Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Shouldn't the national emergencies act be declared void?

In the ACA battles, the courts last year ruled that you cann gladigotaphdinstead03/13/19
As I recall, the ACA had no savings/severability clauses. I wutwutwut03/13/19
Most statutes have a severability clause. It’s not the cou rastaman03/13/19
Congress granted the power to the executive branch with an e gladigotaphdinstead03/13/19
gladigotaphdinstead (Mar 13, 2019 - 4:21 pm)

In the ACA battles, the courts last year ruled that you cannot invalidate a certain clause of a legislative bill and leave the rest in tact, that if one part is overturned that the entire bill is thus null and void.

So, given that the national emergencies act was instated with the clause that a simple majority in congress could overturn a national emergency declaration by the president without the potential for a veto, and that was overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional, shouldn't the entire bill have been voided and the president NOT allowed to unilaterally declare national emergencies?

The initial ruling that you cannot put a clause into legislation giving conditional power is actually extremely ridiculous.

Reply
wutwutwut (Mar 13, 2019 - 5:03 pm)

As I recall, the ACA had no savings/severability clauses. It is not automatic that an entire public law falls if one part is declared unconstitutional.

I don't know about this national emergency law; maybe it had a severability clause.

Reply
rastaman (Mar 13, 2019 - 5:14 pm)

Most statutes have a severability clause. It’s not the courts job to decide how to spend money on emergencies. It’s congress’ job, unless Congress relegates that duty to the executive. This isn’t complex to understand ppl.

Reply
gladigotaphdinstead (Mar 13, 2019 - 5:23 pm)

Congress granted the power to the executive branch with an exception to counteract potential overreach and abuse as part of the original grant. To void the exception but leave in tact the granted power is insane. This IS hard to understand unless you’re some jackass who sees the trees instead of the forest on every single thing in his life.

It’s like if there was a system of govt with three separate but equal branches of and one branch says well let the another branch make declarations that we were previously only capable of doing unless the majority of us decide that declaration is unjust and then the third branch twenty years later said no they still have to grant that power now but the check they put in place as part of the deal is not allowed, sorry! Wait, no that’s exactly what the situation is.

Reply
Post a message in this thread