Thread by @SamBerger_DC

With the news that the House is moving to block Trump's faux emergency declaration, a short thread on the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and how to fix some its problems. /1
nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/…

The NEA was originally passed in the aftermath of Watergate, in response to Nixon's efforts to abuse emergency authority. /2
americanprogress.org/issues/democra…

A major check that it provided was that Congress could end a national emergency through a concurrent resolution, which does not require presidential approval. But an unrelated SCOTUS case, INS v. Chadha, invalidated this so-called "legislative veto." /3
lawfareblog.com/supreme-courts…

In the wake of this case, the provision in the NEA was changed to require a joint resolution, meaning the President needed to sign it. But that renders the provision virtually toothless, unless you can muster a veto-proof majority in both houses. /4

So how to fix this? Turn the provision on its head. Instead of requiring a congressional vote to end an emergency, require one to *continue* it. Say that all emergencies end within 60 (or 90) days unless Congress passes a resolution using a fast track procedure. /5

If you want, you can limit it to certain kinds of emergencies. But generally speaking 60-90 days is long enough for Congress to figure out whether it wants the President to be exercising broad emergency powers. And it's closer to the original intent of the law. /End