MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rep. Justin Amash: 'The President Doesn't Get To Just Declare an Emergency'

"We have to make sure that each branch stays within its own lane and Congress retains its power over the purse.”

Twitter screenshot via @ABCPoliticsTwitter screenshot via @ABCPoliticsRep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) today suggested that while he's not necessarily opposed to "additional funding" for border security, he doesn't believe declaring a national emergency is the right way to obtain it.

President Donald Trump declared a national emergency earlier this month after Congress gave him just $1.375 billion of the $5.7 billion he'd demanded for construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump's plan is to reallocate, via national emergency powers, roughly $3.5 billion from the military construction budget in order to build the wall.

While Republican leaders in Congress endorsed the move, Democrats did not. Last week, more than 200 members of Congress co-sponsored a resolution, originally introduced by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D–Texas), to block the national emergency. The resolution passed the House today in a 245-182 vote. All of the bill's co-sponsors were Democrats, with the exception of Amash.

Prior to the House's scheduled vote on the resolution Tuesday, Amash explained in detail why he opposes Trump's national emergency declaration. "There are a lot of fair arguments being made for additional funding, for additional fencing, for enhanced fencing. But that funding has to go through Congress," Amash told ABC News. "The president doesn't get to just declare an emergency for something that Congress has deliberated many times over the past several years."

Amash explained that Trump has previously signed legislation that did not include the billions he wants in border wall funding. If it wasn't a national emergency then, why is it now? "I think we have to be really careful about proceeding here," Amash said to ABC. "We have to make sure that each branch stays within its own lane and Congress retains its power over the purse."

Amash is chairman of the House Liberty Caucus, which announced its opposition to Trump's national emergency declaration on similar grounds. "Few dispute the president's ability to act quickly to address a real emergency, but simply saying something is an emergency does not make it so and cannot on its own trigger emergency powers," the caucus's statement reads:

Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), also a member of the Liberty Caucus, said on Twitter that he supports Trump's proposed border wall, but that he'd nevertheless vote in favor of the resolution blocking the emergency declaration. "There is a crisis at our border, but it's not an emergency when Congress doesn't spend money how the President wants," Massie wrote. "The President's constitutional remedy is to veto spending bills that aren't suitable to him, yet he has chosen to sign many bills that did not fund the wall."

According to Amash, many conservative House members feel the same way. "Behind the scenes, privately, many [conservative House members] are very concerned about what the president is doing. And they understand our constitutional system," he told ABC. They "would love the opportunity to oppose him," Amash added, but "they're not going to take it for political purposes."

Photo Credit: Twitter screenshot via @ABCPolitics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Yes Justin the President does. If you don't like that, change the law or get a President more to your liking.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Brown man was bad. Orange man good.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Trump Good. Obama bad. Principal over (no) principles.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These people crack me up.

    They dont repeal the National Emergency Act, they just pass meaningless House Resolutions to never Trump.

    The border is getting extended past the 700current miles thanks to the $1.7 billion and DoD funds.

    It will be funny when those 13 RINOs get primared election 2020.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    It will be even funnier when the next Dem President invokes a national emergency over global warming and force feeds the Green New Deal with New Money.

    Then you and the other Trumpistas will suddenly discover principles again, just as you did when Obama invoked national emergencies and re-appropriated money on a whim.

  • tlapp||

    That is where we are headed. Each side looks the other way when the executive overreach/abuse of power suits them. As long as politicians can get their voters to play along the constitution no longer applies.

  • Mr. JD||

    You undercut your own point with your last sentence.

    Obama did it first, not Trump. The tit for tat is Trump's, not "next Dem President's". It's inconsistent to condemn Trump for "starting a precedent" when what would actually be most dangerous is (continuing to) allow the socialists to monopolize the tactic.

    The other flaw in your argument is the notion that Trump doing this makes Democrats any more likely to do it than they already were. As you admitted with Obama's whims, Democrats have never needed precedent to excuse abuses of power.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Alphabet troll doesn't understand the limit of redirecting appropriations for an emergency. This is why Trump will maybe have a few billion extra to work with instead of another twenty billion or more.

    If some democrat turd redirects a billion or two for green bullshit, it won't exactly transform the country.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump 2020!

    More electoral votes than last time.

  • MJBinAL||

    It is telling that Mr Amash was not upset about the previous 58 times a National Emergency was declared before.

    Nor has he just realized what a bad idea the National Emergency Act is and wants to repeal it.

    Mr. Amash is only upset that TRUMP has declared a National Emergency to do something he does not like.

    That, ladies and gentlemen is not principle, it is just partisan politics.

    He appears to be perfectly happy for Presidents whose name is not Trump to declare National Emergencies for trivial things, or for things that simple bypass our criminal justice system (Here's looking at you Bush)

  • Sam Haysom||

    Yes yes he does Justin.

  • Skyhawk||

    Um, yes, he does. The same as every other President that has ever held the office.
    Just because you're trying to pander to the open border crowd, doesn't change that fact.

  • Skyhawk||

    Courtesy of Wikipedia, here is the exact law that gives Presidents the power:
    "The National Emergencies Act (NEA) (Pub.L. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601–1651) is a United States federal law passed to end all previous national emergencies and to formalize the emergency powers of the President."

  • Juice||

    Every other president that has ever held office after 1976.

  • Juice||

    And man what a whopper of a bullshit law. It does indeed just give the president vague and broad power to declare a "national emergency" with no restrictions on what it might entail, only that the president let everyone know that he's doing it and what exactly he's going to do. But, it's a huge pain in the ass for Congress to block it or reverse it. There has to be a concurrent resolution, plus (not mentioned in the text of the Act) it has to be a 2/3 majority or the president has to sign the resolution. This is because of INS v. Chadha that precludes "legislative veto".

    Man, they really need to repeal that ridiculous law along with the War Powers Act (really, replace it with another Act specifying that the president does not have the ability to unilaterally commit acts of war).

  • MJBinAL||

    Yes, but you notice Justin Amash isn't doing THAT! He is not opposed to Presidents in general welding this power, just Presidents named Trump.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    50 USC 1621
    "With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency."

    So, which act or acts of Congress authorize the President to declare a national emergency in order to build a wall?

  • Juice||

    Hmm. You know what? All that law gives the president the power to do is declare. It doesn't seem to authorize the use of funds or anything.

    With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

    Where are these Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise of special or extraordinary power during a national emergency so-declared by the president?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That's what I'd like to know.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hey Jeffy. I hear you want to bring in illegals who like to fuck children. What's up with that?

    Fucking sicko.

  • Armchair Lawyer||

    Since you asked..

    10 U.S.C. 2808

    In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

    There you go.

  • JFree||

    We need to build the wall to find out what's in it

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I mean, it's absolutely incredible that our resident "Rule Of Law"(tm)-thumping conservatives around here can't seem to actually read the law themselves or to demand that Trump adhere to the law itself, let alone the Constitution.

  • buybuydandavis||

    50 U.S. Code Chapter 34 - NATIONAL EMERGENCIES
    http://bit.ly/2Gtkdfu

    33 U.S. Code § 2293 - Reprogramming during national emergencies
    http://bit.ly/2Gu5SPT

    33 U.S. Code § 2293 - Reprogramming during national emergencies
    (a) Termination or deferment of civil works projects; application of resources to national defense projects

    In the event of a declaration of war or a declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] that requires or may require use of the Armed Forces, the Secretary, without regard to any other provision of law, may (1) terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense, and (2) apply the resources of the Department of the Army's civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump has specific statutory authority to build a wall on the border.
    10 U.S. Code § 284 - Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime http://bit.ly/2GaJDxb
    (7) Construction of roads and fences ... to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump had all the authority he needed on day one to build the wall and deport the invaders.
    His base does blame him for not doing it.

    Article IV, Section 4
    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion"

    The Constitution obligates the federal government to prevent invasion.

    The Constitution obligates Trump to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", including immigration laws.

    Trump is the first President in *decades* to actually even *attempt* to uphold the constitution with regards to immigration.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because when the Founding Fathers wrote Article IV, they were totally thinking of illegal immigration as a form of invasion. Oh wait no they weren't - illegal immigration wasn't even a concept back in 1787!

    This is more of buybuy's motivated reasoning to use whatever available argument to justify border restrictionism.

    Since your arguments don't seem to be well grounded in consistency, logic, facts or reason, one might justifiably conclude that they stem from another source...

  • buybuydandavis||

    " illegal immigration wasn't even a concept back in 1787!"

    They explicitly put federal control or migration in the Constitution. And I've pointed it out before.

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    "This is more of buybuy's motivated reasoning"

    so much projection from racebaiterjeff

    He just pretends inconvenient facts just don't exist no matter how many times you show them to him.

    "Since your arguments don't seem to be well grounded in consistency, logic, facts or reason, one might justifiably conclude that they stem from another source..."

    Wassamatter, racebaiterjeff? Losing the stones for your racebaiting? Just gonna cower behind innuendo?

    Your intellectual dishonesty and cowardice know no bounds.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well this is more of your schtick. When called out on your nonsense, you just refuse to acknowledge your error, shift the goalposts, and call people names. But you will never admit your error and never argue in good faith. Because to do so would be to "cave to the Left" or some such. Evidently even consistency in one's arguments is a Leftist plot or some such.

    1. Article IV does not refer to illegal immigration, because illegal immigration wasn't even a thing back in 1787. If I'm wrong, and it does, then show anywhere in the Founders' writings, SCOTUS cases, etc., that demonstrates that it does.

    2. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 refers to the migration of *slaves*, not free people. If I'm wrong, and it does refer to the migration of all people, then show me anywhere in the Founders' writings, SCOTUS cases, etc., that demonstrates that it does.

    On both items, you are wrong. This isn't even an issue up for debate among people living in reality. You just want to grasp at any argument whatsoever that supports your desired result, regardless if it's consistent, logical, principled, or even fact-based.

    3. It's not race-baiting to point out that even you yourself have admitted that you're motivated by fear of foreigners. You're afraid that the migrants will destroy America. And you'll come up with any sort of motivated reasoning to justify your fear.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor chemjeff and his reading comprehension problems.

  • buybuydandavis||

    2. "such persons". They could have said slaves. They didn't. Not all persons were slaves. When they wanted to, they made the distinction between free and unfree persons clear. They made no such distinction here. "such persons". Migration or importation. Free persons migrate. Property is imported. It says what it says.

    1. Is there any number that would constitute an invasion to you? What number? Or can India and China just move here?

    3. American is not a race. Not American is not a race. You're the guy who can only see race, racebaiterjeff. The Left always projects its hatreds and crimes on the Right.

    I do fear crime. Big government is crime. Foreign immigrants want bigger government. They want to increase government crime against American citizens. By supporting open borders, you support increasing big government crime against Americans.

    Are you a libertarian, or not? Do you think big government violates rights, or not?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He isn't shifting the goalposts you kiddie raper enthusiast. He's explaining the enumerated power of the federal govt. to regulate immigration. Everyone knows what this means, and it is accepted as such. Period.

    Yet you keep trying your sophist, semantical bullshit. Just stop. It doesn't work.

    It just shows what a stupid shit you are. Fucking pedo.

  • MJBinAL||

    Jeff, it takes a special kind of idiot (like you) to make these kinds of statements even after someone has posted the exact text from the law involved.

    I, and we, all get that you don't agree with Trump. I, and we, all get that you are a frustrated Social Democrat. Even so, would you please read and try to understand the law exerpts that are posted?

    If you want to oppose policies you don't like, it will be more effective based on reality. When you say stupid shit that demonstrated you either did not read, or did not understand the informative posts of others. It just leads people to disregard ALL your posts. Doesn't that work contrary to your objective?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    For the Lefties this is gonna hurt for some time.

    MAGA

  • Rich||

    "The president doesn't get to just declare an emergency for something that Congress has deliberated many times over the past several years."

    "Oh, very well. I'll get my phone and my pen."

  • Agammamon||

    Amash, I feel for you buddy, I really do.

    Yes, the President *shouldn't* be able to unilaterally 'call an emergency'. And at one point he couldn't. But your predecessors delegated that authority to him out of laziness, stupidity, and wanting to be able to do the Seaman shrug when people start asking 'who's responsible' after a fuckup.

    So he does have that power.

    You want it to be one way. But it's the other way.

  • DenverJ||

    I was gonna try to say something like that but gave up because lazy/ drunk.
    Thank you for putting it succinctly.

  • Sevo||

    "Rep. Justin Amash: 'The President Doesn't Get To Just Declare an Emergency'"
    Kinda like the press, it's shame he didn't figure this out a bit earlier:

    "Justin A. Amash is an American attorney and Republican member of Congress. In January 2011, he began serving as the U.S. Representative for MI's 3.
    (wiki)
    "President Barack Obama
    [...]
    Feb. 25, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya, continued in February 2018;
    July 24, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations, continued in July 2018;
    May 16, 2012 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen, continued in May 2012;
    June 25, 2012: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2015;
    March 6, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, continued in March 2018;

  • Sevo||

    April 3, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan, continued in Cont'd.
    March 2018;
    May 12, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic, continued in May 2018;
    March 8, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela, continued in March 2018;
    April 1, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, continued in March 2018;
    Nov. 22, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi, continued in November 2018."
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-
    national-emergencies-have-been-
    called-by-presidents/

  • Libertymike||

    Do you like Presidents declaring national emergencies?

    Progressives do.

    Slaves as well.

  • Sam Haysom||

    I like it when you are sad. I vote for people to make you sad- it's hilarious.

  • Sevo||

    Libertymike|2.26.19 @ 7:30PM|#
    "Do you like Presidents declaring national emergencies?"

    Whoosh!
    Try learning to read.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's only bad when you do it to save America from invasion. Walls are bad, m'kay?"

  • MJBinAL||

    Now here is a question for you.

    Do ANY of these declarations of a National Emergency look like National Emergencies to you?
    Protecting Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, Central African Republic, Venzuela, Burundi ?

    You may not think that Trump is right to regard the hundreds of thousands of people illegally crossing our borders as an invasion, but it is certainly far more like a national emergency than ANY of the examples Sevo provided.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Whataboutism!"

    The endless cry of people who don't believe in the Rule of Law.

    If a Rule isn't applied equally to all, it's a rationalization for power.

  • Ordinary Person||

    If an emergency is whatever a President says it is then the law is unconstitutional.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    *except if Obama did it, then it's totally constitutional

  • Libertymike||

    The statute itself, however is not authorized by the constitution.

    The basics:

    (1) Obviously, there is no specific grant of power in the federal constitution the framers and ratifiers bestowed upon Congress to give the President the power to declare emergencies.

    (2) There is no grant of power conferred upon the Congress authorizing its abdication of legislative power to the President. This is why the entire administrative state is unconstitutional.

    (3) During the state ratification conventions, the proponents of the federal constitution assured the delegates that the only powers that both the executive and legislative branches would have are specifically enumerated and that NO OTHER FUCKING POWERS WOULD BE IMPLIED.

    (4) There is no power given to either the executive or legislative branch to themselves imply that they have other, non-enumerated and specified powers.

    (5) There was no power given to the courts to create, imply or rubber-stamp power grabs or delegations by either the executive or legislative branches.

    (6) Had the delegates to the state ratifying conventions been told that Congress could enlarge its powers or delegate them to the President, the constitution would never have been ratified/

    (7) All powers enumerated should be narrowly construed. After all, it is the progressive who thinks that powers should be construed expansively.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You forgot the special Article 12 of the Constitution:
    "If Obama did it, then Trump gets to do it too"

  • buybuydandavis||

    Amendment 13 - Orange Man Bad!

    sta·re de·ci·sis
    /ˌsterē dəˈsīsəs/
    noun
    the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.
    "a doctrine of stare decisis"

    The fundamental of rule of law is consistency. It's not just Obama, it's every President since the law was enacted.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There's some motivated reasoning right there. This would be the same 'stare decisis' that justifies legal abortion, justifies public funding of Planned Parenthood, justifies endless war, justifies the surveillance state, right? Oh but you're not big on principles or consistency, it's just about finding whatever argument works to defend Trump.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The fundamental of rule of law is consistency.

    I thought the fundamental of rule of law was... following the law.

    Oh wait, but in Motivated Reasoning Land, rule of law *actually* means justifying illegal behavior as long as it leads you to your desired goal. Right?

  • buybuydandavis||

    racebaiterjeff just can't put two and two together, can he?

    If the Law doesn't apply *consistently* to all, then it aint the Rule of Law, it's the Rule of Men.

    Try to keep up, racebaiterjeff.

    Did you read about "motivated reasoning" today? Or is your cognitive dissonance just taking the form of projection again?

    Shouldn't you just be shrieking "Racist!" at me? Or is that incantation no longer holding the Bad Thoughts at bay?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So here you are, rushing to the defense of stare decisis, when it is precisely that principle that leaves in place so much of what the Left wants - the welfare state, legal abortion, funding of Planned Parenthood, etc.

    You don't give a shit about stare decisis as a general principle. You don't give a shit about "rule of law" as a general principle. They are just words that you invoke as a magic incantation to justify your border restrictionism.

  • buybuydandavis||

    So much projection of your feelz into me.
    So little reference to the argument.

    Rule of Law, or Rule of Men, racebaiterjeff?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Rep. Justin Amash: 'The President Doesn't Get To Just Declare an Emergency'

    "I can't read law."
    "I want the invasion to continue until America is destroyed."

    I'd like to hear his answer to "What number of illegal aliens would constitute an emergency?"

    I'm guessing he'd refuse to give a number.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Amash is chairman of the House Liberty Caucus, which announced its opposition to Trump's national emergency declaration on similar grounds."

    The pretend friends of liberty want the invasion of big government voters to continue forever.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Amash wont sponsor legislation to repeal the national emergency act, only give Reason staff horde invasion boners.

  • buybuydandavis||

    So much for "muh principles".

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Should the President have the authority to just declare an emergency? No. DOES he? Yes. The law that gives him that authority is clearly unconstitutional, but so is a heck of a lot that the government does, and the government keeps doing it anyway and the SCOTUS lets most of it go.

    This is what you get when you give the State a lot of power it shouldn't have; you get somebody you disagree with politically grabbing that power and ramming it up your backside.

    That's gonna burn for a while.

    See, if we're going to start demanding that the State stick to its Constitutional role, I'd like to start with something a trifle more important that a few billion dollars to build a war at the border. Ending all 'gun control' laws springs to mind.

  • Sevo||

    "This is what you get when you give the State a lot of power it shouldn't have; you get somebody you disagree with politically grabbing that power and ramming it up your backside."

    Mr. Trueman and Mr. Taft had a discussion about that regarding Truman (in effect) declaring war on the North Koreans.
    Taft lost. As did we all.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thanks for border wall money suckers!

    Another Trump campaign promise fulfilled.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'm still huffy about the lack of progress on immigration, but I do love the tactics here.

    Get the Dems to show that they're opposed to border security, but don't have the balls to appropriate *no* funds.
    Take the money they give, then give them the finger and take more!
    Finally, a little will to use the executive power he has for immigration. Can't call this Orange Jeb!

    MAGA!

  • Johnny Galt||

    Another ignorant rep bemoans the fact that Congress already declared Presidents DO "just get to declare an emergency." This is what happens when you delegate your power away.

    The horses have already left the barn, running around trying to close the door now just makes you look more foolish. Want your power back? Better get bipartisan support to nullify or amend the existing law you dummies passed. In fact, if they were to pass an amended law that only affects FUTURE Emergency declarations, President Trump probably would not veto it.

  • MJBinAL||

    Finally Mr. Amash,

    This was not a surprise. Trump TOLD you he was going to do this. Over and over again he told you.

    If you REALLY wanted to stop it, you could have passed a law ending National Emergencies... In ADVANCE.

    The fact that you didn't even discuss doing so just exposes your hypocrisy.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Did he even submit a bill to do it?

    No?
    "Muh principles"

  • ||

    So congress punts its job, like they always do, and give the executive branch the authority to declare an emergency and reallocate resources. Such emergencys include:

    Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)
    Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)
    Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (Oct. 21, 1995)
    Continuation of Export Control Regulations (Aug. 17, 2001)
    Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (Sept. 14, 2001)
    Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (Mar. 6, 2003)
    Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)
    Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)
    Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (Jun. 16, 2006)
    Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
    Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)

    But no, because #orangemanbad, this is one is no bueno?

    If congress would just stop punting and do its job, stop giving its authority to the execs, then this wouldn't be an issue.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    ""The president doesn't get to just declare an emergency for something that Congress has deliberated many times over the past several years.""

    Ah, actually, until you repeal the NEA, he does get to do that.

  • cheapmcmbelt||

    Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.moschinooutletonlinestore.com/ word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

  • Arcade Visas||

    Best Hong Kong Immigration Visa Consultants in Delhi
    Most of the People are Really Confused about their Immigration Process Because Immigrate into Another Country is a Big Step of your Life and Career as well. 95% Of the People who want to Migrate into another Country don't know the Process for Example: How to Migrate? what is the Eligibility Criteria? What Documents are Required? and the most Common Question comes that who are the Best Immigration Consultant? and more. If These Kind of Question also Comes into your mind Then you are the Right Place. Best Hong Kong Immigration Visa Consultants in Delhi Here you will get your all Answers Regarding Immigration.
    http://avsimmigration.in/best-.....-in-delhi/

  • killboyumeed847548588||

    Well, unless you can get them all together and can use a bomb. Hmmm, sayyyy, are there are any places you can think of where central planners are collected together?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online