It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is a declaration of emergency? Some initial Research.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
So, I cannot recall a Presidential declaration of emergency except for cases of natural disasters in my lifetime (b. 1962), so I decided to try and do some research on the topic for all of here on ATS to get up to speed.

I am putting up a few sources and links. I don't want to do a wall of text that no one will read.

I am hoping other members can add some facts from their own research, and I imagine some folks will add some interpretations to those facts.

As always, let's try to keep to the topic, which is What is a declaration of emergency?

I am sure we all are itching to blame one side or the other, but can we try and stay on topic, and figure out things like what constitutes an emergency, what have past emergencies looked like, what were the outcomes, who controls the start and end, etc.

OK, now for what I have found. I am limiting this to just a few sources for brevity:


...many provisions of law exist in various jurisdictions, which take effect only upon an executive declaration of emergency; some 500 federal laws take effect upon a presidential declaration of emergency. The National Emergencies Act regulates this process at the federal level. It requires the President to specifically identify the provisions activated and to renew the declaration annually so as to prevent an arbitrarily broad or open-ended emergency. Presidents have occasionally taken action justified as necessary or prudent because of a state of emergency, only to have the action struck down in court as unconstitutional.


Source


The National Emergencies Act (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 stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize the power of Congress to provide certain checks and balances on the emergency powers of the President. The Act of Congress imposes certain procedural formalities on the President when invoking such powers. The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency. The H.R. 3884 legislation was passed by the 94th United States Congress and signed by the 38th President of the United States Gerald R. Ford on September 14, 1976.[1] The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress.


Source

I am looking forward to discussing this topic and learning more, so that all of us are prepared to engage in rational, fact based discussions in the future concerning the President's upcoming announcement tomorrow.

Enjoy, all you scholars!


edit on 7-1-2019 by FilthyUSMonkey because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Some of the worst case possibilities:


Things to watch for during a “Declared National Emergency”
canadafreepress.com...

“Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.”

Next we will look at all legislation passed or attempted by the dishonest Socialist regardless if they call themselves Progressive, Liberal, Independent, Republican, or Democrat.

If you have a computer you can look up the legislation.

Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

Here are the later Executive Orders:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An “emergency czar” was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Wow. Good research, but kinda scary.

I just found this:


One law that could appear to give Mr Trump the potential to invoke emergency powers for the wall is a little-known law called the Insurrection Act.  It allows the president to deploy troops inside the US to suppress any “unlawful combinations” or “conspiracies” that “obstructs or hinders the execution of the law”.  The statute, however, does not define the terms, making it vague enough to potentially use against undocumented migrants crossing into the US from Mexico. Legal powers available to the president are “ripe for abuse” during a national emergency, Ms Goitein said, adding: “There’s no legal definition of emergency, no requirement that Congress ratify the decision, and no judicial review.” Much like Mr Trump’s travel ban, a wall built using emergency powers would almost certainly face a litany of legal challenges, giving courts the opportunity push back against the president’s authority. 


Source



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   


“Ultimately he has no constitutional authority to exercise the power to build this wall without Congress’ approval,” Lessig said. “These statutes were certainly not written with the intent to give a man like Donald Trump the power that he’s now claiming.”


This quote is from a "Constitutional Law expert" and Harvard professor... I know it comes from the Guardian, not sure if that is one of those no-source be true sites or not.... but here is the link....

news.yahoo.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   


The United States Code (Title 42, Chapter 68, Subchapter I, §5122), now defines emergency and major disaster as follows:

"Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.

"Major disaster means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this chapter to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby."


Source



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Yeah, I doubt we would ever see worst case barring a truly catastrophic event like WW3, Asteroid strike, or Yellowstone blowout.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

The source really doesn't matter if the intention is a quote. Then it becomes a matter of integrity of that person.

His description of the sitting U.S.president would indicate some hefty bias, IMO.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Yeah, I doubt we would ever see worst case barring a truly catastrophic event like WW3, Asteroid strike, or Yellowstone blowout.


We can only hope it never come to any of those things you laid out. On the bright side, we wouldn't be worried about making the mortgage or if the team won on Sunday...
edit on 7-1-2019 by FilthyUSMonkey because: sp



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: headorheart

Thus the use of the applicable term emergency I would imagine.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
It looks like the President can declare a state of emergency at any time, and the powers under the constitution are very broad. I don't think congress can do anything to stop this, although it looks like they could use legislation or the courts to effect the outcomes after the fact.


The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—he is able to set aside many of the legal limits on his authority. Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.



examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush’s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union. The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception


Source



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

The problem is as this thread illustrates, the wording can be interpreted in many different ways.

Although I am for the wall and want the shutdown to end, I am against Trump using this strategy to get the wall.

Once he does it, then every President afterwards will seek to do the same thing, thus further diminishing the role of the legislative branch, which i fear is already given up far to much of their power.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, I have never looked at this particular presidential power before. It looks like it was set up to give the president powers needed to repel an full scale invasion in a timely manner, before the congress could react. The powers implied are immense.

The wording of the The National Emergencies Act, which was suppose to restrain the powers of the president are still so vague as to render any president a possible dictator for a short time, if required by the emergency. This is some pretty serious stuff that should be well considered by every American.

Thanks for the input.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It is a massive step into the authoritarian field, that is to be sure and not understated.

Conversely, the gridlock is very real. D's won't put funding in for the wall and Trump won't sign a bill without.

So, what's there to do?

It seems compromise is completely off the table.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, I have never looked at this particular presidential power before. It looks like it was set up to give the president powers needed to repel an full scale invasion in a timely manner, before the congress could react. The powers implied are immense.

The wording of the The National Emergencies Act, which was suppose to restrain the powers of the president are still so vague as to render any president a possible dictator for a short time, if required by the emergency. This is some pretty serious stuff that should be well considered by every American.

Thanks for the input.



Yep my reading is similar to yours.

It seems this was intended for invasion type scenarios.

I think illegal immigration and border security is a very important problem to solve, but I do not think it meets the spirit of what these powers were meant to deal with.

I will not cheer for increased executive power just because i like the policy being pushed.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I am pretty much on the fence over the wall (pun intended). I don't see it doing much harm (except for the environment - animal migrations, etc.), but don't know that it would do much good. I have looked at a few studies and they are mostly pretty biased at one end or the other.

I do like walls though, and I saw that they were pretty effective when stationed in east Germany during the 1980's. The czech boarder (one K zone) was straight up fencing 1 kilometer wide with razor wire on top, and the 1 K zone was mined. There were guard towers, and periodic patrols on both sides. Seemed to work pretty well. I got lost once and almost drove right up to the NATO side of the checkpoint. Not good.




edit on 7-1-2019 by FilthyUSMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Would be nice to see that discussion take place in the upper echelons of US gov't.

However we have full toddler behavior in place. A solid yes and a solid no.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Would be nice to see that discussion take place in the upper echelons of US gov't.

However we have full toddler behavior in place. A solid yes and a solid no.


Sounds like that stalemate might end tomorrow at 9:00 pm est.

Will be interesting to watch, either way.

Nothing I can control, and would not get caught up in that type of drama even if I could. It is like the time my kids were arguing over a bag of M&M's. I grabbed the bag and poured the entire contents into the garbage can, which was full of coffee grounds and other gunk. The kids were mad at me, but the bickering stopped, and they learned that if they couldn't compromise then dad would make the decision, and dad decisions are not always the best for the folks arguing.
edit on 7-1-2019 by FilthyUSMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

We will see.

I agree, we've no control over the matter regardless.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   
On that note could a Dim president use the same act to tear the wall down??




posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

I was looking around and found we are already in a state of emergency. Any time one is declared, it usually is renewed over and over almost forever.

Obama extends post-9/11 state of national emergency for 16th year

This is an article from 2016.

There are now 32 states of national emergency pending in the United States, with the oldest being a 1979 emergency declared by President Jimmy Carter to impose sanctions during the Iran hostage crisis. Most are used to impose economic sanctions — mostly as a formality, because Congress requires it under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

In his term in office, Obama has declared 13 new emergencies, continued 21 declared by his predecessors and revoked just two, which imposed sanctions on Liberia and Russia.


Emergencies Without End: A Primer on Federal States of Emergency

This one from 2017 is very interesting.


As of today, 28 emergencies remain in effect. The list still includes the first emergency authorized under the act—President Jimmy Carter’s 1979 emergency, declared ten days after Iranian students took American diplomats hostage in Tehran. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump renewed the emergency for the 38th time.

Why have seven presidents extended the 1979 emergency 38 times? It, along with a second emergency declared in 1995 to implement the oil embargo, forms the basis for many of the United States’ sanctions on Iran. The president’s (and thereby the the Treasury Department’s) power to impose sanctions for foreign policy purposes comes from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA was passed one year after the National Emergencies Act, and it grants the president sweeping economic power in response to “any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” But IEEPA doesn’t supplant the National Emergencies Act. Rather, the president may take advantage of IEEPA powers only if he declares a national emergency (with respect to that foreign threat) under the National Emergencies Act.

In fact, 26 of the 28 national emergencies currently active invoke IEEPA.


This International Emergency Economic Powers Act may, by itself, give Trump enough to build a wall.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join