Congressional delegation members from the region are expressing frustration with President Donald Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency to secure funding for a wall on the southern border.
President Trump made the announcement Friday from the White House.
“I’m going to be signing a national emergency, and it’s been signed many times before. It’s been signed by other presidents from 1977 or so it gave the presidents the power,” Trump said. “There’s rarely been a problem. They sign it, nobody cares. I guess they weren’t very exciting.”
The President argued that he is doing so to address “an invasion of our country with drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs,” according to CNN.
“We don’t control our own border,” Trump said. “We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border and we’re going to do it – one way or the other we have to do it.”
Reaction from elected officials in New York, Vermont and New Hampshire came quickly.
“The President’s utter failure to deliver on a phony campaign promise may be a political emergency for him, but it is not an emergency for the nation under the law or the Constitution. This willful and dangerous action will not withstand scrutiny in the courts. The wall will not be built,” wrote Rep. Peter Welch (D – Vermont) in a statement.
“I remain committed to keeping the government open and securing the border, and I support the bipartisan appropriations package. However, I believe that declaring a national emergency is the wrong decision and will be challenged in the courts,” wrote Rep. Elise Stefanik (R – NY 21st District).
“Not only is @POTUS declaring a constitutionally dubious state of emergency to fulfill a campaign slogan, he’s even trying to take federal dollars from drug interdiction efforts to do it. This is unconscionable and completely backward.,” tweeted Sen. Maggie Hassan (D – New Hampshire).
“In the days and weeks ahead, the President’s emergency declaration — which amounts to an end run around both the Constitution and Congress — will be challenged both in the courts and in Congress. The time has come for my Republican friends to take a stand. President Trump will be but a blip in our nation’s history,” wrote Sen. Patrick Leahy (D – Vermont) in a statement.
“This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed President, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,” wrote Sen. Chuck Schumer (D – NY), in a joint statement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“I have grave concerns that he’s creating a precedent for the executive branch to declare states of emergency for non-emergency situations and it’s not only reckless but it’s unwise,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D – New York).
During his announcement at the White House, President Trump admitted the emergency declaration is likely to be tested in court.
“We will then be sued ad they’ll sue us in the 9th Circuit even thought it shouldn’t be there. And we will possibly get a bad ruling and then we’ll get another bad ruling and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court and hopefully we’ll get a fair shake and we’ll win in the Supreme Court, just like the ban,” he said.
University of Vermont law associate professor Lisa Holmes says it’s what happens next that could determine whether it’s constitutional.
“If the President diverts money that Congress entailed to other entitities, that could in fact be unconstitutional,” said Holmes.
Holmes says, the President has the power to declare the emergency, but the legal ramifications depend on how he implements his vision and who, if anybody, has standing to take the case to court.
“For example, people who could be affected by this, depending on how the President chooses to move forward, could be entities that otherwise would have gotten federal funds that are now diverted to the wall or landowners whose property is being seized,” explained Holmes.