President Trump isn’t setting a precedent with his declaration of a national emergency on our southern border; he’s merely following a long-established one.
Democrats want you to believe that President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency sets a precedent that will allow a future Democrat president to impose an extremist liberal agenda by fiat, but their argument is derived from a fictional interpretation of reality. That precedent was set by President Barack Obama, whose use of executive orders to circumvent Congress didn’t even have the legal justification that undergirds Trump’s declaration of a national emergency.
In a pathetic attempt to scare conservatives into opposing Trump’s executive action on border security, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted that a future president would be able to declare gun violence a national emergency, presumably allowing the federal government to regulate guns without additional legislation.
“A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
She went on to argue that “gun violence in America” is also “a national emergency” that deserves attention from Trump.
“Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that,” she said.
Other Democrats took this absurdity even further, maintaining that “climate change,” “income inequality,” and “access to healthcare” are also national emergencies that merit executive action.
Unfortunately for the fearmongering Democrats, Trump’s decision to declare the border security crisis a national emergency can’t be used as precedent for social justice activism, because Obama already took that strategy to the limits of what he thought he could get away with.
Any future Democratic president wouldn’t get away with as much as Obama did, though, because President Trump is completely reshaping the federal judiciary by replacing retiring activist liberal judges with hundreds of young conservative judges who will interpret the Constitution as it was written.
Now that the president has declared a national emergency that requires the use of the armed forces (a scenario that is clearly applicable to the ongoing border crisis) the secretary of defense can authorize military construction projects, such as building a physical barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Notably, the Department of Homeland Security asked the Defense Department last year to keep 4,000 troops on the border to help combat illegal immigration — a number that is slated to increase to 6,000 troops by the end of March.
More importantly, President Trump will be using funds that are already appropriated by Congress, consistent with his reprogramming and transfer authority. The resources will mainly come from the Treasury forfeiture funds, the counternarcotics fund, and the military construction fund.
The border crisis is a real national emergency, even worse so than most of the other 30 national emergencies that are active today, that requires decisive federal action — not a social justice cause or an attempt to take away constitutionally protected individual liberties.
President Trump’s declaration of a state of emergency is just continuing a precedent that Democrats created. The only difference is that President Trump has the law solidly on his side.
Jenna Ellis (@realJennaEllis) is a contributor to the Beltway Confidential Blog. She is a constitutional law attorney, radio host, and the author of The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution. She may be reached at [email protected].
