Could Obama use the National Emergencies Act to take over from BP?

neverforget

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-22-10 12:43 PM
Original message

Could Obama use the National Emergencies Act to take over from BP?

This disaster is man-made, ongoing and threatening the life and well-being of the people and the economy of the Gulf States with no end in sight. If this isn't a national emergency, I don't know what is.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

--snip from CRS1--
Under the Powers delegated by such statute, the President may seize property, organize and control means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the means of free enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.
--snip--

Now obviously, President Obama doesn't need most of those powers in this particular oil disaster situation.

--snip--
The Emergency Concept
Relying upon constitutional authority or congressional delegations made at
various times over the past 200 years, the President of the United States may exercise
certain powers in the event that the continued existence of the nation is threatened by
crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances. What is a national emergency?

In the simplest understanding of the term, the dictionary defines an emergency
as�an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for
immediate action.�10 In the midst of the crisis of the Great Depression, a 1934
Supreme Court majority opinion characterized an emergency in terms of urgency and
relative infrequency of occurrence as well as equivalence to a public calamity
resulting from fire, flood, or like disaster not reasonably subject to anticipation.11 An
eminent constitutional scholar, the late Edward S. Corwin, explained emergency
conditions as being those �which have not attained enough of stability or recurrency
to admit of their being dealt with according to rule.�12 During congressional
committee hearings on emergency powers in 1973, a political scientist described an
emergency in the following terms: �It denotes the existence of conditions of varying
nature, intensity and duration, which are perceived to threaten life or well-being
beyond tolerable limits.�13 Corwin also indicated it �connotes the existence of
conditions suddenly intensifying the degree of existing danger to life or well-being
beyond that which is accepted as normal.�14

There are perhaps at least four aspects of an emergency condition. The first is
its temporal character: an emergency is sudden, unforeseen, and of unknown
duration. The second is its potential gravity: an emergency is dangerous and
threatening to life and well-being. The third, in terms of governmental role and
authority, is the matter of perception: who discerns this phenomenon? The
Constitution may be guiding on this question, but not always conclusive. Fourth,
there is the element of response: by definition, an emergency requires immediate
action, but is, as well, unanticipated and, therefore, as Corwin notes, cannot always
be �dealt with according to rule.� From these simple factors arise the dynamics of CRS-5.

While some might argue that the concept of emergency powers can be extended to
embrace authority exercised in response to circumstances of natural disaster, this dimension
is not within the scope of this report. Various federal response arrangements and programs
for dealing with natural disasters have been established and administered with no potential
or actual disruption of constitutional arrangements. With regard to Corwin�s
characterization of emergency conditions, these long-standing arrangements and programs
suggest that natural disasters do �admit of their being dealt with according to rule."
--snip--