Thread by @hughhewitt

A small thread, about a large subject: The National Emergencies Act. About the only coherent discussion about it and whether it can be used by @realDonaldTrump for border barrier construction has come from @marklevinshow and me. I asked @JoniErnst about it this AM. 1

HH: “If they do not reach an agreement, I’ll come back to that, and the President uses a declaration of emergency, some are opposed to that, because they consider it unconstitutional. 2

I’ve looked at the law. It’s not, actually. It’s not a Youngstown Sheet and Tube sort of situation there. There’s a law on the books that has been used repeatedly in the past. Would you support the President using a national declaration in the event that no deal emerges? 3

.@joniernst: “Well, let me start by saying I hope it does not come to that. I hope it does not come to that. But I would support him. I don’t believe it’s unconstitutional. I don’t believe that. I’m not a lawyer, so you know, take it for what it’s worth. 4

JE: “But what I do fear is that it would set a precedent, because the parties don’t agree that this is national emergency. It would have to come to Congress, and we would have to vote on it. So there are some complications that go along with that.5

We know that it will be challenged in the courts, and then I fear that the President won’t receive any funding for a very long time for border security. And I think it just throws another hitch, and actually for us trying to achieve our goal of erecting barriers and placing 6

technology and additional border agents along our southern border. So, and, you know, one of the spin-offs that we have talked about is the fact that if we declare a national emergency, the other party doesn’t agree. What’s to stop them in the future from declaring 7

climate change as a national emergency.

HH: There is no preexisting law [covering climate change.] i mean, the argument is that he’s got the authority, but there is no authority for that.

JE: Yeah.” hughhewitt.com/senator-joni-e… 8

“Slippery slope” arguments are usually —though not always— bad and it is a bad argument here. If @realDonaldTrump has the power via a statute (and it appears he does), his using it would not legitimize unconstitutional presidential actions past or future. 9

You may not like the policy, but it isn’t an argument to say his doing so will lead to unconstitutional actions in the future. All executive actions get judicial review if any individual is injured. (A landowner whose property is “condemned” for barrier would have standing.) 10

Constitutional conservatives —rule of law conservatives— should argue for or against a policy for policy reasons but not deploy sketchy “It is unconstitutional” claims or “parades of horribles,” “slippery slopes.” End.