Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
32. I covered that in the thread
Wed Oct 16, 2013, 01:29 PM
Oct 2013

"The National Emergencies Act requires the president to specify the provisions in the law upon which his actions under each declaration are authorized." The answer to which provision he relies upon could but must not necessarily, rest with whatever current Declaration he links to, so there are several options. Just as an example, if he links to the Declaration Bush declared in response to 9/11:

"Last year, President Obama extended the National Emergency with respect to terrorism that President Bush signed after the devastating attacks on America by al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001. In his notice to Congress, President Obama wrote:

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM"

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the President declared a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706). The President took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States. Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States... I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency[.] (emphasis added)

The date the president signed and issued this notice warning of the "immediate threat of further attacks"? September 11, 2012, the very day of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

So continuing along with a hypothetical, if he linked to this declaration already in existence he could quote the same provision Bush* quoted. Additionally, in order to execute his Commander in Chief responsibilities, he must have the resources to execute those duties.

There are a number of things he could do and obviously I cannot predict which he would choose and on what basis he would rest.

Sam


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

But isn't that what the Tea Party racists want to happen so their wet dreams of impeachment can diabeticman Oct 2013 #1
It could possibly be more than that Samantha Oct 2013 #3
Obama won't do anything without the blessings of the Congressional GOP. blkmusclmachine Oct 2013 #2
Nope. This cuts to Constitutional powers. By that metric alone, the US House owns this. longship Oct 2013 #4
You do not think he has the power to declare a national emergency? (n/t) Samantha Oct 2013 #5
Well, that's arguable. longship Oct 2013 #6
I just was not sure if you had eliminated the premise of the thread by your response Samantha Oct 2013 #7
Well, impeachment is an important issue. longship Oct 2013 #10
That's the important question. longship Oct 2013 #8
The problem is that even if he declared an emergency and directed the Treasury pnwmom Oct 2013 #9
Even if that were to happen (and I did hear him discuss this) Samantha Oct 2013 #11
Yes. It could be his only option. n/t pnwmom Oct 2013 #12
I am going to save this research in case we need to look at it again Samantha Oct 2013 #13
I agree, the bottom line is the market uncertainty treestar Oct 2013 #15
He would not have to use the 14th amendment but he could if he chose to do so Samantha Oct 2013 #19
I kind of like the idea of using the Sept. 11 terrorism emergency treestar Oct 2013 #14
You and I are thinking the same thing Samantha Oct 2013 #18
It takes 2 to stalemate Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #21
What if one side is engaged in the same sort of activity that a declared enemy has perpetrated? Samantha Oct 2013 #26
How can it collapse the economy if the stalemate is lifted? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #29
I have no power in the US Government so that second sentence is ridiculous Samantha Oct 2013 #33
I think you understand well enough my intent with my second sentence. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #36
Under what conditions would the SOE be lifted? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #16
The terms for this are outlined in the Constitution Samantha Oct 2013 #17
So a president gets to unilaterally abrogate congessional power Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #20
It is not convenient at all -- it is the deliberate safety net built into our legal system Samantha Oct 2013 #22
We may be in a "Global War on Terror" (what a joke so-called "Progressives" now applaud this) Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #25
By the way, this is not a "scheme" Samantha Oct 2013 #27
"The National Emergencies Act requires the president to specify the provisions in the law" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #30
I covered that in the thread Samantha Oct 2013 #32
What underlying violation of law could occur by congress exercise its constitutional power? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #35
You are not discussing the true bigger picture -- that is what I am doing Samantha Oct 2013 #37
Your page is irrelevant, taken from a non-existent book. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #38
There is no trumping involved - the National Emergency Act does not violate the Constitution Samantha Oct 2013 #39
If we have to accrue new debt to pay old debt then we are bankrupt and the debt limit is irrelevant. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #40
Crime is your word - that is not the word I used Samantha Oct 2013 #41
Do you not think the President should abrograte congressional power when Samantha Oct 2013 #23
Simple answer -- NO Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #24
You exaggerate Samantha Oct 2013 #28
Congress didn't fail anything, anymore than the President failed to sign their bill. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #31
Congress' failure is a matter of continuing debate by the Constitutional experts Samantha Oct 2013 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Declaration of a State of...»Reply #32