Elizabeth Goitin

Yeah, well, some of them, if you look at these 150 powers that are at the president's disposal in a national emergency, a lot of them really do seem reasonable just on their face. They seem measured, something that you would want and expect the president to have. But some of them really do seem like the stuff of authoritarian regimes, right?

Yeah, well, some of them, if you look at these 150 powers that are at the president's disposal in a national emergency, a lot of them really do seem reasonable just on their face. They seem measured, something that you would want and expect the president to have. But some of them really do seem like the stuff of authoritarian regimes, right?

There is a law that dates back to 1942 that allows the president to take over or shut down communications facilities. This was last invoked in World War II.

There is a law that dates back to 1942 that allows the president to take over or shut down communications facilities. This was last invoked in World War II.

There is a law that dates back to 1942 that allows the president to take over or shut down communications facilities. This was last invoked in World War II.

Today, it could arguably be used to assert control over U.S.-based internet traffic. There's another law, and that's the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that allows the president to freeze the assets of almost anyone, including a U.S. person. if the president deems it necessary to address a foreign or partially foreign threat.

Today, it could arguably be used to assert control over U.S.-based internet traffic. There's another law, and that's the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that allows the president to freeze the assets of almost anyone, including a U.S. person. if the president deems it necessary to address a foreign or partially foreign threat.

Today, it could arguably be used to assert control over U.S.-based internet traffic. There's another law, and that's the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that allows the president to freeze the assets of almost anyone, including a U.S. person. if the president deems it necessary to address a foreign or partially foreign threat.

And in fact, the president can also make it illegal for anyone to engage in any financial transactions with that person, including something as simple as renting them an apartment or giving them a job or really even selling them groceries. So these are some really... alarming authorities in terms of the potential for abuse.

And in fact, the president can also make it illegal for anyone to engage in any financial transactions with that person, including something as simple as renting them an apartment or giving them a job or really even selling them groceries. So these are some really... alarming authorities in terms of the potential for abuse.

And in fact, the president can also make it illegal for anyone to engage in any financial transactions with that person, including something as simple as renting them an apartment or giving them a job or really even selling them groceries. So these are some really... alarming authorities in terms of the potential for abuse.

OK, I'm hired. Thank you. That's it. I'm done. That's my answer. Yes. I mean, Congress made this mistake. I mean, to be fair, Congress did give itself a ready means of terminating emergency declarations. And Congress did not foresee that the Supreme Court was going to take that off the table. However, I think it was a mistake to leave the law in place as it was without that safeguard.

OK, I'm hired. Thank you. That's it. I'm done. That's my answer. Yes. I mean, Congress made this mistake. I mean, to be fair, Congress did give itself a ready means of terminating emergency declarations. And Congress did not foresee that the Supreme Court was going to take that off the table. However, I think it was a mistake to leave the law in place as it was without that safeguard.

OK, I'm hired. Thank you. That's it. I'm done. That's my answer. Yes. I mean, Congress made this mistake. I mean, to be fair, Congress did give itself a ready means of terminating emergency declarations. And Congress did not foresee that the Supreme Court was going to take that off the table. However, I think it was a mistake to leave the law in place as it was without that safeguard.

So I think it is time, past time, for a reckoning for Congress to not only reform the process, of national emergency declarations and the termination of those declarations, but also to look at some of these individual powers, like the Communications Act. That's the one that allows the president to take over or shut down communications facilities, like the power over domestic transportation.

So I think it is time, past time, for a reckoning for Congress to not only reform the process, of national emergency declarations and the termination of those declarations, but also to look at some of these individual powers, like the Communications Act. That's the one that allows the president to take over or shut down communications facilities, like the power over domestic transportation.

So I think it is time, past time, for a reckoning for Congress to not only reform the process, of national emergency declarations and the termination of those declarations, but also to look at some of these individual powers, like the Communications Act. That's the one that allows the president to take over or shut down communications facilities, like the power over domestic transportation.

And Congress should put some limits and safeguards on those powers.

And Congress should put some limits and safeguards on those powers.

And Congress should put some limits and safeguards on those powers.