Legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration are already piling up in the courts, as his political opponents look to a legion of black-robed oligarchs to stop the border security move.
But, if we’re being honest, the script at this point is pretty predictable, and it’s another opportunity for activists in the judicial branch to turn themselves into a joke. Even President Trump came into this fight ready for lefty lawfare:
“We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we will get another bad ruling, and then we will end up in the Supreme Court,” said a frustrated Trump while making the declaration on Friday, adding that he hopes to get a “fair shake” at the Supreme Court.
The executive powers outlined in the National Emergencies Act of 1976 have been invoked a grand total of 58 times without controversy since the law’s inception. Thirty-one of those declarations are still in effect.
While the National Emergencies Act of 1976 should be rarely used for real emergencies, it has in fact been used over fifty times without controversy. The fact is the leftwing media and the RINOs do not view illegal immigration and the cumulative importation of millions of aliens into our country in violation of federal law as a big deal. If they did, they would’ve acted long before Trump became president. The president rightly does view it as an emergency. The law itself, as used by the president, does not violate separation of powers in this instance as it is applied quite narrowly, with the president moving around funds which he is empowered to do by Congress.
So, situations in foreign countries including Yemen, the Ukraine, Nicaragua, and Somalia are appropriate places for presidents to use statutory powers to declare an emergency and move funds around, but to do so when our own country is plagued by human trafficking, a border-driven drug crisis, and illegal alien crime? When our laws are being outright mocked and when our asylum system is being used as a backup plan for lawbreakers? Well, that’s a constitutional problem.
We’ve seen this all before: Activist judges will rule the way activist judges will rule, and lawfare-driven activists will seek them out to advance their agenda. The question is, what will the American people and their representatives do about it? My colleague Daniel Horowitz has a few ideas.