قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ World https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ After the Veto, Some Law Builders See a New Emergency: Trump Order Settlement

After the Veto, Some Law Builders See a New Emergency: Trump Order Settlement



WASHINGTON – A general law is almost always applicable to Washington – the law of unexpected consequences.

Again and again, the Congress has taken steps to fix a problem, just to end the most aggravating situation or create a whole new issue. This is the case with the National Emergencies Act of 1976, adopted during post-Watergate to halt the presidential power. President Trump instead provided a route to expand the authority of authority – in disobedience to Congress – by declaring a national emergency to fund a wall along the southwest border.

On Friday, the president released his first bet after the Congress denied the declaration.

Now, through the immediate warfare of exceeding Herman Trump's emergency boundary, the laws overhauling the law in 1976 continue to be determined to continue the changes to the two law parties that they regard as an excess the surrender of congressional power.

"Ultimately, this is a problem made by Congress, and it is allowed to continue through Congress," said Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, who introduced this measure last week to make it harder for the President to avoid Congress by an emergency declaration. "Congress starts to awaken the fact that over time it has been given so much power."

The inadequate results for many on Capitol Hill can provide new strength for Mr. Lee's plan, requiring Congress to approve the emergency declaration of any president – or it will automatically terminate afterwards 30 days. That is a significant change from the current process of ending an emergency declaration only by passing a resolution of disagreement over the veto – a strategy that leaves most of the actions in the hands of the executive branch.

"If you want to Express a national emergency, we have to put a shot on it," Mr. Lee said.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the leader of the crowd said last week that he asked Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to look at the issue and lawmakers said that a hearing was likely.

"If Congress is distressed by this law, like many, we must change it," said Mr. McConnell. "If the 116th Congress disappointed with the degree of flexibility granted by the 94th Congress to the executive, the 116th Congress could do something about it."

Even though Democrats initially depressed Mr Lee's proposal, a Speaker spokesman Nancy Pelosi said open to considering changes as long as they were not pursuing political protection interests . Democrats also need to be convinced that the goal is to not only tie the hands of future presidents from their party.

"House committees are reviewing unlawful use by the President of the National Emergency Act," said spokeswoman, Drew Hammill. "It was never intended – and still not allowed – to be used by the president to settle a policy dispute where he failed to convince Congress and the Americans."

Mr. Hammill reflects on a broad bipartisan feeling that Mr Trump and his counselors are employing the law in a way which it has never intended to be used. But many Republicans, supported by in-house legal review, have also acknowledged that the law in 1976 gave the president a legal basis to continue. Some 12 Republicans who voted to put an end to the national emergency were not because they believed the president was acting illegally, but because they considered it a serious offense in designing the congressional spending under an invalid defective law .

The National Emergencies Act In 1976 the president allowed the state to declare an emergency to act unilateral if conditions were met, but the action would be blocked if the House and the Senate passed a resolution to terminate it – a process known as a legislative veto.

in 1983, the Supreme Court – in the case of the Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha – has found an unconstitutional approach. It said that for the actions of Congress to link, there must be a form of law presented to the president. That measure has pushed Congress to make a resolution of the disagreement now, to restore the presidential veto in the case of emergency declarations and give the president a higher hand, since the overrun One bet needs a two-thirds vote that is hard to achieve in both the House and the Senate.

"It's a quick decision without much thought," says Mr. Lee. "It's written for a past time that's really gone now."

Mr. Lee said he believed his idea to establish a time limit subject to congressional approval would be constitutional. He recognizes that there is no possibility to switch without a bipartisan buy-in, buy-in he believes can be achieved as Congress realizes the extent to which it has relinquished its power.

Sometimes, he said, it takes a galvanizing event like declaration on the wall to get lawmakers together.

"It was created over time under the Congress and the White House with every partial partial adjustment," said Mr. Lee. "It needs to be the solution of both parties."


Source link