Talk:National Emergencies Act

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Edited Links[edit]

Edited the link for Senate Report 93-549 to accurately redirect to the Wiki, whereas previously it was improperly cited and the numbers re-arranged to a non-existent report. Brokor (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revise Ambiguous paragraph[edit]

Article says: "Certain emergency authorities were exempted from the act at the time of its passage: . . . ." As the paragraph is written, it is not clear if the exemptions exempt the president from being restricted in his power by the act; or rather, exempt the power of the president to declare emergencies. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I find it confusing too. MacroMyco (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd sentence under "Invocations"[edit]

I'm not sure why that's necessary, or even what it actually means, to tell you the truth, but would the original editor consider trimming/reworking it? Cheers soibangla (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

At the federal level, an emergency is termed a "national emergency," not a "state of emergency." The latter term evokes the apocalyptic visions of Milton William Cooper and Alex Jones: nationwide martial law, cancelled elections, extermination camps, etc. Its use here could only mislead people. 67.180.143.210 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Congress can undo an emergency declaration with either a joint resolution and the President's signature, or with a veto-proof (two-thirds) majority vote."[edit]

I shortened this to "Congress can undo an emergency declaration with a joint resolution." The reference merely speculated as to what might happen if the president vetoed it, and the sentence made it sound like this was written into the law. In fact, the sentence was merely indicating how a law passed might be treated. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SME comments for editor edification: Now that the emergency/911 has been declared, there are 5 COAs for Congress and the prez. 1. Congress does nothing (e.g., fails to pass a joint resolution (JR), in which case the 911 stands. (E.g., the 911 continues until "de-declared" by the prez.) 2. Pass the JR, which is then signed by the prez. In this case the 911 is over. 3. Pass the JR, which prez ignores for 10 days. In this case the JR is law and the 911 is over (because prez must sign bills within 10 days or they automatically become law). 4. Pass the JR, which prez ignores, BUT Congress goes out of session within the next 10 days. In this case a "pocket veto" leaves the 911 in place. 5. Pass the JR, which prez vetos. If he vetos the JR then: 5a. Congress can override the veto and the 911 ends. Or, 5b. Congress does not override veto, in which case the 911 continues. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But Congress can't undo an emergency declaration with a simple Joint resolution. That's what the Supreme Court said in INS v Chadha. What gain in reader understanding is achieved by leaving out the fact that, if opposed by the President, a simple majority vote can't do it? Swood100 (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the line mentioning signature or veto-proof majority was better. Just saying JR seems a misleadingly incomplete picture. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan and 30 years of restaurant suffering for freedom[edit]

Yes I'm in 2002 is my opportunity to get out of should I run before even I got the green car from United States he was worse than we see I want to learn right now taking people outside of the country give them bad things to do I'm holding the guns from people I'm right now you starting killing people twist or evil to take all these religious away from them a hundred people has to be judge every dihybrid about 30 years it has to be happy emergency how are you Mustafa amir suliman (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan and people[edit]

As soon as possible emergency call from United States to sudan Mustafa amir suliman (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be updated for Biden, and the total/active emergencies[edit]

Page should be updated for Biden, and the total/active emergencies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.100.63 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]