Thread by @LizaGoitein

Today, the President of the United States will declare a fictitious national emergency for the sole purpose of giving himself powers Congress explicitly refused to provide. 1/13

This is a constitutional crisis. Article I expressly forbids spending money except as appropriated by Congress. Congress had repeatedly refused to provide funds to build the wall. 2/13

As I wrote in @TheAtlantic, emergency powers are not, and were never intended to be, a constitutional workaround for a president who cannot bend Congress to his will. 3/13 theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

Emergency powers are designed to give the president access to standby authorities, passed by Congress in advance, in situations where Congress has no time to act. 4/13

If Congress *does* have time to act, then there’s no justification for bypassing the ordinary legislative process. And when that legislative process yields a clear answer, as it did here, the Constitution commands the president to respect that answer. 5/13

I hope the courts do the right thing and put an end to this abuse of power. But whether they do or not, it’s time for Congress to revisit the current legal system for emergency powers. 6/13

Under the National Emergencies Act, it’s far too easy for a president to declare emergencies where none exist—and far too difficult for Congress to put a stop to them. There’s no definition of “national emergency” and no limits on how many times a president can renew them. 7/13

If Congress believes the president is misusing emergency powers, its only remedy is to pass a law that the president has to sign. In practice, that means Congress needs a veto-proof majority. 8/13

Once an emergency is declared, the president has access to 123 special provisions of law that give him extraordinary powers—as we found in our research, available here: brennancenter.org/analysis/emerg… @BrennanCenter 9/13

This system invites abuse. Presidents need broad discretion to decide what constitutes an emergency, but that discretion shouldn’t be unlimited. Some basic, common-sense criteria are needed. 10/13

At a minimum, an “emergency” should involve a significant change in factual circumstances that poses an imminent threat to public safety or other important national interests. That would still give the president plenty of wiggle room, without allowing fake emergencies. 11/13

And the president should not be able to renew states of emergency indefinitely. After a short period (I agree with @steve_vladeck that 30 days should be sufficient), the emergency should expire unless *Congress* renews it. 12/13

Congress should act *now* to try to block this abuse of power, and the courts should play their constitutional role. But unless we want to see more of this kind of abuse in the future, we need to get serious about National Emergencies Act reform. 13/13