I dunno if a presidential veto can be challenged in court, but if so, you could make the argument that vetoing a repeal is equivalent to an unconstitutional seizure of power. You’d have to get to that point first, though…get the repeal bill through Congress, get it vetoed, then do the challenge.
If you want to approach this as a constitutional question, I think you’d have a much easier time proving that the original law was unconstitutional, not worrying about the repeal. And since that hasn’t happened yet, it seems unlikely to happen.
What really makes sense in this situation is for Congress to get their act together and amend the emergency powers laws to clarify what constitutes an emergency. And of course, do it with a veto-proof majority. Not holding my breath for that one to happen.
If the president vetoed a joint resulting of Congress steering to limit his power, you would think the Congress would override it on principle, but of course no.
Washington also didn’t join a 15-state coalition that sued the Trump administration over DACA in the fall of 2017. (California didn’t either, and filed its own suit separately in that matter; maybe that’s what Washington is doing. Dunno. Ask them.)
I find it interesting that Massachusetts isn’t on the list. They have a Republican governor, but he’s the closest thing to a real RINO you’ll ever find.
I’ve heard on the local NPR station that the Washington State Attorney Bob Ferguson is waiting to see if Trump reappropriates federal funds that were assigned to Washington State to build the wall before suing to make sure that we have proper standing.
Of course, climate change is the greatest emergency since World War II if not ever, but if a Democratic president attempted to declare a state of emergency to deal with it, the outcry would be so deafening that said Democratic president would never try it in the first place.
But a wall to curb immigration numbers that were already falling, originally dreamed up as a mnemonic device so Trump would remember to stay on-point during his rallies?
I did a bit of reading on captured-carbon techs and it’s not what I expected. I thought you know, put a pump, suck out carbon, plant trees, bury them, whatever. It’s much more effective to capture the carbon at points of emission. You know. Coal plants. So it’s only really going to be mitigate dirty techs. On the other hand, hurting Koch industry profits sounds good.
