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

unblock

(56,267 posts)
10. that's very different.
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 06:51 PM
Jan 2019

according to the article at least, truman had no law at all supporting his claim to emergency powers.

donnie likely will contort the meaning of terms under various laws, but so far he's talking about invoking emergency power that are legally granted to the president under certain conditions.

huge difference.


i haven't seen the exact phrasing under the various laws, but if the language simply requires the president to deem a certain kind of emergency exists, then i think the supreme court would be hard pressed to intervene and insert themselves as arbiter of whether or not such an emergency actually exists. far more likely is that they would say congress either should legislate a different mechanism or impeach a president who abuses the process they established.

Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What if the Supreme Court...»Reply #10