The Wall

Column 2019-7 (2/18/19)

To wall or not to wall, that is the question. The controversy over the wall has consumed far more ink and megabytes than did the debates about invading Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m not sure that rantings about the wall have changed a single mind.

It might be well to clarify a few points. Building the wall won’t come close to securing the border, even if it blocks all land traffic to and from Mexico. Are we going to extend the wall up 1he Pacific, Gulf, and Atlantic coasts? How about the Canadian border?

Drug traffickers have evaded every obstacle the US government has thrown in their way. Can anyone believe the wall will significantly affect the drug trade? Most illegals in this country enter through legal ports of entry. They merely forget to leave. The wall won’t change that.

The wall isn’t going to save civilization. Not building the wall won’t send us crashing into a new dark age. The one question remaining is, Will the wall be a small net benefit, or a small net detriment? Whether the wall is built, or not, I doubt that the question will ever be answered. History won’t reveal what might have happened along the road not traveled.

Declaring a national emergency to build the wall is insane. Just because it is insane doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Building the wall certainly won’t be as insane as was the invasion of Iraq.

I see one benefit from the wall controversy. The benefit is serendipitous rather than intended. President Trump’s claim that he can build the wall by declaring a national emergency has focused attention on what his emergency powers might be.

Various reporters have dug up emergency power laws passed by Congress. What they have found resemble a very scary Halloween movie. If the grants of power are taken at face value, the president can essentially rule as a dictator.

Congress made little attempt to define “emergency.” This little detail seems to be left up to the president. Does anyone believe President Trump, or any other president, will have a narrow view of his own powers?

I saw a cartoon of Trump sitting at a table with burgers on it. He was saying, “I ordered three packets of ketchup. It is a national emergency.” Perhaps emergencies, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.

For ages Congress has passed vague laws allowing bureaucrats in the executive branch to write most of the law, prosecute violators, and decide if the individuals prosecuted are guilty. Is it possible that Congress might have second thoughts on writing these blank checks to the White House? Of course, before Congress can have a second thought, it must have a first thought.

A simple start would be, limit declarations of national emergencies to 90 days unless Congress votes to continue the emergency. If the president can’t convince Congress that an emergency exists, it probably isn’t an emergency. If all a president need do to bypass Congress is say the magic words “National emergency,” the country is hard wired for dictatorship.

Granted, in theory Congress can always vote to take away emergency powers it granted. In reality, what are the chances Congress will be able override the almost inevitable veto? It would be far safer to limit the president’s powers in advance.

One unanswered question is, Does Congress have the right to grant dictatorial power to the president? We may have started the march to the answer.

In 1952 the Supreme Court did rule against President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills.

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2019

Albert D. McCallum