(02-21-2019, 03:54 PM)Last42min Wrote: Tell me. At what point is it a stretch for a different President to declare a national emergency and fund (x) via the military budget? Could someone say that anchor babies are a problem, so there should be a planned parenthood at every port of entry in the nation? Would that be cool? Just a planned parenthood right at every airport, built by the military, bypassing congress. I hate to use absurd examples, but this is how the system gets abused.

There is no precedent for this very situation. The are precedents for similar situations, but this is clearly not how the National Emergencies Act was designed to work. It wasn't created to bypass the checks of a different branch of government. It was created to bypass red tape. You should be able to make that distinction.

I agree with you that Congress should change it, but they won't. I don't really care to argue this point further. I'm on record saying this should, hopefully, get struck down in the SC.

You are making an assumption that no specifics are offered or mandatory. Declaring a National Emergency is specific in nature. Your examples are free-for-alls. Congress has designated, get this, specific statutes. And yes, there is International and Domestic (Supreme Court) precedents whether you choose to except that or not. Below are just two statutues available to the POTUS at this time. Took me 5 minutes to research them. You may disagree with Trumps method, but it appears well thought out and legally supported. Much like the travel ban.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2293

---