abuse, border wall, Congress, constitutionality, Democrats, Frank Bowman, immigration, impeach, impeachability, Impeachment, invasion, national emergency, national emergency act, power, president, president donald trump, Republicans, senators
President Trump has declared a national emergency to help fund the construction of his border-wall between the United States and Mexico. The move could potentially increase funds from the $1.35 billion authorized by Congress to $8 billion, in part borrowed from Defense spending. Trump has simultaneously categorized the emergency as necessitated by the “invasion” from the south and admitted that he just wants to get the job done faster. Mixed signals such as these, as well as the general nature of what has been dubbed the President’s “vanity project,” have caused many to label Trump’s action as an abuse of his authority.
Professor Frank Bowman previously considered and wrote about the impeachability of Trump in light of such a flagrant declaration of national emergency. His post should be read in full and can be found here. However, to borrow from his conclusion, he wrote that whether such an action is impeachable depends in part on signals of its unconstitutionality. These signals can come in two forms: 1) a majority vote in both houses of Congress to undermine Trump’s declaration; and 2) a decision by the Supreme Court that Trump’s action is unconstitutional.
Though both high hurdles, neither signal is impossible. It should be noted that several Republican Senators and Representatives have already spoken out against Trump’s declaration. Additionally, the first suit to challenge the constitutionality of the decision has already been filed by Public Citizen.