Monday, June 22, 2009
Chapter 8. The Courts and Emergency Powers
Much of Chapter 8 is about how the courts deal with presidents who claim emergency powers. The general answer is that at least when the emergency is going on the courts generally allow the president to do what he or she wishes. But what about today when we seem to be living in a world of ongoing continuing emergency? Clearly presidents need some emergency powers when a nation is under attack, but how do we know that the attack is over or when an economic crisis seems to be facing? Who decides? To leave that entirely up to presidents could mean that the emergency is never over—it invites abuse of power. What would you suggest? How and who should decide that an emergency is over and that a president's emergency powers no longer apply? Be creative here and do not be afraid to even propose a constitutional amendment!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is very tricky in the sense that the book says most Presidents do put these powers into effect during times of crisis without the ok from Congress or the courts. The book also states that the courts are less likely to go against the President as long as they have public opinion on their side. Creating an amendment as to when these powers should be enacted is risky because you would then have to define exactly what powers the amendment is speaking of. The framers puposefully left emergency powers undefined in the Constitution for fear that Presidents would then abuse them and not give them back. If I recall in either this chapter or the last it stated that Presidents can send troops to threats without the approval of Congress or the courts. This is a necessity of course because Presidents often have to move briskly in order to avoid the loss of life or prevent further threat. The problem is clear, but the solution is tough. I believe that the decision to retract emergency powers from the President should go to a vote in the Senate. I believe that for a President to retain emergency powers the Senate would have to give a 2/3 vote to retain. This would force the President to actually get approval from Congress to go to war should the President not be allowed to retain his emergency powers. To make a motion for this to get voted on would take only 1/3 of the Senate to agree for it to go to a vote. This would enable the courts to stay out of it, which is what they tend to do in matters involving Presidential powers, and keep things amongst our elected officials. It isn't perfect, but it could work.--Adam Wise
ReplyDeleteAs the text says... in times of crisis the American people want a president to use his emergency powers, and Congress usually yields to him. I believe that a president should be able to decide when a "crisis" is ocurring. However, if the president continues to use those powers after the apparent "crisis" is over I believe that the Congress should have some kind of power to rope him in. The Supreme Court should also be able to strike down the use of emergency powers as an excuse, and rule that a president has abused his power.
ReplyDelete-Heath Wheat
Presidents are allowed to use emergency powers in times of crisis. When we are in dire need of some form of emergency power then it they should be used. When the initial crisis period is over then the emergency powers should be stopped.If a president continues using these powers then someone with powers to withhold the presidents decisions, like congress, should try and seace the decisions that he is making and stop the emergency powers. If the president continues abusing these powers then he should be considered for impeachment because as a president, you must have the ability to obey and decipher the guidelines congress has implemented. Although the punishment may seem extreme, you would make an example out of someone who doesnt follow the rules and show the future canidates that you must follow the system of checks and balances and must not abuse the powers given to you for they are a privelge.
ReplyDeleteThe president of the United States should use good judgment in deciding what lengths to go to in the instance that a crisis arises. I believe when such a problem occurs, the Supreme Court should take a vote on whether or not the situation at hand is indeed a crisis or not. With a 2/3 vote approval, a situation may be labeled a crisis. When it is officially pronounced as a crisis, the president should be granted emergency powers. Those powers should last as long as the courts see fit. This is a tricky situation, however, like most other issues, the courts may overturn any of the president's moves. I would hope that such a problem would not come about. After all, America should have chosen someone with good judgment, someone who has a level head and doesn't make silly decisions. Furthermore, a "deadline" should be set in the case of a crisis. If the president uses his excessive powers beyond that point, he should be subject to punishment of some sort.
ReplyDeleteI think the business of checks and balances should come into place here even more effectively. The president is given the opportunity with more powers, yet congress oversees his decisions in a way.
-Michael Baltzegar
Kemberly Merritt
ReplyDeleteJune 24, 2009
I would suggest that the President is granted limited amount of power for a period time. If the situation does not get better or continues to get worse, the President must allow others to help solve the problem or crises. When there is an problem that is extreme such as the United States being under attack, the President should be allowed to make a decision if there is not time to negotiate. When there is enough time to sit and negotiate how to solve issues, the President should consult with others such as Congress and the House of Representatives. If I could write an Amendment concerning the President having power in time of crises it would be: When the United States is in major crises or under attack and the lives of the citizens are in danger. The President should have limited powers to make decisions but he must express his decision truthfully. The President will be given limited power and time to ensure the citizens of the United States that his power will not be abused.
Adam’s proposed solution is thoughtful. Requiring a 2/3’s vote to KEEP the emergency rather than END it accounts for the fact that a president can usually rally public opinion and pressure Congress to support the troops. So Adam is asking that the president meet a higher standard, convincing a supermajority of 2/3’s to support a continued emergency. The other way or just a simple majority would come pretty close to giving the president a blank check on this.
ReplyDeleteHeath, the Supreme Court has already played this role, but as you can see from the historical examples, they rarely limit a president here, especially when public opinion is on his side. So the Court is probably not an effective check on abuse.
Ashlynn – impeachment is very difficult, and only effective under the greatest abuses in which a lot of evidence exists – consider the three efforts that have taken place historically, and none of them really involved a president claiming emergency powers. Figuring out the rules for when an initial crisis is over is also a tough thing to set up. Ultimately, that needs to be left to someone’s political judgment, and probably that should be some part of the Congress, not the courts, which try to avoid political judgments. This also applies to Michael’s comment.
What Kemberly has suggested is pretty close to the status quo. It reads fairly closely to the War Powers Act, which recognizes the power of the president as commander in chief to send troops to defend the nation. Ideas like "limited" or "abused" are highly subjective, and therefore subject to political judgment.
Bob B
Seldom have the President’s emergency powers been abused…at least within the first few days after a crisis emerges. I think the most important question to answer is when an “emergency” reduces to something of “high importance.” Emergency powers should be used as a first response mechanism, not as a preemptive devise for presidents who take “Commander in Chief” to a whole new level. Presidents like this can easily use public opinion, or even sway it in times of panic and anger, to accomplish anything they wish, even if that wish is to start a new war with a different enemy all together. This problem cannot simply be fixed with a time limit on first responses but I do think that putting a vote to the senate would be a better system than going through the courts. I do feel, however, that a 1/3 vote isn’t enough to satisfy a majority; I think at least 51 Senators should be able to come to an agreement with the President’s plan of action.
ReplyDeleteCorey Adamson