Under the 1976 National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651),Congress is required to review presidentially declared emergencies. Specifically, “not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.” Over the past eight years, Congress has failed to obey its own law, a fact that casts doubt on the legality of the state of emergency.

As far as public opinion is concerned, how many Americans are even aware that a state of emergency even exists. For that matter, how many members of Congress know? ...

The Obama administration is essentially arguing that the United States is currently in a state of resisting foreign invasion a full eight years after the attacks of 9/11!

This is ludicrous. [Dr. Harold C. Relyea, a specialist in national government with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress] argues that Congress and the judiciary, as “co-equal branches of constitutional government,” serve as a check on the executive power. As we have seen, Congress has either been shut out of this process, or, as in so many cases, it has capitulated. Dr. Relyea then offers that public opinion can restrain the executive. But the public doesn’t even know they’re living under a state of emergency. The media doesn’t report it, and the government is certainly not in the business of providing information that might raise the hackles of real Americans.

As is usual, it would appear Congress is side stepping their responsibility to help govern.

As is further usual, it appears the media is assisting in this endeavor and Obama is going right along with it.

However, the fact that Congress is, yet again, remiss in their duties or that Obama is, yet again, exceeding his authority has little bearing on our discussion about whether or not a state of emergency still exists.

As is usual, it would appear Congress is side stepping their responsibility to help govern.

As is further usual, it appears the media is assisting in this endeavor and Obama is going right along with it.

However, the fact that Congress is, yet again, remiss in their duties or that Obama is, yet again, exceeding his authority has little bearing on our discussion about whether or not a state of emergency still exists.

Yes things are amiss & I usually side with the constitution.

As to whether or not a state of emergency exists....As I read it I would have to say no.

We are not at threat of invasion & I cannot say we ever were. Yes the Fort Hood deal was a bad thing as much as many other bad things that have occurred on US soil through out many years. But it is not a State of Emergency

There are other reasons to not have the State of Emergency in place & it could be dangerous to America in many ways.

The mere fact that Congress & probably much of the Senate do not fully realize the shortcuts they leave open is in itself

a scary thought.

There are other reasons to not have the State of Emergency in place & it could be dangerous to America in many ways.

Would you care to expand on this idea?

Why would it be advantageous not to have a State of Emergency and why could it be dangerous?

I must have missed that part where the Radical Islamic Jihadists laid down their suicide bombs.

Never said they did.

But the State of Emergency was put in place 9/14/2001

It allows certain .....shall we say short cuts.....

I have not seen a single event on US soil since & do not see the point

in leaving the short cut door open. It is nothing to reinstate it if needed.

Maybe you haven't "seen a single event on US soil since" because those "short cuts" work.

Who really cares if the US is in a "State of Emergency" if no one can even tell? Are there tanks in the streets? No. Are there soldiers in the streets? No. Are people being rounded up by the truckload and sent to prison camps? No. No one's civil rights are being trampled during this "State of Emergency" so why waste time worrying about it? Worry about Global Warming instead if you need something to cling to.

I'm going to let Al Gore worry about global warming.

He's getting paid for it, not me.

Would you care to expand on this idea?

Why would it be advantageous not to have a State of Emergency and why could it be dangerous?

Maybe you haven't "seen a single event on US soil since" because those "short cuts" work.

Who really cares if the US is in a "State of Emergency" if no one can even tell? Are there tanks in the streets? No. Are there soldiers in the streets? No. Are people being rounded up by the truckload and sent to prison camps? No. No one's civil rights are being trampled during this "State of Emergency" so why waste time worrying about it?

Excuse me for putting these all together but they all ask the same.

I never said it was advantageous to not have a SOE (State of Emergency) I said it allows short cuts.

As an American Citizen I care about rights afforded to us by our constitution.

As was pointed out earlier by chuck ....

As is usual, it would appear Congress is side stepping their responsibility to help govern.

I agree with that. But it is we the people that are suppose to elect & keep an eye on the congress critters.

If they side step we are suppose to call them on it.

This is a dangerous leaving of the door open in many ways. I am not talking mainly about security as that is the main excuse they use for keeping it in place. Terror has always been the whip used.

Look back at other republics & see how the State of Emergency was used & then abused.

Look & see what this open door allows financially. Does it allow your treasury to be looted?

Look at what it allows regarding seizure of property, organizing & control of production, seizing commodities,assigning military forces abroad, control of travel,private enterprise, & most importantly controlling the lives of citizens.

It is a big subject & yes Koheesti none seem to notice not even the congress. But that is not a reason to leave it in place. It will not be something you can just notice & change once you realize it has opened things you do not agree with. Just because you do not see what is happening financially does not mean it does not occur. America has a great Constitution I would prefer we follow it.

As I said it is a very large subject & one you & other American citizens should look at on your own IMHO. Or do as you say & not worry about it. But history shows others who did the same & were not too happy with the outcome.

There is no reason to leave it open & it can be reinstated. Congress should do their job...Citizens should remind them when they are not. They all took an oath to uphold the constitution including Mr President