United States, Georgia, Clarke County, Athens, 33.96095, -83.37794Cohen, Harlan G.2019-01-01<p>Originally posted at Just Security on July 17, 2019 (https://www.justsecurity.org/64946/the-national-security-delegation-conundrum/).</p><p>In the past two years alone, Trump has claimed national security authority to unilaterally issue steel and aluminum tariffs under Section 232 and threaten the same on auto parts; to implement a travel ban targeting majority-Muslim countries under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA); to threaten Mexico with tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) if it didn’t do more to stop migration to the U.S.; to find funds for a border wall that Congress specifically chose not to support; to continue attacks under the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), originally passed to go after the perpetrators of 9/11, on militant groups in Syria and elsewhere; and to float the possibility under the same AUMF of war with Iran (an interpretation the State Department seems to have thankfully mostly dropped) .</p> <p>For many watching these developments, these congressional delegations, justified on national security grounds, seemed like a blank check. To address these concerns, this group would love to see national security delegations rolled-back or disciplined, and a revitalized non-delegation doctrine, which would limit the discretion Congress could delegate, would certainly help. Gundy, thus, set those favoring a regulatory state and those worried about a national security one on a collision course. A win for environmental regulation would be a loss for constraining emergency powers and vice versa.</p>foreign policy -- national security -- Gundy v. United States -- tariffs -- International Trade Lawapplication/pdfhttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/University of Georgia. School of LawLaw--Study and teachingUniversity of Georgia--FacultyThe National Security Delegation ConundrumText