President Trumps latest statement did not disprove the existence of a national emergency
The media and some pundits have been salivating ever since President Trump declared a national emergency at a recent press conference. At that time, according to Roll Call, the president stated (regarding the national emergency), "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster." Many pundits and media outlets jumped on this statement and argued that the statement, in and of itself, establishes that no national emergency exists. This conclusion is an incorrect rush to judgment, as the president's statement did not disprove the obvious existence of a national emergency.
To understand why these pundits and those in the media and on the left might be disappointed, one need only look at the statement in the proper historical context. According to ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, by making these statements, the president admitted that there is no national emergency. Some have even claimed that it would almost be malpractice not to use the president's words against him in any lawsuit relating to the national emergency. While the various pundits and media outlets are free to voice their thoughts and opinions, nothing in the president's statements appears to negate or mitigate the existence of a national emergency.
To the contrary, the president's statement is entirely accurate. More particularly, the president didn't need to declare a national emergency. He could have continued to negotiate with Senate Democrats, and he could have shut down the government for a second time. Therefore, in this context, he was entirely correct that he did not need to declare the emergency. Those who are now threatening to include the president's "statements" in their pending, or newly drafted, lawsuits challenging the emergency are simply deceiving themselves by utilizing a play on words.
Given the number of people trying to illegally cross the border, it is abundantly clear that the president was not saying he did not need to declare a national emergency because one didn't exist. Rather, he was referring to the obvious fact that he would not have needed to declare the emergency had congressional Democrats realized the gravity of the situation and adequately funded the wall. While it is likely that some left-leaning courts will utilize this so-called "admission" against the president, the Supreme Court will hopefully see through this charade and look at it in the proper context. As Roll Call pointed out, quoting Trump, "We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn't be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we'll get another bad ruling, and then we'll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully, we'll get a fair shake, and we'll win in the Supreme Court, just like the [travel] ban."
The same can be said about Trump's desire to get funding much faster. The president made numerous efforts to negotiate with congressional Democrats to obtain funding for the border wall. He made several good-faith offers and even agreed to a three-week temporary end to the partial government shutdown that did not include funding for a border wall. As the deadline was set to expire, the president was presented with a terrible and alleged "bipartisan" deal that included little money for the border wall. Therefore, the president had a choice. He could either reject the agreement, thereby leading to another government shutdown, or sign the agreement and find the funds elsewhere. His decision to do the latter and his desire to obtain the funding faster has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a national emergency.
The media and some of the various pundits are, once again, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. President Trump's comment did not disprove the existence of a national emergency, and it is doubtful that the nation's highest court will find these statements persuasive or compelling. Time will tell what ultimately happens. However, the president's most recent comment should not be a determining factor, as it was entirely accurate when considered in the appropriate context and had no bearing on the existence of a national emergency.
Mr. Hakim is a writer, commentator and a practicing attorney. His articles have been published in The Washington
Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Western Journal, American Thinker and other online publications.