Anonymous ID: 7a4c45 April 13, 2020, 5:21 p.m. No.8782829   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2849 >>2967

"'EMERGENCY POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE"'

According to Thomas Jefferson, the laws of necessity or even those of self-preservation, which necessitate the immediate action to preserve the safety of our country when in danger, are of the highest obligation.

 

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means…

The officer who is called to act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the Constitution, and his station makes it his duty to incur that risk… The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer is bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives."

 

Jefferson recognized the concept of necessity as a by-product of self-preservation. Without necessity, there is a heightened potential for the abuse of presidential authority. Chief Justice Stone in Kahanamoku directed that ―[the] executive has broad discretion in determining when the public emergency is such as to give rise to the necessity. The determination that an emergency exists is a decision exclusively resting with the President.

 

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=jlh

Anonymous ID: 7a4c45 April 13, 2020, 5:38 p.m. No.8783083   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>8782849

Essentially, yes. From the last pages of the linked article:

 

According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, ―[i]t is both desirable and likely that more careful attention will be paid by the courts to the basis for the government's claims of necessity as a basis for curtailing civil liberty. The laws will thus not be silent . . . but they will speak with a somewhat different voice. History dictates that under Executive discretion, ―the necessity for action in a manifest emergency will permit exercise of granted powers in unusual ways that may threaten individual liberties.

As this Article contends, it is clear that the President is inherently granted with the powers to unilaterally act to protect and control the national security and interests of the United States. Some powers may not be explicitly spelled out, and instead, may be implicit. This is so because ―[o]f all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. When necessary to preserve and protect the safety and integrity of the United States and its responsibilities and obligations as a sovereign nation, the President‘s powers are the broadest.