I wrote in January that it was almost certain that Trump would declare an emergency to get border wall funding if Congress did not accede to his demands.
Trump did everything he could do to avoid declaring the emergency. He already scaled his funding request for the wall back substantially. He took a 35-day government shutdown. He agreed to reopen government and provided Congress more time to attempt to arrive at a bipartisan compromise on border security and funding for the wall.
However, Trump could not possibly give up on his demand for the wall. It was his central campaign promise. If he does not deliver on that pledge he will lose a substantial part of his base. It is that simple. Without that core support he would have no chance at re-election. In fact, without a strong base of voter support, and with the deep state more than eager to get rid of him, Trump might even have trouble serving out the remainder of his term.
The Democrats also know this. That is why they were just as adamant to not give an inch to Trump. They also know they can rely on the media to portray Trump as the bad guy in the end.
.
As a result, Trump took all that he could get from Congress and declared the emergency on top of it. It was his only option.
The reality is that it also a very good option for him. It retains his credibility and lives to fight another day. It also does not hurt that the law clearly seems to also be on the President's side on this issue.
In fact, Congress specifically provided that power to the office of the President in the 1976 National Emergencies Act. Emergency power declarations have been invoked 58 times since then as this chart illustrates. More than half of them are still in effect years later!
Interestingly, Congress actually passed the law to scale back the emergency powers that the executive branch has wielded historically. This law actually puts specific limits on executive powers and also subjects any emergency power of the President to being undone by Congress by passage of a joint resolution with a veto-proof 2/3 majority in each house.
Critics of the President proclaim this is not an "emergency". They claim there is no crisis. Some Democrats are now even saying that we should be dismantling the border walls that already are in place rather than building new barriers.
700 miles of barriers already existed along the nearly 2,000 mile border with Mexico before Trump even became President. Most of that wall was built during the Obama administration. However, some Democrats now want to dismantle the wall that Obama built a few short years ago?
Is this an "emergency"?
The prevailing law doesn't define "emergency". It's pretty much whatever a president says it is.
Daniel Jones in American Thinker details some of the other emergencies that have been declared by previous Presidents and contrasts them with Trump's emergency declaration.
Currently, the U.S. is in a declared state of national emergency with Macedonia (since 2001), Zimbabwe (2003), Syria (2004), Belarus (2006), Democratic Republic of Congo (2006), Lebanon (2010), Somalia (2010), Yemen (2011), South Sudan (2014), Central African Republic (2014), Venezuela (2015), and Burundi (2015).
This must come as a surprise to most Americans. In what ways are Macedonia and Zimbabwe and Burundi currently threatening us? How much money have we spent and how many American lives have we lost in those countries? And are those foreign problems susceptible to a simple, straightforward solution, like a border wall?
The situation on our southern border is a current, real, and national emergency. A wall will not only solve many of our border problems, but also prevent future presidents from opening the border through lax enforcement. Lastly, once the wall is completed, the emergency will be over, and this declaration can be allowed to lapse — unlike our ongoing national emergencies in Macedonia and Zimbabwe and Burundi.
There are upwards of 22 million illegal immigrants in the United States (most who entered over the southern border) and billions of dollars in illegal drugs flowing into the country annually which accounts for many of the 70,000 deaths last year from drug overdoes. That is not an emergency?
The chart below from The Wall Street Journal also shows that things are not going well on the southern border. There has been a significant increase in apprehensions in the very area that Trump has targeted as most in need of a border wall. If there were this many apprehensions you have to ask how many illegal immigrants invaded the country?
Does this not look like an emergency?
There is a currently a backlog of 1,139,152 cases where illegals have been apprehended and are awaiting a hearing in immigration court. There were only a little over 500,000 cases in backlog when Trump took office. The current waiting time to get a hearing?---Over two and a half years.
This is not an emergency?
Of course, the fact that the law and the facts are on Trump's side does not mean that some liberal judge (or two, three or four) will not rule against the use of his emergency powers. In fact, you can count on that.
The legal dimensions of this will undoubtedly be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The bigger risk for Trump is political in respect to what actions that Congress might take in response to his declaration.
Will the House and/or Senate seek to undo his emergency declaration as it is within their power under the statute?
It is easy to see that the Democrats in the House will attempt to do that. Would Mitch McConnell even allow that vote in the Senate?
How many Republicans in either House might join that vote?
The real risk to Trump in declaring the emergency is whether GOP members will turn on him and Congress will countermand with a 2/3 vote. That would be a mortal wound for either Trump or the GOP members that betray him. I am not sure who would take the bigger hit but it would be VERY BAD either way for the GOP.
This is something you would never worry about if you were a Democrat President. Democrats never fail to walk in lockstep with each other. There may be questions about their allegiance to the country at times. There is never a question about their allegiance to their party.
The same can't be said for Republicans.
The reality for Trump is that he has far less potential risk in dealing with Mexico, China or North Korea than he does in dealing with members of his party in Congress.
It is similar for GOP members of Congress. As things now stand, they take on much more political risk in crossing Donald Trump than almost anything else they can do.
The cold war policy between the United States and the Soviet Union used to be based on the reality that any misstep between the two nuclear powers would result in 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD).
It is no different today between Trump and the GOP members in Congress.
I believe Trump chose wisely in his course of action on declaring the emergency. He was not rash. He was responsible and reasonable in his requests for funding for the wall over the last two years. At some point, he needed to take action consistent with his promises to the American people and the powers of his office.
I can only hope that the Republicans in Congress are as wise.
No comments:
Post a Comment