Reference News Network reported on February 17 that an important committee of the US House of Representatives announced on February 15 that it would immediately investigate President Trump's announcement of the state of emergency, saying that he obtained funds for the construction of the US-Mexico border wall. The move brought constitutional and legal issues. The letter signed by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler, and other high-ranking Democrats in the committee said: We believe that you (referred to as President Trump) declared a state of emergency that demonstrates the principle of decentralization and our constitutional system. Your responsibilities are extremely indifferent.
The Judicial Committee of the House of Representatives is planning to investigate
Reuters reported on February 15 that an important committee of the US House of Representatives announced on February 15 that it would immediately investigate President Trump's announcement of a state of emergency, claiming that he would fund the construction of the US-Mexico border wall. The move brought constitutional and legal issues.
In a letter to Trump, the Democrats who controlled the House Judiciary Committee asked the Republican president to let the White House and the Justice Department participate in the operation of the officials. They also requested relevant legal documents leading to this announcement and set a deadline of February 22.
The report said that the letter signed by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler, and other high-ranking Democrats in the committee said: We believe that your declared state of emergency indicates the principle of decentralization and our constitutional system. Your own duties are extremely indifferent.
According to the British Daily Telegraph website reported on February 15th, as Trump said that he plans to use existing government funds to build the US-Mexico border wall, Democrats and some groups claim to illegally announce with Trump. Fight the actions of the state of emergency.
The US president hopes to raise $8 billion through various means to build a wall on the southern border of the United States. The most controversial thing is that Trump hopes to use the powers that have been declared after the state of emergency to use the funds currently used for military construction projects.
National and Senate Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer issued a statement condemning this decision.
The report quoted the two-person joint statement saying: The president's illegal statement on a non-existent crisis violated the Constitution, made the United States less secure, and stole the defense that was urgently needed to ensure the security of our military and the country. funds.
Democrats have not yet decided whether to take legal action, but the group established by former government lawyers to protect democracy and liberal think tanks Kansin Karin has said it will do so.
According to the Associated Press reported on February 15, President Trump announced a state of emergency to build his long-awaited border wall. His decision to use administrative power made the Republicans deeply disturbed. Some support the president, while others strongly oppose it, which triggers a possible showdown.
North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis said: I don't think that declaring a national emergency is the solution to the problem. He warned that if the future president has unrestricted administrative power, it will bring the country into the rabbit hole.
The report quoted Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio as saying: No crisis can be a constitutional reason.
Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander said: It is unnecessary and unwise to declare a state of emergency and it is contrary to the US Constitution.
The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his team of leaders warned Trump not to do so. In the past few days, they have publicly urged him not to declare a state of emergency. But as Trump made an announcement on Friday, Republican leaders largely supported Trump.
The report said that South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, who once opposed the announcement of a state of emergency, told Fox News Channel that he now fully supports it. He said: If we don't support Trump trying to build the wall with the methods he can use, our Republicans are fools.
White House congressionality is facing challenges
According to the February 15 report of the New York Times website, President Trump announced on February 15 that the border entered a state of emergency to obtain billions of dollars in the construction of the border wall that Congress refused to provide for him. Turning a highly tense policy dispute into a fundamental confrontation on decentralization.
The president's decision immediately led to condemnation by Democrats and some Republicans who claimed that Trump's abuse of power violated the Constitution.
AFP reported on February 15 that President Trump announced a state of emergency on the US-Mexico border on February 15th, which immediately attracted legal challenges. These challenges are likely to escalate to the White House and Congress. A milestone test between power balances.
The report quoted legal experts as saying that a president used emergency powers to overcome the unprecedented refusal of Congress to fund his wishes. This is a matter of building a wall at the US-Mexico border to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the United States.
They also questioned Trump's classification of immigration issues as a state of emergency and the use of military funds for non-military projects.
A few hours after the announcement of the decision, the Trump administration faced investigations by the House Judiciary Committee and litigation from New York, California, and the American Civil Rights League.
California Governor Gavin Newsom said: President Trump is creating a crisis and announcing a man-made 'state of emergency' to seize power and subvert the constitution. California will meet you in court.
Trump said he expected a legal battle and predicted that he would win.
He said on February 15: We will face a national emergency and then we will be sued.
Then our lawsuit will reach the Supreme Court, hoping that we will get a fair judgment and we will eventually win in the Supreme Court.
The report quoted Jennifer Daskar, a professor of law at American University, as saying that this is a precedent. She also said that the National Emergency Law has never been activated in this way.
Critics warn that Trump opens the door for future presidents: as long as their demands are not met in Congress, they can activate the National Emergency Law.
According to the February 17 report of the British Times website, the United States has been in a state of constant national emergency for the past 40 years. In 1979, President Carter froze Iran's assets under the National Emergency Law and has since been updated annually.
The report said that the law was mainly used by successive presidents to advance foreign policy goals and to safeguard US security when war or national security is at risk.
However, the state of emergency announced by President Trump on February 15 is different. No US leader has attempted to use the law to obtain the funds needed to implement the plan after failing to convince Congress to support his own domestic plan.
The report believes that this debate is likely to eventually lead to the Supreme Court, where Trump appointed two conservative judges who tilted the power of the Supreme Court to the right. However, few constitutional experts defend the president, and most believe that he has crossed the boundaries set by law.
If Trump wins the lawsuit, he will establish a broader definition of the state of emergency, which the future president can use to obtain funding for domestic projects without the approval of Congress, thereby empowering The balance tilts towards the president.
Dissatisfaction with drawing military funds
The Washington Post website also reported on February 15 that President Trump decided to declare a state of emergency so that the Pentagon's funds could be used to build the border wall. This decision is a big challenge for the Department of Defense, because it is necessary to save more than $6 billion that Trump intends to take from the military budget, and the Department of Defense faces a difficult choice to cancel or postpone projects and activities.
Trump plans to spend $3.6 billion from military construction funds and $2.5 billion from military anti-drug projects to help build a 234-mile border wall. In addition to these military funds, Trump will also use the $1.375 billion wall-building fund that Congress included in a recent bill, and hopes to take about $600 million from the Treasury's fines and confiscation fund, for a total amount of more than $8 billion. A recent study found that building a border wall would cost at least $15 billion, up to a maximum of $25 billion.
Using the Pentagon's budget in a state of emergency is basically equivalent to bypassing Congress, because Congress has traditionally held Washington's fiscal power, but so far Congress has refused to grant Trump the wall funding he wants.
Pentagon officials have been checking the books for weeks to determine which projects should be abandoned or frozen to fund the construction of the border wall if the president uses military funds. Navy Colonel Bill Spykers said in a statement that the Ministry of Defence is considering a plan to build a border wall. He said: It is not appropriate to make further comments on these efforts.
At a press conference on February 15, Trump denied that his plan to get funding from the Pentagon budget could make it impossible for members of the armed forces to get the technology or housing they needed.
The report quoted Trump as saying that he took the $750 billion budget for the Pentagon in his first year and $716 billion in the second year, and promised to continue to secure a large budget for the military this year. He said that the funds he took to build the border wall were only a small part.
Trump's withdrawal of funds from the Pentagon's construction budget comes at a time when people's families are strongly protesting against the old living conditions of military bases. A recent survey found cases of Aspergillus niger, lead and parasitic infections in privatized military homes, which Congress members said were shocking and angry.
The report quoted Senate Military Committee member Tim Kane to send a letter to Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan saying that the military's current backlog of maintenance projects requires more than $116 billion, 23% of which are in good condition. 9% of the facilities are in an endangered facility.
I am worried that a project that the President originally said must be paid for by Mexico will be borne by military service personnel and their families, and they will be forced to continue to endure the 'old' or 'endangered' living conditions, Kay En wrote in the letter that the safety and well-being of our soldiers and their families is the highest duty of every commander of the military, and this is no exception for the highest commander.
The Trump administration official said in a call to reporters on February 15 that the Pentagon will not draw funds for projects affecting the military readiness status.
We will look for military construction projects with lower priority. We will look for projects that can wait a few months to next year (re-repair). A senior official of the Trump administration said.