Yesterday: "Almost definitely"
“If [a deal with Congress] doesn’t work out, probably I will do it. I would almost say definitely,” Trump said of declaring a national emergency as he left the White House for Texas.
Today: Trump Backs Down
The "easy solution is for me to call a national emergency ... but I'm not going to do it so fast." Trump added "I have the absolute right to do it."
Trump said he would do it, it would be appealed, he expected to lose the appeal in the 9th Circuit, but would win in the Supreme Court.
"We have a country that is being invaded by criminals and by drugs and we're going to stop it," said Trump.
Who Pays for the Wall?
Compelling Mexico to Pay for the Wall
That's what Trump meant. That link was taken down.
Also, a March 2016 memo to Washington Post reporters explained multiple ways to “compel Mexico” to “make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion” to keep the U.S. from cutting off the spigot of money it already sends to Mexico annually.
Senator Lindsey Graham Wants Emergency Declaration
National Emergency Valid Idea?
It certainly within his right to declare a National Emergency. I have stated so many times.
What's questionable is whether or not Trump can bypass Congress on funding.
Stupid Thing to Do
I do not know for sure how the courts would rule, and nor does anyone else.
However, I do know that declaring a national emergency would be a stupid thing to do.
The editorial board accurately argues "He probably has the legal authority, but it’s still a bad precedent."
Because President Trump has deployed troops to the border, he theoretically could reallocate some of the $10 billion or so unobligated military construction funds for a wall. This would be a broad interpretation of the law since a wall is not necessary to support troops. But the Supreme Court has nearly always upheld executive actions pursuant to delegations of Congress.
Real Threat: Climate Change
If Mr. Trump did win in court, a President Elizabeth Warren might take the precedent as license to circumvent Congress whenever it is politically expedient. Rising carbon emissions or even income inequality could be declared national emergencies. The media would cheer them on.
That's the problem with declaring national emergencies when there truly aren't any.
Who the hell knows what the Democrats will do when they get their turn?
Mike "Mish" Shedlock