Our view: Republicans will rue support for national emergency

America’s Founders were not big on executive power. Even after a war with Britain, the Constitution’s authors saw no reason for a strong presidency.

Many of the powers they assigned to presidents, including staffing their own administrations, were contingent on congressional approval. The authority of presidents to act unilaterally included vetoing legislation, granting pardons and not much else.

But over the years, congresses and courts concluded that a more powerful and flexible president was needed. They indulged presidents’ sweeping claims of authority. They also enacted laws that allowed presidents to act without congressional approval and in ways not outlined in the Constitution.

Notable among these is the 1976 National Emergencies Act, a law that codifies presidents’ power to declare an emergency. This act, as well as narrower provisions in other laws, presumes that presidents would exercise these powers with great restraint and only in real emergencies, not to make good on campaign promises or mollify activists within their party.

Clearly that is not the case with the White House announcement Thursday that President Donald Trump would sign a bipartisan spending compromise to prevent another government shutdown but would also move more money into his border wall project (the one Mexico was supposed to pay for) by declaring a national emergency.

The most obvious consequence of this destructive executive overreach is the precedent it would set for future Democratic presidents. It’s not hard to imagine them declaring emergencies to address gun violence, immigration, climate change, medical costs and other causes of interest to the left — and Republicans howling about an imperial presidency.

Assuming that Congress is unable or unwilling to overrule Trump’s emergency declaration, it will almost certainly be challenged in court. That would mean a ruling on whether the situation at the border really is a national emergency. In all likelihood, the answer would be no. Illegal immigration and the influx of Central American asylum seekers are significant ongoing problems, not national crises like Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks.

The legal challenge would also invite the courts to consider the broader question of whether Congress even has the right to cede its constitutionally derived powers, including the power of the purse, to the president. Trump is acting unilaterally because Congress wouldn’t give him more than $1.4 billion for border barriers.

All of this should prompt Republicans to ask: Is the extra wall money worth trampling on the Constitution, stretching the definition of emergency, setting a bad precedent and diverting money from other worthy projects?

The clear answer is no.