Falsies

The argument, now being employed by Republican Senators to oppose the Declaration of a National Emergency is a false argument and is as transparent as are they. They stipulate that it sets a bad precedent, further stipulating that the next president may be a fruitcake and follow that precedent. They know better.

From Abraham Lincoln’s decision to suspend habeas corpus in 1861 to Harry Truman’s ordering the Secretary of Commerce to seize control of the steel mills amid a 1952 wartime strike, presidents have occasionally seen fit to step outside the bounds of normal government. By proclaiming a national emergency, the President “may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

Since Congress further legislated on the matter in 1976, EVERY President has asserted a National Emergency and most have been rather silly, unlike this one, which goes to the very heart of the Constitution and this Sovereign Republic—Provide for the Common Defense and Insure Domestic Tranquility, two of the three prongs guaranteed in our original document. I listed here previously the 31 National Emergencies just since 1976, under President Jimmy Carter.

Declaration of Emergency in the Constitution

Article II, which vests the Executive Power in the President, also specifically makes her/ him Commander in Chief of the army and navy, as well as of the militia when called into actual federal service (§ 2), and charges her, among other things, with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed (§ 3). In addition to these allocations of responsibility to particular branches of the federal government, the Constitution contains one other empowering provision relating to similar circumstances, namely Article IV § 4, the so-called "guaranty clause", which calls on the federal government not only to guarantee to every state a republican form of government, but also to protect it against invasion and (when asked) domestic violence.

First, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (permitting a person to obtain judicial review of the validity of his detention, in a proceeding independent of that, if any, in which the detention was ordered) cannot be suspended, "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." [Art 1 Section 9 Clause 2].

Second, no one may be charged with a capital or otherwise infamous crime without an indictment by a grand jury, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." [5^th Amendment Clause 1].

Third, no state may engage in war, "unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." [Art 1 Sect 10 Clause Para 3].

Finally, one other provision of similar, if less specifically military character may be mentioned: that which allows the President "on extraordinary Occasions" to convene one or both houses of Congress. [Art 2 Section 3 Clause 2].

In summary, the President of the United States has ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, under the Constitution, notwithstanding the 1976 statute.

These US Senators are perpetuating a false argument.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1X43iWbGgUpb0N35iLwx7WNmO4bC54lqs