Why President Biden Should Use Emergency Powers Now to Stop Trump
In an era where the specter of Trump authoritarianism looms larger than ever over American democracy, the discussion around presidential emergency powers has taken on new urgency. With Donald Trump clinching the Republican nomination for the 2024 presidential race, his plans suggest an unsettling roadmap back to the White House, marked by policies and attitudes that many find antithetical to the principles of freedom and liberty that define the nation.
From deploying military forces within U.S. borders to silence dissent, to wielding the vast array of emergency powers in unprecedented ways, Trump’s vision for America’s future is not just concerning; it’s a direct threat to the foundational principles of the republic.
Given the gravity of this threat, it is imperative that the mechanisms of power, particularly those wielded by President Joe Biden, are employed with strategic foresight to safeguard the democratic institutions and liberties at stake.
It’s either this or send SEAL Team 6 to Mar a Lago-which actually isn’t a bad idea and one that is likely to be sanctioned by SCOTUS next month as they rule on unlimited presidential immunity.
The utilization of emergency powers by a president, historically reserved for times of national crisis, has always been a contentious issue, sparking debates about the balance between executive authority and the preservation of civil liberties. However, the situation today is extraordinary and demands an extraordinary response.
Exploring the Use of Emergency Powers
Under speculative scenarios that tread on the edge of democratic norms and principles, President Biden could, in theory, take several dramatic steps to counteract the ongoing existential threat to democracy:
Arresting Political Figures: Invoking national security provisions to detain individuals deemed a threat could be considered. However, such actions would necessitate incontrovertible evidence of activities directly threatening national security and would likely ignite significant legal and public controversy. Yet, since president’s can wield virtually unlimited power this wouldn’t be a problem for long.
Shutting Down Media Outlets: Biden could theoretically use certain provisions to argue that FOX “News” broadcasts pose a direct threat to national security. Yet, actions against media outlets for their reporting would face severe First Amendment challenges, highlighting the tension between security and free speech. Again, there would be protests but after a few weeks of FOX being off the air their addled audience would just come to accept it.
Detaining Members and Replacing Members of the Judiciary: This would represent an unprecedented challenge to the separation of powers, necessitating a careful navigation of constitutional protections that ensure judicial independence. Such actions would likely require impeachment proceedings rather than direct executive action. Impeachment is a broken process. Biden would do well to simply arrest Clarence Thomas ( and wife Ginny) Samuel Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, et al. New justices would be appointed. The country moves on.
Strengthening Checks and Balances: A Pessimistic Outlook
Amidst the labyrinth of political turmoil and partisan deadlock that characterizes the current state of the U.S. Congress, the notion that President Biden could significantly reform the checks and balances on executive power, especially regarding emergency powers, appears increasingly quixotic. This is a Congress where polarization has reached its zenith, rendering the body not just dysfunctional but seemingly incapable of any substantive, bipartisan action.
The idea of advocating for legislative reforms that define what constitutes a national emergency more clearly, requiring regular Congressional review of emergency declarations, and narrowing the scope of powers available under various acts to prevent their misuse, might sound prudent and necessary.
Yet, in reality, this aspiration crashes against the hard rocks of a Congress that is often mired in partisan bickering and ideological entrenchment. Expecting this Congress to come together to enact measures that would potentially curtail the power of the executive — especially when such power could be wielded to the advantage of one party over the other — seems more like a fanciful hope than a viable strategy.
The challenges are manifold and daunting. On one side, there’s a faction that views any limitation on executive power as anathema, especially if their party controls the White House. On the other hand, there are those who may publicly decry the overreach of executive power but are loath to actually implement reforms that could diminish their party’s sway when in power.
This hypocritical dance around the issue of checks and balances leaves the nation in a precarious position, with the specter of unchecked executive authority looming ever larger.
In this context, President Biden’s role as an advocate for change is not just challenged; it is Sisyphean. The stark reality is that expecting a broken and deeply divided Congress to enact reforms that would safeguard the nation against the potential for executive overreach is, at best, overly optimistic, and at worst, dangerously naive. In a political landscape where the very survival of democratic norms and institutions appears at stake, relying on Congress to act as a bulwark against the misuse of emergency powers is a gamble with incredibly high stakes.
Thus, the path forward is fraught with uncertainty. The deadlock in Congress not only impedes progress on this critical front but also serves as a stark reminder of the limitations of relying solely on legislative action to address the systemic challenges facing American democracy.
The pessimistic outlook regarding Congress’s ability or willingness to strengthen checks and balances on executive power underscores the need for a broader dialogue and concerted action across the spectrum of American society to safeguard the principles of democracy against the encroachment of authoritarian tendencies.
A Break the Glass Moment to Save Democracy
With a historically unpopular Congress paralyzed by partisanship and a Supreme Court that is clearly corrupt and in the tank for Trump, the prospect of enacting meaningful reforms to safeguard American democracy seems not just daunting, but virtually unattainable.
The very institutions designed to act as the pillars of democracy and protectors of justice have been compromised, leaving a vacuum of leadership and a crisis of legitimacy. This dire situation calls for what can only be described as a “break the glass” moment — a drastic measure to save democracy. Yet the tools at our disposal seem woefully inadequate for the task at hand.
Under our current system, with a Congress ensnared in a web of dysfunction and a judiciary questioned for its impartiality, the mechanisms for preventing the misuse of emergency powers, let alone addressing broader issues of governance and policy, appear broken beyond immediate repair. The checks and balances that are the bedrock of the American political system have failed, leaving us to confront a grim reality: the traditional avenues for effecting change and protecting the democratic order are obstructed by the very entities that were established to safeguard them.
This bleak assessment forces us to reckon with the possibility that any substantive accomplishments toward bolstering democracy might be out of reach in the near term. The current political landscape is one where partisan gridlock stifles legislative action and where a corrupt Supreme Court can no longer be relied upon as an unbiased arbiter of constitutional principles.
The implication is clear: we are at a critical juncture, where the conventional means of course correction are insufficient to address the magnitude of the challenges we face.
In this moment of crisis, the call to “break the glass” becomes a metaphor for the urgent, unconventional actions needed to preserve the foundations of democracy. Yet, without a functional Congress to enact reforms or a trusted judiciary to enforce them, the path forward is murky at best.
The dark outlook is not for lack of will among those who seek to protect democratic norms, but rather a recognition of the formidable barriers erected by a polarized political environment and a compromised judicial system.
Final thoughts
The quest to safeguard democracy, then, must look beyond the immediate horizon, acknowledging that the solutions we seek may not emerge from the broken systems currently in place. This is not to counsel despair, but to inject a dose of realism into our expectations and strategies. It may well be that the preservation of democratic values in this era requires grassroots mobilization, public advocacy, and international pressure as much as, if not more than, legislative or judicial remedies.
The moment is a recognition that saving democracy demands extraordinary measures. Yet, as we confront the limitations of our current institutions, we must also cultivate resilience, creativity, and solidarity among those committed to democratic principles. The road ahead is uncertain, and the challenges daunting. But the stakes — the very essence of democracy itself — demand nothing less than our collective determination to seek new pathways to renewal and reform. Biden can and should act now. We can’t afford to role the dice in November and hope for the best.
