From your link:
Not really the same thing.
Not really any different, either. Difference without distinction.
I agree that Trump has the right, as President, to declare a national emergency.
I'm saying that doing so because Congress wouldn't fund his pet project, and despite the numbers he will use to justify the emergency going down the last 10 years or so, is a bad idea. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the next Democrat President thinks climate change is a national emergency, or guns, or a host of issues I'm sure we could all think of.
The numbers going down do not make it not an emergency.
What makes it not an emergency is that it is not emergent. Congress and presidents have known of the problems - and they're huge problems - for many years. Conservatives point to the fact that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, and Obama have all called the border crisis a border crisis. What that means is, this is not an emergent issue.
While man-made global warming/cooling/changing is a pet issue for progressives with no science to back up there is even a smidge of man-made to it, what would they do that is similar? Ok, they call it an emergency.....then what?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is inherent to the American citizen, and the government is restricted from infringing upon that right. While they do, drastically and repeatedly, what would a Dem president do that would be handled by declaring guns a national emergency?
