,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
New post: "Legal arguments about Trump's border wall emergency declaration are no slam dunk for either side" washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/legal-…
Twitter is suddenly rife with experts on the 1976 National Emergencies Act. But don't believe anybody who confidently asserts whether Trump's action is legal, or predicts with certainty how courts will rule washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/legal-…
I hate the emergency declaration. But whether it is legal, or will be deemed so by courts, is far from clear to me washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/legal-…
Even the smart lawyers weighing in right now don't have benefit of the extensive research and refinement of arguments that's going to happen as this case makes its weigh up the judicial food chain to SCOTUS washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/legal-…
There is, no doubt, an argument to be made that Congress has granted the president broad authority to declare national emergencies and to use that authority for military construction projects. washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/legal-…
However, as @IlyaSomin notes, statutes regarding military construction refer to emergencies that *require* armed forces; also, even if Trump can get past funding issue, there's the seizures of private property required to build the wall washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/legal-…
Again, whatever the legal questions, this has no bearing on the fact that in terms of the long-term damage this would do for conservatives, this is a terrible idea. washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-…
