Not an emergency

Not an emergency

Continuing this series of my columns from last year, this one was published on July 27th.

The US Constitution specifies a separation of powers. Unlike in Britain, there is no monarch sitting at the summit – even figuratively – of the three co-equal branches. Congress legislates. The President executes the law. The judiciary adjudicates.

There is no point at which one branch failing to do what another branch wants creates an “emergency”. That word does not appear in the Constitution. Disagreement between the separate branches is a feature, not a bug. In parliamentary systems, the executive is accountable to the legislature. In dictatorships, the legislature is accountable to the executive. In the US both are accountable to the law.

The separate branches sometimes disagree. If agreement is a requirement for action – as it typically is with legislation or appropriations – then disagreement means no action can be taken. The different branches must find an accommodation, or the status quo prevails.

If the President says, “if you don’t act, I will”, he is effectively saying, “if you don’t obey me, I will seize powers which the Constitution grants to you”. The legislature is under no obligation to “act”, let alone to simply do what the President demands. When it stands up the President this is not a failure, or a crisis, it is constitutional government in action.

It is true that Congress has delegated some of its powers – far too many of them, in this column’s view – to the executive. Under certain strictly constrained circumstances, the President can invoke powers normally exercised by Congress. These are supposed to be for emergency use. For example, if Congress cannot convene fast enough to consider the proposal, then the President should be able to act.

If Congress has considered a proposal and declined to pass it, this cannot, by definition, constitute an emergency. That’s Congress exercising its constitutionally mandated role.

When President Trump wanted funds for a “border wall” and Congress refused, that was not an emergency. It was a disagreement. The President thought his pet project was a top priority. Congress disagreed.

When President Biden wants new policies on climate change and Congress refuses to enact them, that is also not an emergency. The policies themselves may be good or bad, but the need for them has not arisen since Congress last sat. For the President to invoke “emergency” powers while Congress is in session is necessarily suspect.

Nor is it acceptable for “emergencies” to continue indefinitely. They should continue until Congress has had the chance to debate the matter, and then automatically lapse. The oldest current “emergency” was declared by President Carter in 1979. Congress has had more than four decades to consider whether his proposed measures were sensible or not, and to either enact or not at its own discretion within the legislative powers which it, and not the President, gets to exercise.

There is urgent – perhaps even emergency – need to review the legislation under which presidents can declare emergencies. They should all lapse, if not affirmatively declared by Congress, at the end of the next session. Nothing Congress has refused to do should be deemed an emergency by the President without demonstrable and dramatic changes in circumstances.

Congress should legislate and the President should execute the law.


Quentin Langley lives in New York and teaches at Fordham University. His book, Business and the Culture of Ethics was published in September 2020

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Quentin Langley的更多文章

  • A policy for food prices

    A policy for food prices

    Another of my favorites from among my columns last year. This one was published on September 4th 2024, just after…

  • Back to the seventies?

    Back to the seventies?

    This was one of my columns from last year, published on April 10th 2024. “Industrial policy” was one of the many…

  • CRISIS

    CRISIS

    DC air collision claims Within hours of the midair collision in the approach to Reagan National Airport people were…

  • What the US elections mean for ESG.

    What the US elections mean for ESG.

    Global Connector interviewed Shiva Rajgopal, Kester & Byrnes Professor at Columbia Business School, for his take on…

  • Chatting with ChatGPT about polling

    Chatting with ChatGPT about polling

    Polling shows that Vice-President Harris has a bigger lead among women than former President Trump does among men…

  • Boeing strike heads into second month

    Boeing strike heads into second month

    New blog at Brandjack News about the various crises at Boeing: https://brandjack.typepad.

  • CRISIS || TECH

    CRISIS || TECH

    New Critical Infrastructure Attack There has been a new hack of American critical infrastructure, with an attack on the…

  • Fall Edition

    Fall Edition

    ESG Allegations mount of plastics recycling “fraud” The very first column I wrote as Environment Correspondent of Small…

    2 条评论
  • Disney backs down from arbitration claim

    Disney backs down from arbitration claim

    Did you know that if you have a Disney+ account you have waived the right to sue Disney before a jury and agreed…

  • Summer Special

    Summer Special

    TECH How reliable are online reviews? Organizations are always keen for us to review them. But how useful are the…

    2 条评论

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了