President Trump says he is going to declare a national emergency and then move money from other appropriations to build a border wall. This has raised all sorts of arguments about what the effect of an emergency declaration is. It's worth exploring.
Congress passed legislation that gives the president the power to declare an emergency. Since the law went into effect, presidents have declared something like 40 different emergencies. That declaration, however, does not give the president unlimited powers to do anything he wants. One power it does give him, though, is the ability to move money already appropriated to handle projects designed to deal with the emergency. In other words, President Trump could take money appropriated for something like road construction or maintenance in the National Parks and redesignate it for construction of the wall. It's worth noting that president Obama declared emergencies and redesignated monies for different purposes six times during his term in office.
The people who are busy screaming about the "precedent" Trump will set by this declaration are, for the most part, wrong. When Nancy Pelosi says that a future Democrat president could declare an emergency regarding school shootings and take action (like gun confiscation), that's wrong. A president could move funds from one item to pay for guards at schools, but he couldn't just seize legally owned guns. The same is true with the so called Green New Deal. A president could not ban air travel or cows as called for by the Green New Deal. He could add funds to the EPA budget, however.
It's important to add that in many appropriations bills, Congress actually includes language that says that the money being appropriated cannot be transferred except with the approval of Congress. The Congress understands that it gave the president the power to move money in an emergency, so it protects some of the appropriations.
There is no doubt that someone is going to challenge the declaration and the movement of the money. There is, however, little doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the action by the President.
Congress passed legislation that gives the president the power to declare an emergency. Since the law went into effect, presidents have declared something like 40 different emergencies. That declaration, however, does not give the president unlimited powers to do anything he wants. One power it does give him, though, is the ability to move money already appropriated to handle projects designed to deal with the emergency. In other words, President Trump could take money appropriated for something like road construction or maintenance in the National Parks and redesignate it for construction of the wall. It's worth noting that president Obama declared emergencies and redesignated monies for different purposes six times during his term in office.
The people who are busy screaming about the "precedent" Trump will set by this declaration are, for the most part, wrong. When Nancy Pelosi says that a future Democrat president could declare an emergency regarding school shootings and take action (like gun confiscation), that's wrong. A president could move funds from one item to pay for guards at schools, but he couldn't just seize legally owned guns. The same is true with the so called Green New Deal. A president could not ban air travel or cows as called for by the Green New Deal. He could add funds to the EPA budget, however.
It's important to add that in many appropriations bills, Congress actually includes language that says that the money being appropriated cannot be transferred except with the approval of Congress. The Congress understands that it gave the president the power to move money in an emergency, so it protects some of the appropriations.
There is no doubt that someone is going to challenge the declaration and the movement of the money. There is, however, little doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the action by the President.
No comments:
Post a Comment