Thread by @willchamberlain

So, as promised - analysis of Ben Shapiro's article on national emergency law.

It is - and I don't use this word lightly - dumb.

dailywire.com/news/41987/tru…

Ben's first portion is an analysis of 10 USC § 2808.

While he is right as to the conclusion - that 2808 won't work - his argument is silly. His argument:

"It would be a serious stretch to suggest that military necessity would dictate the overruling of congressional powers..."

That's a silly way to frame it. This is not an *overruling* of congressional powers. Trump would be acting according to statute!

Next, he invokes Erick Erickson's argument that somehow - if the use of emergency powers is normalized - President Warren could shutter coal plants.

This argument is asinine.

Declaring a national emergency does not give a President infinite power. The President, when he makes such a declaration, must specify the other statutes he intends to invoke - i.e. powers Congress *has already delegated*.

That's 50 USC § 1631.

Neither Erickson nor Shapiro has identified the statute that would allow a President to shut down coal plants if he declares a national emergency.

If there is no such statute, a President Warren would not have that power.

Next, Shapiro cites Youngstown (as so many clowns have done).

Never mind that even liberal bloggers have pointed out that Trumps' proposed course of action is within the first category of Youngstown, where the President's authority is at its maximum.

Next, he cites 10 USC 284, which I have no comment on, as I've seen no serious commentator argue that it would justify funding.

Ben, on the other hand, fails to even discuss 33 USC 2393 - which I have argued repeatedly *does* authorize the President to fund wall construction.

Next, Ben argues that somehow using emergency powers delegated by Congress would "arrogate power to the executive branch."

This is *dumb*. Trump is not *arrogating* power. He is invoking power *delegated* to him by Congress. Facile analogy.

Ben argues that a court would "undoubtedly" stop Trump.

That is not REMOTELY clear. Any plaintiff would not only have to overcome the strong case on the merits - they would have to have standing.

It's not clear that anyone is injured by a decision to reallocated funding!

This is not the first time that Ben Shapiro has made a ridiculous, absolutist prediction that was wrong.

Remember when he said there was a ZERO percent chance Trump would appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court?

Great prediction there, Ben.

Finally, Ben's recommended course of action?

"Force" members of Congress to justify their spending priorities!

Yeah man, that will totally get Chuck and Nancy to budge. I'm sure they are terrified of...justifying things.

Let's be frank.

Ben Shapiro is poo-poohing a plan that would let Trump build the wall as "dumb" based on legal analysis that would get laughed out of a 1L classroom.

And his plan is absurdly naive.

Does this person actually care about conservative policy objectives?