Q: How do you respond to a national emergency? A: Impeach the man who created it.

[edelsont]

Now he's gone and done it.  Donald Trump has declared that a decades-old situation at the US - Mexican border has suddenly become a "national emergency."  He thinks that, having done so, he can now spend money on a "big, beautiful wall": money that Congress has, just now, refused to appropriate.

I don't think so, and I'm not alone.  The media have published various pieces on ways that he could be prevented from doing this.  One of those is Answers to 4 Key Questions About Trump’s Declaration of an Emergency, by Nicholas Fandos, published yesterday in The New York Times.

From the second paragraph of that story: "Lawmakers seeking to block the president have two paths — one in Congress, the other in the courts."  It becomes clear, a little further down, that the path "in Congress" that he has in mind is this: "Under the National Emergencies Act, the House and the Senate can take up what is called a joint resolution of termination to end the emergency status ...."

Well, yeah, they can do that.  What surprisingly few people have mentioned, so far, is that there's something else, something more decisive, that they can do.  That something is called impeachment.

I have posted a comment on that Times story.  The full text of my comment reads as follows:

---

From the story: "Lawmakers seeking to block the president have two paths ...."

That is not correct.  There is a third option, and it is the one that I recommend.

The House of Representatives can vote to impeach the president, and the Senate can remove him from office.

This so-called "state of emergency" is utterly unlike any declared before.  Let's call it what it is: an attempt to overthrow the Constitution.

As such, it is fully sufficient, even without the other high crimes and misdemeanors of which we know or suspect, to justify removing him from office.

And there is no need for committee hearings.  The House, at least, could have its floor vote today.

Comments

Impeachment? No. Not now.

[(Anonymous)]

Finally got around to doing some reading. It would be so nice if we could impeach this idiot without tearing the country apart. But I don’t think we can. Nancy Pelosi was the first one to actually say what I have been thinking—- that he is just not worth the effort! Let’s save money , time, and energy and soundly defeat him in 2020. Get him out of office, then indict him for the numerous traits against the constitution and let him rot in jail. I think that holds more promise and will take less of our resources. The other thing I have been thinking is to declare his entire election and administration null and void and undo all the damage that had been done in the name of privilege. Just a few reflections from here. We are slowly digging out from the epic blizzard of 2019. Today it was warm enough that I was able to break away some of the accumulated ice on the patio allowing me to safely access thebirdfeedersand fill them. Are you traveling? I notice you have not posted this month! Hope you are well. Beckie

Re: Impeachment? No. Not now.

[edelsont]

Thanks for your comment!

I think I still lean towards the view that impeaching the Orange Outrage is doable without tearing the country apart, and worth doing.

At the same time, I acknowledge that it may be just as well that it isn't my decision to make.