Emergency powers

[Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>]

Of course, Michael Froomkin is right in everything he says about
presidential emergency powers. But an unconstitutional abuse of power is
surely not acceptable merely because it has become a routine method for
accomplishing everyday legislative tasks.  First, it allows significant
possibility for future abuse; and second, if the Constitution is routinely
circumvented, this diminishes its general power (as any law loses its
power when it is routinely flouted). The situation is all the more
troubling because it receives so little publicity, outside of militant
"extremist" groups (i.e. those that are crazy enough to believe that
presidential power should be limited in accordance with the law of the
land). When a president can take almost action under the excuse that it's
a "national emergency" (when in fact there is no emergency), and he
doesn't have to answer questions till later, and most citizens are unaware
of this, we have a potentially dangerous situation. They key word here is
"potentially." Michael Froomkin seems relatively sanguine because the
potential for great harm has not been realized. I am not so easily
reassured. 

--Charles Platt