We begin today’s roundup with Amy Goldstein’s analysis at The Washington Post about how states are fighting back against President Trump’s unnecessary emergency declaration:
A coalition of 16 states filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block President Trump’s plan to build a border wall without permission from Congress, arguing that the president’s decision to declare a national emergency is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, brought by states with Democratic governors — except one, Maryland — seeks a preliminary injunction that would prevent the president from acting on his emergency declaration while the case plays out in the courts.
More details from Jane C. Timm at NBC News:
"Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. President Trump "is willing to manipulate the Office of the Presidency to engage in unconstitutional theater performed to convince his audience that he is committed to his ‘beautiful’ border wall. We’re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states."
Law professor Robert Chesney explains the eminent domain impact of Trump’s unnecessary border wall:
The Texans and others who face the loss of land because of eminent domain actions funded via Mr. Trump’s emergency declaration have standing to sue and good cause to do so. Not because the government may offer them too little money to constitute just compensation, though past practice suggests this will be an issue, too. Rather, they object to the process that the president has used to gain the funding after Congress largely denied it to him.
And at USA Today, Rodney Smolla explains one legal argument against the use of an emergency declaration in this context:
Any realistic appraisal of Trump's declaration will classify it as an act in defiance of Congress. He asked for the border wall funding, Congress said "no," and he said "I call emergency."
Furthermore, a constitutional principle known as the "nondelegation doctrine" bars Congress from delegating legislative authority to the president. Congress may delegate discretionary authority to the president, but it must provide some "intelligible principle" to guide that authority.
Meanwhile, while states and nonprofits go to court to block the building of an unnecessary border wall, Paul Krugman looks at what we should be building and the lack of a much-needed infrastructure plan:
Why isn’t Trump building anything? Surely he’s exactly the kind of politician likely to suffer from an edifice complex, a desire to see his name on big projects. Furthermore, during the 2016 campaign he didn’t just promise a wall, he also promised a major rebuilding of America’s infrastructure.
But month after month of inaction followed his inauguration. A year ago he again promised “the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in American history.” Again, nothing happened.
And Eugene Robinson explains why the Green New Deal has to be big and bold:
Who’s afraid of the Green New Deal? I’m not. It’s ambitious, aspirational, improbable, impractical — almost as audacious as putting a man on the moon. We used to be able to think big. Let’s do it again. [...]
The Green New Deal seeks to outline a national project for our time — not just a response to a grave environmental threat, but a framework for enhanced growth, opportunity and fairness.
The laudable aim is to play offense, not defense, in the fight to limit climate change. We are going to have to wage that battle one way or another. Why not do it on our terms, before Miami slips underwater and the yet-unburned parts of California go up in flames?
On a final note, don’t miss Michael Tomasky’s piece on Trump’s supporters:
The people who applaud the lock-’em up stuff are easy to account for. The people who are harder to get are the other 10 or whatever percent who aren’t MAGA-heads but who approve of the job he’s doing.
These people are utterly unfathomable to me. The ones who love him by definition can’t see what a crook, shyster, and cheater he is, what a bunch of grifters that whole family is, that he’s never lived an honest day in his life, that he’s a complete racist, that the only thing he thinks about any woman is whether she’s a piece of ass or not a piece of ass, and that on top of all that he’s a moron. I understand those people.
But the non-lovers who approve of the job he’s doing mystify me. How can they not see what a crook, shyster, and cheater he is, what a bunch of grifters that whole family is, that he’s never lived an honest day in his life, that he’s a complete racist, that the only thing he thinks about any woman is whether she’s a piece of ass or not a piece of ass, and that on top of all that he’s a moron?