With President Trump’s recent threats to declaring a national emergency to get funding for the southern border wall many states have sued to try to stop the President. These 16 states are suing because they view his executive power as unconstitutional. The main problem the states, like Colorado and California, find with President Trump’s plan is the pulling of money from other federal programs to fund the southern border wall. If President Trump can get past these court battles the only thing stopping him is the Judicial Branch.
Do you think President Trump’s national emergency would be unconstitutional?
Do you think we should keep the National Emergencies Act or get rid of it?
Does the United States need a stronger southern border wall or is our southern border fine the way it is?
I don't think it is unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean it won't be ruled that way. I think we should keep the act, if we would get rid, i feel like it would truly be needed soon after its gone. We need a much stronger southern border, many places there isn't a wall or many border agents, but its up for opinion if a wall should built.
ReplyDeleteIf this was unconstitutional, then Trump would not be doing this. The National Emergencies Act is a good thing that we should not get rid of. We need a stronger border!
ReplyDeleteThere are two important issues here: is it constitutional for the President to skirt Congress to pass legislation, and is this situation a "national emergency" that would allow for that? The Constitution says that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress," implying that legislation is in the hands of Congress alone. If a person makes the argument that bypassing Congress is in all circumstances unconstitutional, then every "national emergency" excuse used by any president ever should be considered unconstitutional, including other times Trump has done so and any time Obama did the same.
ReplyDeleteSince I imagine that most people agree with the National Emergencies Act (though I myself am very skeptical about it), the question then becomes whether or not this is truly a national emergency. I think that there is a fairly reasonable argument on the side that believes that this issue does constitute a national emergency, but that is a highly debatable topic, so let's focus on the precedents. Tens, if not hundreds, of "national emergencies" have been called by previous presidents in our history, and this is the only "national emergency" that Trump has called that people are contesting. Under the Obama Administration, "affordable healthcare" was considered grounds for a national emergency. If a person thinks that that was a national emergency, then surely this issue also counts, and if a person thinks that this issue is not a national emergency, then I'd find it hard to believe that the Affordable Care Act "national emergency" should count. Consistency is key here; where do the people taking sides on this issue actually stand?
I don't believe that what Trump is doing is unconstitutional, because as President he is given the power to declare national emergencies. But, I'm not sure the circumstances at the border necessarily qualifies as a national emergency. There is no known crisis that I am aware of at the border currently. If there was a need for a national emergency, I think it would have been more relevant a few months ago when the caravan fiasco was occurring. But as of right now, I think our border conditions are relatively normal. As far as the need for a stronger wall, I think our money would be better spent on maybe hiring more border patrolmen. I think more guards would be more versatile and serve a better purpose than something that is motionless and vulnerable to wear.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not unconstitutional, but I don’t agree with it. Pulling funding from other places for an emergency that isn’t even an emergency is ludicrous.
ReplyDelete