The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
State of Emergency
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From USA Today in 2014:

Special report: America’s perpetual state of emergency
Gregory Korte, USA TODAY Published 4:29 p.m. ET Oct. 22, 2014

WASHINGTON — The United States is in a perpetual state of national emergency.

Thirty separate emergencies, in fact.

An emergency declared by President Jimmy Carter on the 10th day of the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 remains in effect almost 35 years later.

A post-9/11 state of national emergency declared by President George W. Bush — and renewed six times by President Obama — forms the legal basis for much of the war on terror.

Tuesday, President Obama informed Congress he was extending another Bush-era emergency for another year, saying “widespread violence and atrocities” in the Democratic Republic of Congo “pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States.”

America’s real border isn’t the Rio Grande, it’s the Congo.

Those emergencies, declared by the president by proclamation or executive order, give the president extraordinary powers — to seize property, call up the National Guard and hire and fire military officers at will.

“What the National Emergencies Act does is like a toggle switch, and when the president flips it, he gets new powers. It’s like a magic wand. and there are very few constraints about how he turns it on,” said Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor at Princeton University. …

In his six years in office, President Obama has declared nine emergencies, allowed one to expire and extended 22 emergencies enacted by his predecessors.

Since 1976, when Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, presidents have declared at least 53 states of emergency — not counting disaster declarations for events such as tornadoes and floods, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents. Most of those emergencies remain in effect.

Even as Congress has delegated emergency powers to the president, it has provided almost no oversight. The 1976 law requires each house of Congress to meet within six months of an emergency to vote it up or down. That’s never happened.

Last week, Obama renewed a state of national emergency declared in 1995 to deal with Colombia drug trafficking, saying drug lords “continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States and to cause an extreme level of violence, corruption and harm in the United States and abroad.”

In May, President Obama rescinded a Bush-era executive order that protected Iraqi oil interests and their contractors from legal liability. Even as he did so, he left the state of emergency declared in that executive order intact — because at least two other executive orders rely on it.

Invoking those emergencies can give presidents broad and virtually unchecked powers. In an article published last year in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, attorney Patrick Thronson identified 160 laws giving the president emergency powers, including the authority to:

• Reshape the military, putting members of the armed forces under foreign command, conscripting veterans, overturning sentences issued by courts-martial and taking over weather satellites for military use.

• Suspend environmental laws, including a law forbidding the dumping of toxic and infectious medical waste at sea.

• Bypass federal contracting laws, allowing the government to buy and sell property without competitive bidding. …

In 2009, Obama declared a state of national emergency for the H1N1 swine flu pandemic.

 
Hide 38 CommentsLeave a Comment
38 Comments to "State of Emergency"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Steve,

    Surprising from USA TODAY. But that was written in 2014. If written today it would have to concur with TODAY‘s current party line of any state of emergency being an illegal and immoral unfettering of all judicial restraints.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna

    Since 1976, when Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, presidents have declared at least 53 states of emergency — not counting disaster declarations for events such as tornadoes and floods, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents. Most of those emergencies remain in effect.
     
    Indeed. A glance at today's NYT front page shows clearly that any such declaration by Trump would not only subvert the US Constitution and precipitate a national collapse--probably a coup--it would also likely open up a rift in the space-time continuum and end Life As We Know It.

    In view of this, I'd say it's worth trying.
  2. Now that would be a historic legacy for Trump– expire every one of these emergencies with a stroke of the pen.

  3. Great find by iSteve.

  4. Just as I was watching Tucker Carlson, I got a call from the RNC asking me to “renew” my membership. That is funny since I have never been a member. I guess they assumed I was a doddering old fool who could be bamboozled.

    Well considering I had just seen what a joke this bill, which Trump will sign is, you can guess how it went. The sad part was the person talking about how Trump was going to sign it and declare a state of emergency as if that was going to make up for cucking and signing this horrible bill. Hopefully, nobody else falls for that nonsense.

    • Replies: @Realist
    Exactly. The dumb ass bill Trump will sign precludes him from spending any funds he recieves from declaring a state of emergency, on meaningful border security. This country is on a shit slide to hell.
  5. Mexican black tar heroin and Mexican drug cartels are major contributors to the atrocity of the opioid epidemic. Sounds like an emergency to me.

    • Agree: Anon1, Prodigal son, Hail, Travis
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Heroin?! How 2015...

    https://www.abc15.com/news/state/fentanyl-deaths-from-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard
    , @Hail
    Tucker is the only MSMer I have seen who gets very near pointing out the White Death, in racial terms, i.e., as a racial-national problem. He doesn't use the word "White," of course. But he comes close.

    Tucker is also the only one who points out how few in ruling class, political class, really have any connections to this class of people. Said more simply: They don't care.
  6. Your constitution is written for a Federal Government that does very little. Now that it does a lot, the system of checks and balances is excessively stultifying and so “emergencies” are the only ways to get things done.

    Britain’s majoritarian parliamentary sovereignty where even small election wins can lead to decisive power is better for the practical functioning of the obese state.

    The Romans dealt with your problem by creating the role of dictator. You give one person almost absolute power for a limited period to fix the issues and move on. Of courses, this didn’t stop the fall of the Republic in the long run…

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "Britain’s majoritarian parliamentary sovereignty where even small election wins can lead to decisive power is better for the practical functioning of the obese state."

    Tony Blair did enormous and deliberate damage to the UK armed with 35% of the 2005 vote, on a turnout of 61% - so maybe 22% of the electorate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_breakdown_of_the_2005_United_Kingdom_general_election

    "Labour polled seventy thousand fewer votes in England than the Conservatives, yet won ninety-two more seats, attributed to the smaller average electorate in urban (usually pro-Labour) constituencies."

    Boundary change was one of the things David Cameron somehow forgot to do when he had a majority. It's almost as if he wasn't serious. If the Tories had an extra 46 seats a lot of things would have been a lot easier, then and now.

    , @Logan
    You are entirely right.

    Our constitutional system was set up to run a strictly limited government. It can only "run the country" by ignoring or reinterpreting the Constitution or by doing 'emergency" end runs around it.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Correct.

    Of course the real problem is precisely that the Fed Gov "does a lot".

    Or even more precisely, that it has its fingers in a lot of pies whether or not it is doing anything with them.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    Astute comment! The present Constitution is simply unworkable, given the size and scope of the national government. If Trump wanted to do something useful, he should call upon state legislatures to pass resolutions requiring Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, to see if some peaceable way out of the present situation can be found. If the Constitutional Convention agreed on a new system of national government, only the consent of the state legislatures, or state conventions, is required for the new constitution to take effect. Congress can be bypassed.

    The likelihood that Trump will do any such thing is probably less than one percent, and the willingness of Congress to agree to a Constitutional Convention, despite the "shall" language of Article V, is minimnal. But at this stage the debate needs to move out of Washington and into the states, before the situation becomes irretrievable;
  7. Even as Congress has delegated emergency powers to the president, it has provided almost no oversight. The 1976 law requires each house of Congress to meet within six months of an emergency to vote it up or down. That’s never happened.

    That’s not entirely the case. They can meet almost immediately to oppose it, but to actually terminate it both the House and the Senate need to pass a resolution to terminate and the president has to sign it.

    I can see the House, at the very least, proposing to terminate the National Emergency should it be declared. I don’t think the Senate would concur, and Trump would definitely veto any resolution. If the veto isn’t overridden, I guess I could see it going to SCOTUS.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    Congressional bills-vetoed or not--can't be reviewed by the SCOTUS.

    They are proposed legislation, not legal appeals.

  8. How about for every state of emergency Trump declares, he undeclares two previous ones?

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    I'd settle for Robert A. Heinlein's idea: you need 2/3 of the vote in Congress to pass a law but only a simple majority to repeal one.
  9. @Tyrion 2
    Your constitution is written for a Federal Government that does very little. Now that it does a lot, the system of checks and balances is excessively stultifying and so "emergencies" are the only ways to get things done.

    Britain's majoritarian parliamentary sovereignty where even small election wins can lead to decisive power is better for the practical functioning of the obese state.

    The Romans dealt with your problem by creating the role of dictator. You give one person almost absolute power for a limited period to fix the issues and move on. Of courses, this didn't stop the fall of the Republic in the long run...

    “Britain’s majoritarian parliamentary sovereignty where even small election wins can lead to decisive power is better for the practical functioning of the obese state.”

    Tony Blair did enormous and deliberate damage to the UK armed with 35% of the 2005 vote, on a turnout of 61% – so maybe 22% of the electorate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_breakdown_of_the_2005_United_Kingdom_general_election

    “Labour polled seventy thousand fewer votes in England than the Conservatives, yet won ninety-two more seats, attributed to the smaller average electorate in urban (usually pro-Labour) constituencies.”

    Boundary change was one of the things David Cameron somehow forgot to do when he had a majority. It’s almost as if he wasn’t serious. If the Tories had an extra 46 seats a lot of things would have been a lot easier, then and now.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    His Liberal Democrat coalition partners threw it out of the pram, along with their toys, when their side lost the referendum on the "Alternative Vote".

    After 2015, when he no longer needed the Lib Dems, he pushed the boundary changes through, but they don't apply until 2020 - when the next election was supposed to be.

    Tony Blair did enormous and deliberate damage to the UK armed with 35% of the 2005 vote, on a turnout of 61% – so maybe 22% of the electorate.
     
    Sort of.

    Blair's party may have only received 35.2% of the vote but Kennedy's even more "damage" happy party got 22%. Against this, only 32.4% of voters plumped for Howard's explicitly anti-"damage" party.
  10. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    Surprising from USA TODAY. But that was written in 2014. If written today it would have to concur with TODAY's current party line of any state of emergency being an illegal and immoral unfettering of all judicial restraints.

    Since 1976, when Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, presidents have declared at least 53 states of emergency — not counting disaster declarations for events such as tornadoes and floods, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents. Most of those emergencies remain in effect.

    Indeed. A glance at today’s NYT front page shows clearly that any such declaration by Trump would not only subvert the US Constitution and precipitate a national collapse–probably a coup–it would also likely open up a rift in the space-time continuum and end Life As We Know It.

    In view of this, I’d say it’s worth trying.

    • Agree: Percy Gryce, Dan Hayes
  11. @al-Gharaniq

    Even as Congress has delegated emergency powers to the president, it has provided almost no oversight. The 1976 law requires each house of Congress to meet within six months of an emergency to vote it up or down. That’s never happened.
     
    That's not entirely the case. They can meet almost immediately to oppose it, but to actually terminate it both the House and the Senate need to pass a resolution to terminate and the president has to sign it.

    I can see the House, at the very least, proposing to terminate the National Emergency should it be declared. I don't think the Senate would concur, and Trump would definitely veto any resolution. If the veto isn't overridden, I guess I could see it going to SCOTUS.

    Congressional bills-vetoed or not–can’t be reviewed by the SCOTUS.

    They are proposed legislation, not legal appeals.

  12. @Tyrion 2
    Your constitution is written for a Federal Government that does very little. Now that it does a lot, the system of checks and balances is excessively stultifying and so "emergencies" are the only ways to get things done.

    Britain's majoritarian parliamentary sovereignty where even small election wins can lead to decisive power is better for the practical functioning of the obese state.

    The Romans dealt with your problem by creating the role of dictator. You give one person almost absolute power for a limited period to fix the issues and move on. Of courses, this didn't stop the fall of the Republic in the long run...

    You are entirely right.

    Our constitutional system was set up to run a strictly limited government. It can only “run the country” by ignoring or reinterpreting the Constitution or by doing ’emergency” end runs around it.

  13. Nancy Pelosi says they’ll use an emergency declaration to fight Coalition Of The Fringes violence.
    Also, don’t some of the more revisionist historians claim we’re still operating under a state of emergency declaration Roosevelt signed in 1933?

  14. OT Sorry to go off topic but the hate hoax article has too many responses and I have a great idea idea if it is time to pounce. Tie these fake atrocities to “events” such as the Knoxville Horror through use of hashtags.

  15. @MarkinLA
    Just as I was watching Tucker Carlson, I got a call from the RNC asking me to "renew" my membership. That is funny since I have never been a member. I guess they assumed I was a doddering old fool who could be bamboozled.

    Well considering I had just seen what a joke this bill, which Trump will sign is, you can guess how it went. The sad part was the person talking about how Trump was going to sign it and declare a state of emergency as if that was going to make up for cucking and signing this horrible bill. Hopefully, nobody else falls for that nonsense.

    Exactly. The dumb ass bill Trump will sign precludes him from spending any funds he recieves from declaring a state of emergency, on meaningful border security. This country is on a shit slide to hell.

  16. Numbers USA is now saying that the child trafficking provisions, the amnesty details and the whopping increase in H-2B visas were added on by scurrilous senators AFTER Trump had looked the whole thing over, in your classic bait and switch.

    Will this give Trump air cover to veto the godawful mess and send it back to the jerks who created this Frankenstein monster?

    Mickey Kaus and Ann Coulter have done the Lord’s work here in parsing this gruesomeness. Call the White House switchboard ASAP all night and all morning before Trump’s big announcement and tell him to veto Veto VETO!!! (202) 456 1414.

  17. @YetAnotherAnon
    "Britain’s majoritarian parliamentary sovereignty where even small election wins can lead to decisive power is better for the practical functioning of the obese state."

    Tony Blair did enormous and deliberate damage to the UK armed with 35% of the 2005 vote, on a turnout of 61% - so maybe 22% of the electorate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_breakdown_of_the_2005_United_Kingdom_general_election

    "Labour polled seventy thousand fewer votes in England than the Conservatives, yet won ninety-two more seats, attributed to the smaller average electorate in urban (usually pro-Labour) constituencies."

    Boundary change was one of the things David Cameron somehow forgot to do when he had a majority. It's almost as if he wasn't serious. If the Tories had an extra 46 seats a lot of things would have been a lot easier, then and now.

    His Liberal Democrat coalition partners threw it out of the pram, along with their toys, when their side lost the referendum on the “Alternative Vote”.

    After 2015, when he no longer needed the Lib Dems, he pushed the boundary changes through, but they don’t apply until 2020 – when the next election was supposed to be.

    Tony Blair did enormous and deliberate damage to the UK armed with 35% of the 2005 vote, on a turnout of 61% – so maybe 22% of the electorate.

    Sort of.

    Blair’s party may have only received 35.2% of the vote but Kennedy’s even more “damage” happy party got 22%. Against this, only 32.4% of voters plumped for Howard’s explicitly anti-“damage” party.

  18. Border emergency ……. as in just one day last week 1300 sneaked through one Texas Sector. Mostly Central Americans, but not all. Rio Grand Sector iirc. My guess is they all presented themselves to Border Patrol as asylum seekers which is the immigration scam du jour. (obviously)

    And we laughed at what Angela Merkel as she opened up Germany to asylum scammers. The Democrat sabotage is out in the open with all the poison pills in the appropriations bill Trump is supposed to sign today.

    The book’s title should be changed to, “The Camp of the Saintly Asylum Seekers”.

    1300 Migrants Apprehended in South Texas in One Day — Most Since 2014
    https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/02/14/1300-migrants-apprehended-in-south-texas-in-one-day-most-since-2014/
    Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector apprehended more than 1,300 migrants in a single day this week. This represents the largest 24-hour apprehension total since June 2014.

    Agents assigned to the Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV) in South Texas encountered several large groups of mostly Central American migrants on Tuesday. These totaled approximately 1,300 migrants, according to Border Patrol officials.
    The group consisted of family units and unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, officials stated.

    In January, RGV Sector agents apprehended 17,711 migrants who illegally crossed the border between ports of entry, according to the Southwest Border Migration Report published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection that month. This amounts to an average of nearly 600 migrants per day in the sector that leads the nation in apprehensions. Of those, 9,946 were family units and an additional 2,184 were unaccompanied minors.

    The RGV Sector accounted for nearly 40 percent of all migrants apprehended along the nine southwestern Border Patrol sectors. During the first four months of Fiscal Year 2019, RGV agents apprehended 77,536 of the 201,497 total migrants apprehended in all southwestern border sectors.

  19. https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/02/14/the-bill-allows-county-offices-with-historic-ties-to-the-gulf-cartel-to-stop-u-s-border-barriers-from-being-constructed-in-the-region/

    Spending Bill Allows Mexican Cartel-Connected (payoffs, bribes) Texas Counties to Stop Border Wall
    Gulf Cartel Gunman
    Breitbart Border / Cartel Chronicles
    14 Feb 20198,378
    4:19
    A key provision in the spending bill being presented to President Trump for signing stipulates that the federal government give specific Texas border counties the opportunity to derail any efforts to build barriers, fencing, or walls by simply opposing the construction of the border security measures–but many of the specified counties have a long and recent history of top officials taking bribes from the Mexican Gulf Cartel. Ultimately, the bill allows county offices with historic ties to the Gulf Cartel to stop U.S. border barriers from being constructed in the region.

    Local government officials spoke out against the building of additional border barriers and have relied on the judgment of local law enforcement officials. As Breitbart News reported, the bill being presented to President Trump has a stipulation that would require the approval of local governments in order to move forward with the construction of any border barriers. However, the three counties where the border barriers were expected to be built are Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron–three counties that in less than 20 years have seen five sheriffs and numerous top law enforcement officials sent to prison for receiving bribes from the Mexican Gulf Cartel, or other acts of public corruption.

  20. “• Bypass federal contracting laws, allowing the government to buy and sell property without competitive bidding.”

    Good. Federal contracting laws are a disaster. The supposed “competative bidding” that occurs would more accurately be described as allowing a small cartel of government contracting companies to fix the price of everything the government buys. Without contracting laws, the government would be more likely to pay fair market value for goods and services.

  21. @RW
    Mexican black tar heroin and Mexican drug cartels are major contributors to the atrocity of the opioid epidemic. Sounds like an emergency to me.
    • Replies: @RW
    Good point. 70,000 overdose deaths in 2017, 28,000 of which were fentanyl.
    , @Almost Missouri
    One of the hiding-in-plain-sight realities that is never mentioned is that in the nation's "Drug War", which dates from the Nixon administration as I recall, the government has effectively switched sides. Formerly, government—federal, state and local—tried to protect citizens from drug addiction. Today, from Ritalin-izing schoolchildren to medical-marijuana-ing the bourgeoisie to opioiding the working class, those same governments actively promote drug addiction.

    It's another old-Onion-headline-come-to-life, but in a particularly bad way.

    https://www.npr.org/assets/news/2013/onion-drugs.pdf
  22. @Tyrion 2
    How about for every state of emergency Trump declares, he undeclares two previous ones?

    I’d settle for Robert A. Heinlein’s idea: you need 2/3 of the vote in Congress to pass a law but only a simple majority to repeal one.

  23. @Tyrion 2
    Your constitution is written for a Federal Government that does very little. Now that it does a lot, the system of checks and balances is excessively stultifying and so "emergencies" are the only ways to get things done.

    Britain's majoritarian parliamentary sovereignty where even small election wins can lead to decisive power is better for the practical functioning of the obese state.

    The Romans dealt with your problem by creating the role of dictator. You give one person almost absolute power for a limited period to fix the issues and move on. Of courses, this didn't stop the fall of the Republic in the long run...

    Correct.

    Of course the real problem is precisely that the Fed Gov “does a lot”.

    Or even more precisely, that it has its fingers in a lot of pies whether or not it is doing anything with them.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
  24. @Brutusale
    Heroin?! How 2015...

    https://www.abc15.com/news/state/fentanyl-deaths-from-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard

    Good point. 70,000 overdose deaths in 2017, 28,000 of which were fentanyl.

  25. K, I know we live in an anarcho-tyrannical pseudo-democracy where the only real law is “who-whom,” but can’t we get some of that sweet, sweet judicial branch usurpation? The left seem to have an endless supply of nobody federal judges who can run (or at least deny powers to) the executive from the bench. Can’t we do that? At the very least, can’t we exploit the precedents federal judges have set during Trump’s tenure?

    When they dismantle Trump’s wall emergency powers, can’t we at least use that precedent and dismantle any subsequent leftist PotUS’ emergency powers?

    I know the GOP are too stupid and cowardly to be grooming the sorts of judges we need and prepping their legal teams, but otherwise, isn’t this doable?

  26. @Brutusale
    Heroin?! How 2015...

    https://www.abc15.com/news/state/fentanyl-deaths-from-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard

    One of the hiding-in-plain-sight realities that is never mentioned is that in the nation’s “Drug War”, which dates from the Nixon administration as I recall, the government has effectively switched sides. Formerly, government—federal, state and local—tried to protect citizens from drug addiction. Today, from Ritalin-izing schoolchildren to medical-marijuana-ing the bourgeoisie to opioiding the working class, those same governments actively promote drug addiction.

    It’s another old-Onion-headline-come-to-life, but in a particularly bad way.

    https://www.npr.org/assets/news/2013/onion-drugs.pdf

  27. @RW
    Mexican black tar heroin and Mexican drug cartels are major contributors to the atrocity of the opioid epidemic. Sounds like an emergency to me.

    Tucker is the only MSMer I have seen who gets very near pointing out the White Death, in racial terms, i.e., as a racial-national problem. He doesn’t use the word “White,” of course. But he comes close.

    Tucker is also the only one who points out how few in ruling class, political class, really have any connections to this class of people. Said more simply: They don’t care.

  28. Trump already has his National Emergency order. Nothing more must be done. Now start building the wall

    This National Emergency was renewed by every President since 1995.

    It is documented that most of the narcotics from Colombia is trans shipped thru Mexico

    “Text of a Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia

    On October 21, 1995, by Executive Order 12978, the President declared a national emergency with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia and the extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm such actions cause in the United States and abroad.

    The actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and cause an extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm in the United States and abroad. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, and the measures adopted pursuant thereto to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond October 21, 2018. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia declared in Executive Order 12978.

    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    October 17, 2018.

  29. @Tyrion 2
    Your constitution is written for a Federal Government that does very little. Now that it does a lot, the system of checks and balances is excessively stultifying and so "emergencies" are the only ways to get things done.

    Britain's majoritarian parliamentary sovereignty where even small election wins can lead to decisive power is better for the practical functioning of the obese state.

    The Romans dealt with your problem by creating the role of dictator. You give one person almost absolute power for a limited period to fix the issues and move on. Of courses, this didn't stop the fall of the Republic in the long run...

    Astute comment! The present Constitution is simply unworkable, given the size and scope of the national government. If Trump wanted to do something useful, he should call upon state legislatures to pass resolutions requiring Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, to see if some peaceable way out of the present situation can be found. If the Constitutional Convention agreed on a new system of national government, only the consent of the state legislatures, or state conventions, is required for the new constitution to take effect. Congress can be bypassed.

    The likelihood that Trump will do any such thing is probably less than one percent, and the willingness of Congress to agree to a Constitutional Convention, despite the “shall” language of Article V, is minimnal. But at this stage the debate needs to move out of Washington and into the states, before the situation becomes irretrievable;

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
  30. I would like to understand this topic better. Maybe some energetic reader could post all the emergencies and some brief notes. It would be a service to the rest of us.

    • Replies: @res
    The first reference at this wikipedia page:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

    Looks like a good take on what you asked for:
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693
  31. National Emergencies For Dummies:

    If NE furthers Deep State/Cabal objectives and provides boatloads of taxpayer funds to be siphoned off to creepazoids…Good!

    If NE helps average citizens, combats evil enterprises, and thwarts back channel funding of creepazoids…Bad!

  32. Unfortunately, she’s right again:

  33. @Pat Boyle
    I would like to understand this topic better. Maybe some energetic reader could post all the emergencies and some brief notes. It would be a service to the rest of us.
  34. The one allowing bypasses for contracts with the federal government should come in handy when fulfilling the most re-circulated promise in human history.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/13/ann-coulter-guest-columnist-why-we-must-have-a-border-wall/

  35. Nothing in this appropriations deal will persist beyond 9/1/2019, except 55 Miles of Wall.

    All the money will be spent, and the Act shall expire.

  36. yeah, but that’s different. those weren’t important. this is IMPORTANT. that wall must not be allowed to be built.

  37. So now the president has to declare a state of emergency to protect the country? See the constitution is dead and protecting the country is no longer legal. But hey there is always a UN charter for human rights? I’m sure we have enough money to keep soldiers in Syria.. But then again the economic powerhouse that is us is broke, maybe it’s our creditors that won’t loan us a dime for a wall or buy our treasuries.

  38. The Atlantic had a big write up on emergency powers in the December Issue. E.g.:

    Aiming to rein in this proliferation, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976. Under this law, the president still has complete discretion to issue an emergency declaration—but he must specify in the declaration which powers he intends to use, issue public updates if he decides to invoke additional powers, and report to Congress on the government’s emergency-related expenditures every six months. The state of emergency expires after a year unless the president renews it, and the Senate and the House must meet every six months while the emergency is in effect “to consider a vote” on termination.

    By any objective measure, the law has failed. Thirty states of emergency are in effect today—several times more than when the act was passed. Most have been renewed for years on end. And during the 40 years the law has been in place, Congress has not met even once, let alone every six months, to vote on whether to end them.

    Let’s see if Trump can make it thirty one!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS