Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Bipartisan Stirrings on the National Emergencies Act

by June 5, 2024
June 5, 2024
Bipartisan Stirrings on the National Emergencies Act

Walter Olson

Could bipartisan reform of the National Emergencies Act (NEA) move forward as early as this year?

There might be hope. Jennifer Shutt at States Newsroom, reporting on a Senate Homeland Security hearing held May 22, writes that senators from both parties “appeared to be on the same page about limiting presidential emergency powers” and that bipartisan collaboration on the details could happen “in the coming months.” The committee is controlled by Democrats; ranking Republican member Sen. Rand Paul (R‑KY) is a longtime advocate of emergencies reform.

Gene Healy, senior vice president for policy at the Cato Institute, was among the three witnesses at the hearing. He noted that Congress enacted the NEA in 1976 as

a framework statute aimed at restoring congressional oversight and “returning the United States to normal peacetime processes.” Title I of the NEA brought those four emergencies to a close, sunsetting the authorities they relied upon. Title II of the act imposed procedural strictures designed to cabin presidential emergency powers. To invoke such powers, the president was required to formally declare a national emergency and specify the statutory provisions he intended to rely on. Emergency declarations would expire after one year unless renewed by the president, but could be terminated earlier by presidential or congressional action.

For the most part, the Act failed. One reason is that it does not try to define what a national emergency is, instead leaving the practical drawing of lines to the give and take between Congress and the White House.

Unfortunately for that plan, its main practical mechanism for enforcement was the device known as the legislative veto, under which Congress was accorded power to terminate emergencies by a majority vote of both chambers. But in 1983 the Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto device. With that gone, the president can simply veto any measure that by declaring an end to an obsolete emergency threatens to curtail his power. The result is that Congress can lift an emergency against the executive’s will only by mustering a veto‐​proof majority.

That is why presidents go on renewing emergencies at will decades after the original rationale has expired. As Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center noted in her comprehensive testimony,

renewal of emergencies after one year, intended to be the exception, has become the default. Most of the emergencies declared since the National Emergencies Act was passed are still in effect. The average length of emergencies has been close to a decade, with 31 emergencies lasting even longer. The longest‐​running state of emergency was issued by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 in response to the Iranian hostage crisis and remains in place today.

As dangerous executive powers go, it’s understandable to focus on the separate Insurrection Act, under which presidents can deploy troops domestically. But Goitein says the NEA leaves the gate open for presidents to assert a wide range of other domestic powers that could prove dangerous, including powers to freeze private bank accounts and control the transportation system and even the Internet under authorities from the old days of telephone and telegraph regulation.

The third witness, Satya Thallam, currently at the Foundation for American Innovation, worked on the law 2015–2019 as a staffer with the Senate Homeland Security Committee. His testimony traces the NEA’s legislative origins, which were distinctly bipartisan, and says part of its cross‐​aisle appeal was specifically that it afforded a “policy‐​neutral mechanism.”

“Though Democrats and Republicans were ultimately motivated by different specific emergencies they found to be illegitimate, they found common cause in upholding Congress’s constitutional responsibility, no matter who occupies the White House,” said Thallam.

Emergencies reform saw a flurry of bipartisan interest in 2019 when it was the subject of a Cato forum, Cato Policy Report article by Deborah Pearlstein and Ilya Somin, and commentary from Gene Healy, who also wrote a relevant chapter in the 2022 Cato Handbook for Policymakers. On the spending side, Romina Boccia and Dominik Lett recently noted that emergency declarations open the door to profligate and far‐​from‐​transparent government expenditures.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Will Spotify Smash Its All-Time High of $387?
next post
Social Security Spending Adds to the National Debt

You may also like

How Special Interests Keep Bad Laws on the...

August 4, 2025

The First Amendment Protects Against Bad‐​Faith Prosecutions

June 8, 2023

What Does Biden Plan for the Tax Code?

March 12, 2024

Responding to Senator Rubio on Industrial Policy

April 25, 2024

Repealing Certificate of Need Laws Should Help Irrigate...

November 17, 2023

Large-Scale Food Stamp Fraud

May 30, 2025

Expensing Is Key in Any Pro‐​Growth Tax Package

April 20, 2023

The Tragic but Unsurprising Costs of Loose U.S....

May 24, 2023

70% Say Founders Would Disagree with How We...

September 17, 2024

Governor DeSantis Tells Residents of the “Free State...

May 3, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Friday Feature: Helena Homeschool Enrichment Co-op

      August 22, 2025
    • Justice Jackson accuses Supreme Court of ensuring Trump ‘always wins’ in scathing dissent

      August 22, 2025
    • John Bolton blasted by Trump ally Roger Stone, who faced Biden FBI raid: ‘Karma is a b—-‘

      August 22, 2025
    • Trump–Bolton feud back in focus after FBI raid: ‘Never had a clue … what a dope!’

      August 22, 2025
    • James Comer praises Kash Patel for ‘holding deep state accountable’ as FBI raids John Bolton’s home

      August 22, 2025
    • From Tariff Shock to Mild Sting: How the EU Deal Could Affect Drug Prices for Patients

      August 22, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,855)
    • Investing (2,234)
    • Politics (16,463)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved