A threat to our fundamental freedoms

[struggle4progress]

February 17, 2019, 10:18 AM
Norman Ornstein .. American Enterprise Institute

... This is not trivial. If the president can succeed with this voluntary state of emergency, he is setting the table for something much more dangerous.

Emergency powers are sweeping; a president may seize property, institute martial law, control all transportation and communication, and much more.

All these emergency powers are there under an assumption that a president puts the nation's interest first, and respects the other branches of government and the rule of law. What if we have a president who does not fit that description?

There are guardrails in place. Congress can pass a joint resolution erasing an emergency declaration that will no doubt be vetoed by President Trump, and to override that veto will take at least a third of Republicans, who have shown no interest in checking this president ...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/norman-ornstein-on-trump-emergency-declaration-a-threat-to-our-fundamental-freedoms/

[Igel]

1. There are a lot of ongoing emergencies.

For example, the 25-year-old emergency "Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe."

The oldest still-going national emergency blocks Iranian property, it was imposed in 1979. At least that was the result of the US embassy hostage situation, so it was directly related to the US. Some national emergencies do involve the US directly (for example, after 9/11), some, like the Zimbabwe declaration, sort of involve abstract US interests in what happens elsewhere.

Some of the sanctions that a few claim are responsible for Venezuela's disastrous economy are the result of a declaration of national emergency.

The election-interference national emergency I could sort of see. The recent one involving Nicaragua, sort-of/maybe, since that affects illegal immigration and numerous asylum claims. But the one before those, involving Burundi...?

[Stuart G]

2. k and r nt.