In discussing the issue of whether the current president can use the Emergency powers of the office in respect of wall building.....something was brought to my attention.
It turns out, presidents have used this power rather a lot.
Moreover, they've used in a great deal in times of peace.
Sometimes for reasons that seem dubious in the moment.
None of that will surprise folks here, no matter one's politics.
What may surprise you is....
31 of those 'national emergency' powers exercises are still in effect today; even though some date back to the 1970s.
Many of these certainly don't seem like emergencies, and certainly they are matters that could have come before congress subsequently for authorization.
To suggest that the 'anchorage of movement of vessels with respect to Cuba was a national emergency in 1996 seems a profound stretch....that it apparently has been an unending emergency these last 22 years.....defies all logic.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/polit...ncy/index.html
All of which is to say..........
Irrespective of party or politics, is it time to revisit the scale and scope of emergency power in the hands of any president?
Should an 'emergency' have some kind of definition?
Should 'emergency powers' have an expiry if their use does not get renewed by Congress. [[currently a president may renew these orders on their own)?
Should Congress have a specific right to veto the exercise of said powers be it with a simple majority or super majority?
Should the law proscribe certain limitations on the use of said power?
Bookmarks