By Jesse Green, Contributing opinion
On Feb. 15, President Trump made the decision to declare the situation on the southern border a national emergency. If allowed to proceed, this declaration would allow him to divert money in order to start construction on his signature campaign promise: the border wall.
For those who agree with the idea to build a wall on the southern border, this might look like process toward the sought-after goal. However, this decision is questionable at best and could end up leading to a dangerous precedent for future presidents to abuse. National emergencies should only be declared if it is the last option, and Congress is not in a position where it could take up the issue.
The first section of Article I of the Constitution says that “all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The budgeting process is one of those powers that was given to Congress by the Constitution. It is up to Congress to designate how much and where money should be spent. A national emergency declaration to circumvent Congress is an act of frustration with the process and is contrary to the idea of separation of powers.
However, in a tweet on Feb. 15, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said that his “initial assessment is that what Pres. Trump announced is legal,” but “Congress has been ceding far too much power to the [executive] branch for decades.” Throughout the years, Congress has gotten lazy and allowed the presidents and their administrations to do what they wanted. This has damaged the balance of power between the branches of government.
Congress must regain its grasp on its constitutional powers in order to push back against executive overreach by anyone: Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Progressive. If Congress fails to do so, its powers will continue to shrink.
Additionally, the precedent of using a national emergency could end up leading to an excuse to expand government control over various aspects of life. In an article for National Review, Jack Crowe said, “Trump argued that the scale of the crisis at the border should override any concern about future implications.” This mindset, however, could lead to a national emergency being declared for climate change or gun control. The former would be a further intrusion on legislative powers while the latter would be in violation of the Second Amendment. While these issues might not have the legislative precedent that Lee has referred to in this situation, it puts the decision in the hands of a sometimes unreliable judicial system.
National emergencies are not something to be taken lightly and shouldn’t be used to skip over the process. Their use should be restricted to times when immediate action must be taken and Congress isn’t in a position to act on such short notice, such as an attack on the country.
However, the emergency should only be used as a temporary tool to allow Congress the ability to convene and act on the issue. Congress must make sure that this is how national emergencies are used and must push back against any attempt to expand their use by regaining Congress’s constitutional powers.
