Donald Trump has discovered a potent mechanism for consolidating authority – resorting to false alarms to gain genuine control. It’s been witnessed as Trump wielded emergency powers in three separate scenarios: first, asserting an issue of public safety to justify his usurping control of the District of Columbia; second, alleging an ‘invasion’ to rationalize stringent immigration policies, including deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles; and third, citing ‘exceptional’ circumstances to back his trade war. Trump isn’t pioneering the leveraging of emergency powers to cultivate more authority; however, his utilization is unparalleled in its extremity. The absence of firm objection from Congress or the judiciary implies that precious little is obstructing Trump from extending his invocation of ’emergency’ powers, thereby augmenting his authority.
Emergency measures have their rightful place. In democracies, usual procedures dictate that the legislature outlines the actions needed, with the executive branch implementing these directives. However, legislation can be infamously sluggish, even in the face of urgency. Acknowledging this systemic shortfall, Congress has orchestrated a workaround. They institute broad restrictions but accompany them with clauses that sanction executive overruling in times of national crisis. The Brennan Center’s study identified 137 statutory segments that permit the President to call upon these emergency powers.
Traditionally, presidents possessed enhanced authorities only during crucial moments, restricted by the frequency, nature, and lifespan of these situations. This precarious balance rested on three pillars: firstly, the understanding that Presidents had a requisite level of integrity and deployed their authority wisely. Secondly, Congress had, and used, the power to hem in executive authority. This took place at the beginning, by clearly stating in-text restrictions on when and how emergency powers could be initiated, and at the end, by exercising oversight over the President’s activation of emergency authority.
Court interventions provided a third restriction, contributing to the efficiency of these checks and balances in mitigating the overuse of emergency proclamations. However, these protective mechanisms are deteriorating in the present day. Trump has capitalized on emergency powers as a tool to expand his influence. Instead of restraining Trump, Congress has morphed into his most prominent supporter. Judicial scrutiny, barring a few exceptions, has largely side-stepped evaluating the veracity of his declarations of emergency, opting for deference instead.
Take, for instance, Trump’s use of emergency powers to assume temporary command over D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department, justified by his determination of ‘special emergency conditions’. However, this claim lies unchallenged in court. Trump has portrayed illegal immigration as an ‘invasion,’ warranting exceptional Presidential powers. By stationing military forces in Los Angeles, he evoked a federal law applicable when encountered with rebellion, invasion, or inability to enforce laws without military intervention.
Regrettably, courts have often sided with the President’s authority. Trump also took advantage of the Alien Enemies Act to deport presumed gang members without providing due process. His proclamation of trade deficits as an ’emergency’ and invocation of authority to tackle an ‘unusual and extraordinary’ threat was eventually overruled by the International Trade Court. However, these proclaimed emergencies appear more as pretexts to amass power.
There doesn’t exist a ‘crime emergency’ in Washington D.C., nor an ‘invasion’ of criminal gangs or immigrants at our southern border. Likewise, the trade deficit does not pose an ‘extraordinary’ threat. The only basis for such declarations is Trump’s solo viewpoint, which remains unchecked by Congress or the courts. The real peril originates from the absence of resistance to Trump’s actions.
The failing checks and balances now seemingly furnish Trump with the authority to impose, for instance, a 50 percent tariff on Brazil. The series of threats only promises to inflate. What would transpire if Trump cites the Federal Communications Act to commandeer television stations or the internet, citing a ‘state of public crisis’? Or perhaps more alarmingly, what if he revokes the writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that ‘public safety necessitates it’?
Sooner or later, courts may step in to counterbalance; however, this latent promise of judicial review is a frail cornerstone on which to base democracy. The legal framework granting extraordinary emergency powers was once wise. Today, it has mutated into a clear menace to democracy and a bridge leading toward autocracy.
The post Trump’s Abuse of Emergency Powers Threatens Democracy appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
