By Nathaniel Bodnar ’19
Staff Writer
On Monday, February 18, 16 states filed a lawsuit to stop President Trump’s funding of a border wall without congressional approval. This lawsuit follows in the wake of the President declaring a national emergency over wall funds. Even if the courts successfully block Trump’s “emergency,” Trump has now given precedent to future presidents for using this move to solve their own “real” emergencies while in office. With such liberal usage of national emergencies, the entire concept of the American Republic threatens to teeter over the edge. This particular emergency might be stopped, but what example has been set for Trump’s successors?
Many conservatives initially said Democrats would embrace the concept of exercising the National Emergencies Act (NEA), though they specifically disapprove of Trump’s usage. They would, of course, prefer to use such precedents to accomplish their own partisan goals. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) quickly proved this theory to be true when she tweeted on February 14:: “Gun violence is an emergency. Climate change is an emergency. Our country’s opioid epidemic is an emergency. Donald Trump’s ridiculous wall is not an emergency.” She still believes in this overreach of executive power, just not that Trump’s issues are “real” emergencies.
Warren’s “emergencies” are problems, but we have bigger problems in the U.S. than her partisan issues and, even then, those are still not emergencies. Emergencies do not require long-term plans: climate change cannot be solved overnight. It will take decades of sustained, worldwide efforts. The U.S. alone cannot solve that problem. In 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 38,748 traffic deaths and 38,658 firearm deaths. Gun violence does not make the list as one of the Top 10 causes of death in the U.S.; suicide, diabetes, influenza, and cancer are all listed. Yet, none of them are national emergencies, because they are not easy fixes. They require years—if not decades—of research, planning, and action. Let’s not be so naive to think we can solve problems like climate change, gun violence, or an opioid crisis with the snap of the finger.
Emergencies are sudden and catastrophic events that require immediate action. Even many of the current “emergencies” under the NEA are not real emergencies. Since 1978, 58 national emergencies have been declared and 31 of those are still in effect today. The first national emergency under the act was in 1979: “Blocking Iran Government Property,” which was most recently extended last November. It is hard to imagine this really is an emergency if it has been going on for 40 years. We are still in a state of emergency from 9/11, under the NEA. This is clearly false: no event has occurred since 9/11 mirroring that magnitude, Bin Laden has been dead for over seven years, and an Al-Qaeda offshoot has since grown into a bigger threat. It is no longer a state of emergency. Yes, we need policy to deal with terrorist threats, but that does not translate to a state of emergency.
Originally, I thought the best part of the Trump presidency would be its ability to convince Democrats to limit the power of the president. Unfortunately, it seems that Democrats, like Warren, instead wish to use the ever-expanding powers of the presidency for their own personal gain and leave the door open to a future of authoritarianism. Even worse is the fact that some Republicans are embracing Trump’s power grabbing, like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Only a few have stood up to Trump like they did to President Barack Obama. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) called out both Trump and Graham for using and supporting emergency powers to fund the wall.
By and large, both parties have seemed to support broad executive actions when a member of their party is in power. Whether that was Obama’s executive orders on immigration or Trump’s executive orders on the same matter, their own parties for the most part followed without question. It is concerning that the American Republic seems to concentrate more and more power in the executive branch, betraying the separation of powers the nation is built on. People seem to detest that when they are out of power but as soon as “their guy” gets in office, they seem to have no qualms about their leaders’ vast power. In the words of Former Congressman Joe Walsh: “What makes me the saddest is that I always thought most Americans feared & detested a King.” It seems every presidency we get closer to having one.
Nathaniel Bodnar can be reached at bodnarnm@mx.lakeforest.edu.
