Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1996/national.emergencies.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
national emergencies
``` [Here are a couple of messages following up on the "national emergency" note that I forwarded the other day. My own personal view, though I dissent from the black helicopter tradition of political criticism, is that it's a pretty serious situation when Presidents are declaring national emergencies at the drop of a hat. In any case, these two messages provide some facts on the issue.]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
---
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:27:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan Weinberg
Riffs on the "national emergency" theme are staples of the loony right (we are living under a national emergency that has caused the Constitution to be suspended; the tell-tale giveaways are the gold fringe around the U.S. flag [I'm not making this up], etc.). Here is a copy of a message I posted to another list in August responding to some of those= motifs.
---
A friend of Declan's wrote:
> Most American's have not been taught that since March 9, 1933 the=7F > president has had total authoritarian control over them through a > state of declared national emergency. > [rest deleted]
Congress over the last hundred years enacted a whole bunch of statutes that gave the Executive some power or other "in case of war or national emergency" -- by 1976, there were well over 400 such laws. Four times -- in 1933, 1950, 1970 and 1971 -- the President sought to take advantage of one of those provisions by declaring a "national emergency." Nobody ever got around to revoking any of those declarations; on the other hand, every time the President sought to invoke an emergency power, he declared a new emergency rather than relying on an old one.
Congress cleaned all this up in 1976 when it passed the National Emergencies Act. That statute ended all of the existing emergencies. It also provided that any new emergencies declared by the President had to be limited to specific threats, and would expire automatically (in one year) unless renewed. Congress repealed or amended existing statutes that gave the President specific powers in case of national emergency (including the banking powers of 12 U.S.C. 95a); it replaced them with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the President special powers, in cases of declared national emergency, over foreign trade. Since 1976, Presidents have declared IEEPA emergencies in order to impose restrictions on trade and/or arms shipments to Iran, Nicaragua, South Africa, Libya, Panama, Iraq, the former Yugoslav countries, Haiti and Angola. They have also used the IEEPA to continue in force general restrictions on munitions (yes, that includes strong crypto) exports.
---
Jonathan Weinberg Associate Prof. of Law Wayne State University weinberg@msen.com
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:23:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
{you may post this if you wish; or not (it's been on c'punx already)}
I would like to dampen a little of the panic and FUD that seems to be breeding on the question of the "national emergency" declared to keep the bulk of the Export Administration Act regulations in effect after the statute itself lapsed by its own terms. [Note, by the way, that the EAA rules are the mild ones. The tough ones are still in force and are not going away ... kill the EAA rules, and they start reclassifying everything back to the Military List?]
Whether you like it or not, Congress has delegated to the President sweeping authority to declare "national emergencies" due to foreign threats. In wartime the authority is very extensive; in peacetime almost as great. The authority is found in the "International Economic Emergency Powers Act" (IEEPA). While the President's determination that an "emergency" exists is not reviewable, actions taken under IEEPA authority are reviewable, indeed more reviewable than acts taken under the export control laws. Of course since the delegation of power is broad, it's often hard to win.
There have been LOTS of Presidential declaration of "emergencies" under IEEPA and its predecessor statutes (e.g.the "trading with the enemy act", which still applies in wartime). Indeed, there are fewer today than before Congress attempted to reform the system and required most of the large number of emergencies in force to cease. For example, every time the President orders an embargo, e.g. against Iran, the statute requires that he first declare an "emergency".
My point is not that Congress was wise to give the President this power. That's debatable; it's even more debatable that the intent was for it to be quite as broad as the courts have found it to be (see e.g. Harold Koh's book, The National Security Constitution, for more info).
And, the point is not that Presidents are using this power in a wise or measured way. It's obvious that they are not. At any given time since WWI, many many (too many) "national emergencies" have been in force.
And, the point is especially not that this President was wise to declare an emergency on these facts (although in his defense, several previous presidents did exactly the same thing when previous editions of the EAA lapsed; it seems to be something of a tradition...).
Rather, my point is a simple one. The fact that the President has declared an emergency here is primarily a technical legal event. It is not a sign that martial law is about to be declared, that they are coming to take you or your [fill in blank] away, or that anything fundamental has changed. Multi-year emergencies in which the executive uses one statute to compensate for the Congressional decision/failure to pass another statute is not, I submit, a particularly telling sign of a mature and healthy democracy. But this goes to large and gradual processes, not to anything that suddenly happened.
Again, for some background on all this, written before the Nov. 15 anouncements, see http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/planet_clipper.htm#POSTSCRIPT
A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506(fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.