Even the moderate, generally anti-Trump @lawfareblog concedes that pro-Wall commentators are advocating for executive action *within the statutory framework provided by Congress."
This is not about Article II. It's pure statutory interpretation.
The Trump administration has not been the most competently run organization in history.
I know, I know, crazy.
But seriously, it's not remotely surprising that WH lawyers hadn't taken a close look at emergency powers until recently.
Those who had looked at it - mainly liberals - were pointing out that Trump, in fact, would be able to access emergency powers without much trouble!
Justice Scalia would be rolling in his grave. Legislative history - committee reports - are not law.
§ 1631 solves that.
And Trump is not proposing to take over the country. It's one funding maneuver.
When Congress uses language like "requires or *may require*," that's explicitly permissive language.
Drug cartels - narcoterrorists - control the border areas.
It takes an unnecessarily cramped view of "national defense" to argue border security isn't essential to it.
National security isn't just about security from state actors. Non-state actors matter too.