Login

jj82284 · 02-18-2019, 10:37 AM

(02-18-2019, 08:52 AM)Last42min Wrote: There seems to be a general trend in those executive orders. In fact, there are only 4 orders from that list that don't deal with general sanctions or weapons exports.

March 1, 1996 – Declaration of a National Emergency and Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels (Proclamation 6867) – Implemented following the destruction of two civilian aircraft by the Cuban military on 24 February 1996.

September 14, 2001 – Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (Proclamation 7463) – The first of two national emergencies declared following the September 11 attacks, allowing the president to call troops from the National Guard or from retirement, to apportion military funding, to exercise more discretion over hiring military officers, and to promote more generals than previously allowed.

May 22, 2003 – Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest (Executive Order 13303) – Granted the Development Fund for Iraq, established the same day, legal protection in the wake of the invasion of Iraq and amidst the Iraq War.

February 15, 2019 – Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States – Allocates funding to build a wall on the southern border of the United States, which the president stated is “a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics.”

If you can't see that Trump's order is distinctly different from the others, you have your head buried in the sand. Trump's order is the only one of these that is actively circumventing congress to deal with a problem. The others were all generally approved by congress, or at the very least, weren't opposed. This is opening Pandora's box. Climate change is the EXACT same thing in that it could be considered a threat to America. If he is allowed to set this precedent, it will be expanded upon in the future.

Admittedly, I am out of my wheelhouse regarding the specifics of these executive orders. I had to google several of them to understand their scope, so there is a possibility I am missing something. I typically have only ever paid attention to EO's if I thought they were unconstitutional. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. That said, nothing I have seen convinces me this is a healthy use of executive orders.

Congress has delegated at least 136 distinct statutory emergency powers to the President upon the declaration of an emergency. Only 13 require a declaration from Congress; the remainder are invoked by an executive declaration with no Congressional input.[16]

Emergency presidential powers are dramatic, and range from suspending all laws regulating chemical and biological weapons, including the ban on human testing (50 U.S.C. § 1515, passed 1969); to suspending any Clean Air Act implementation plan or excess emissions penalty upon petition of a state governor (42 U.S.C. (f) § 7410 (f), passed 1977); to authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), passed 1982) using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions($10.4 billion in FY2018[17]); to drafting any retired Coast Guard officers (14 U.S.C. § 331, passed 1963) or enlisted members (14 U.S.C. § 359, passed 1949) into active duty.

Under the plain text of the statue it appears that the president should have the delegated power to use defense construction funds to build a wall. Ultimately that will be adjudicated by SCOTUS and subject to a 2/3rds vote of dissaproval from Congress.