Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States" in English language version.
Most experts agree that Trump's use of a national emergency is a legally questionable use of emergency powers.
The next step for the stop-gap funding effort is the House of Representatives where it is likely to pass despite some conservative opposition.
Republicans' endorsement of a potentially dramatic expansion of executive power. There is a potential case to be made that Trump's action, regardless of what it means for the future, violates basic principles of limited-government conservatism, which is generally opposed to executive overreach and supportive of a strong separation of powers.
At the midpoint of his term, however, there remains little question that President Trump exerts an influence on American politics that is straining our core values and testing the stability of our constitutional system. No president in living memory has shown less respect for its tenets, norms, and principles. Trump has assailed essential institutions and traditions including the separation of powers, a free press, an independent judiciary, the impartial delivery of justice, safeguards against corruption, and most disturbingly, the legitimacy of elections. Congress, a coequal branch of government, has too frequently failed to push back against these attacks with meaningful oversight and other defenses.
The emergency declaration, according to White House officials, enables the president to divert $3.6 billion from military construction projects to the wall. Mr. Trump will also use more traditional presidential discretion to tap $2.5 billion from counternarcotics programs and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund.
Generally, it's a hard case to make that it constitutes the kind of a national emergency that would be able to support the president's move here... But, ultimately, the courts will have to decide whether, indeed, the president has this kind of power. Look, Judy, we're operating under a Constitution that provides checks and balances. And those checks and balances are aimed at trying to limit the power of the president, the power of the Congress, power of the courts. That's why our forefathers created it. A president who now uses a national emergency to bypass the will of Congress with regards to funding for a wall is basically rejecting an important check and balance that was built into our Constitution.
That includes $3.6 billion from unspent military construction money, $2.5 billion in unspent Pentagon counterdrug funds and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture account. But the Defense Department has told lawmakers that only $85 million remains unspent in the counterdrug account, a House Appropriations spokesman said Thursday.
A barrage of organizations and officials have already pledged to fight this in court.
Experts said the idea of using a national emergency to build the president's promised border wall would be novel, and both Democrats and outside groups have threatened to sue.
I reached out to 11 legal experts and asked them to assess the president's prospects. The consensus seems to be that while there is enough ambiguity in the law to permit Trump to declare an emergency, his decision to circumvent Congress and use the military to build a wall will very likely lose in court.
The next step for the stop-gap funding effort is the House of Representatives where it is likely to pass despite some conservative opposition.
The emergency declaration, according to White House officials, enables the president to divert $3.6 billion from military construction projects to the wall. Mr. Trump will also use more traditional presidential discretion to tap $2.5 billion from counternarcotics programs and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund.
That includes $3.6 billion from unspent military construction money, $2.5 billion in unspent Pentagon counterdrug funds and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture account. But the Defense Department has told lawmakers that only $85 million remains unspent in the counterdrug account, a House Appropriations spokesman said Thursday.
A barrage of organizations and officials have already pledged to fight this in court.
Generally, it's a hard case to make that it constitutes the kind of a national emergency that would be able to support the president's move here... But, ultimately, the courts will have to decide whether, indeed, the president has this kind of power. Look, Judy, we're operating under a Constitution that provides checks and balances. And those checks and balances are aimed at trying to limit the power of the president, the power of the Congress, power of the courts. That's why our forefathers created it. A president who now uses a national emergency to bypass the will of Congress with regards to funding for a wall is basically rejecting an important check and balance that was built into our Constitution.
I reached out to 11 legal experts and asked them to assess the president's prospects. The consensus seems to be that while there is enough ambiguity in the law to permit Trump to declare an emergency, his decision to circumvent Congress and use the military to build a wall will very likely lose in court.
Most experts agree that Trump's use of a national emergency is a legally questionable use of emergency powers.
Experts said the idea of using a national emergency to build the president's promised border wall would be novel, and both Democrats and outside groups have threatened to sue.
At the midpoint of his term, however, there remains little question that President Trump exerts an influence on American politics that is straining our core values and testing the stability of our constitutional system. No president in living memory has shown less respect for its tenets, norms, and principles. Trump has assailed essential institutions and traditions including the separation of powers, a free press, an independent judiciary, the impartial delivery of justice, safeguards against corruption, and most disturbingly, the legitimacy of elections. Congress, a coequal branch of government, has too frequently failed to push back against these attacks with meaningful oversight and other defenses.
Republicans' endorsement of a potentially dramatic expansion of executive power. There is a potential case to be made that Trump's action, regardless of what it means for the future, violates basic principles of limited-government conservatism, which is generally opposed to executive overreach and supportive of a strong separation of powers.
