Why is Trump constantly ‘discovers’ and ‘digs’ centuries -long laws

Donald Trump shows the US that they are constantly facing emergencies, citing a number of crises and attempting to activate powers that Congress has incorporated into various parts of the United States Legal Code for centuries, having a great deal of power.

This is also confirmed by the attitude of the market for the latest crisis in Los Angeles, where he activated the army, with lawyers pointing out, for many times, that the President’s actions are not covered by the legal provisions he quoted, but are dictated by different motives.

“It declares completely false emergencies, in order to expand its power, to undermine the Constitution and to destroy political freedoms,” said Ilya Somin, a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School, who has been involved in the affidavit.

The “crisis” is Donald Trump’s trademark, New York Times explains. When he first took power, he promised to put an end to the “massacre of America”. In a recent announcement of his new candidacy, he pledged to reverse the country’s “shocking decline”. Since 2015, when he began his political career, he has consistently argued that he only could bring the United States back to their grandeur.

Now that he is back in power, he is trying to turn this rhetoric into politics. Trump characterizes the “emergency” circumstances and events that were considered common in other periods in order to rely on powers that few predecessors attempted to exploit, but which exist in old laws of the US state in cases of real crises.

Frank O. Bauman, a law professor at the University of Missouri, explains that the laws referred to by Trump are based on the assumption that the powers they provide will not be subject to abuse.

However, as he points out, Trump’s approach deviates from this logic as he points out that “when you begin to declare everything as a state of emergency, you go on a course where state violence and power can be used against people you just don’t like.”

In a statement, White House spokesman Taylor Rogers accused the Democrats of failing to “protect Americans from economic and national security threats – inaction that has led to serious crises”.

“President Trump is rightfully utilizing his executive power – as evidenced by his many judicial victories – to provide determination and relief to the American people,” he said.

However, in fact, the lower federal courts have mostly dismissed Trump’s allegations of power.

In March, Trump cited the Law on Enemy Aliens of 1798 (Alien Enemies Act), who allows the president to deport citizens of countries who are in war or are conducting an “aggressive invasion” against the US. Trump argued that Venezuelan’s violent gang Tren de Aragua invaded the United States, thus activating the law, which has been implemented only three times in the past: in the war of 1812, in the First and World War II.

Many judges have already rejected the rationale that gang activities justify the application of that law.

Judge Alvin, Mr. Hellestin of the Manhattan Federal Court of Justice, ruled last month that “there is nothing in the law of 1798 justifying the view that refugees migrated by Venezuela, or members of the TDA gang” penetrating them “.

Helerstein continued: “They do not seek to understand territories, expel American domination from some ground or plunder it. TDA may be involved in drug trafficking, but this is a criminal offense, not an invasion or robbery raid. “

The judge, Stephanie L. Hays of the Federal Regional Court for the western district of Pennsylvania, appointed by Trump, who ruled that the gang was involved in a “robbery”.

Regardless of the law of 1798, Donald Trump has adopted the rhetoric of a country under siege. In the midst of intensified ICE operations and violent demonstrations in California, he promised to “take all the measures necessary to release Los Angeles from the invasion of immigrants”.

He also used a similar excuse in April to impose duties, stating that “the practices of international trade and the economy have created a national emergency.” Two courts have rejected the legal basis of his actions, although an appellate court has temporarily suspended the validity of the broader decision.

California challenges Trump’s claims

California officials said on Monday that they are rejecting Donald Trump’s claim that there is a crisis in the state that requires extraordinary federal intervention, as they announced a lawsuit to take control by the federal government in a state -owned unit.

“The situation in Los Angeles did not meet the criteria for federalization,” state officials emphasized, explaining that the law provides federal involvement only in the event of an invasion of a foreign country, a rebellion against the US government or inability to execute federal laws.

The US Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Trump’s allegations of emergency. However, it has traditionally been skeptical of such allegations, regardless of the government.

In 2023, the court ruled that President Joe Biden exceeded his power when he canceled about $ 400 billion in student loans, citing a 2003 law that gave the executive power to protect borrowers in the event of war or national emergency.

In 2018, however, the Supreme Court ratified the ban on entry from a series of mainly Muslim countries imposed by Trump, ignoring his arson statements about the “emergency” faced by the country and the need for a “complete and absolute exclusion of Muslims”.

In the majority ruling, Supreme Court President John Roberts cited the immigration law that enables the President to “suspend the entry of all foreign or specific categories of foreigners” if he considers it necessary.

The Supreme Court is soon expected to rule on a case related to Trump’s executive decree to abolish the right to acquire the citizenship of those who are born in the US by irregular migrants or foreigners. Although the decision is not expected to consider the constitutional background of the decree, but the legitimacy of the lower judicial interventions that have blocked it, Trump’s supporters again invoke the allegation of “invasion” as a cause of emergency.

Judge James S. Ho, appointed by Donald Trump at the Fifth District Court of Appeal and has been reported as a potential candidate for the Supreme Court, had written in 2006 that the right to nationality due to birth is “protected for children without documents as well.

However, in an interview last November, he seemed to distance himself from this position, stating that “nationality at birth apparently does not apply in cases of war or invasion. I do not know anyone who has argued that aliens invaders are entitled to citizenship. And I can’t imagine what would be the legal basis for that. “

The Constitution refers to invasions in two key points: it forbids the federal states from being involved in war “unless they have received a real invasion or are in such immediate risk that it may not be postponed”. The other allows for the suspension of the right to be suspended through Habeas Corpus only “in cases of rebellion or invasion when public security requires it.”

In this context, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the White House and Trump’s leading Migration Advisor Steven Miller said last month that the government is considering the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the fundamental right to dispute it.