This article from the Wall Street Journal last month shows how we can stop Trump's attempt to subvert our Democracy should he call a National Emergency because Congress won't bend to his will.

It is by Jess Bravin and was written last month. The title above is mine.

Crit­ics of the Trump ad­min­istra­tion say they might sue if the pres­i­dent de­clares a na­tional emer­gency to side­step con­gres­sional op­po­si­tion to his goal of a wall along the Mex­ican bor­der. How might such lit­i­ga­tion play out?

What le­gal au­thor­i­ties could Pres­i­dent Trump claim?

Sev­eral fed­eral statutes al­low the pres­i­dent to re-allocate cer­tain funds Con­gress has ap­pro­pri­ated dur­ing a na­tional emer­gency for spe­cific pur­poses. The White House hasn't an­nounced which par­tic­u­lar pow­ers it could as­sert, but le­gal ex­perts have fo­cused on pro­vi­sions al­low­ing re­al­lo­ca­tion of ap­pro­pri­a­tions for mil­i­tary con­struc­tion or for civil works projects by the Army Corps of En­gi­neers, be­cause they could open up the bil­lions of dol­lars the pres­i­dent wants for the wall.

Could the De­mo­c­ra­tic-con­trolled House of Rep­re­sentatives sue to block him?

If the ad­min­is­tra­tion re­allocates funds that Con­gress has ap­pro­pri­ated for other projects, the House of Rep­resen­ta­tives, now led by De­mocrats, po­ten­tially could sue on grounds that its own con­sti­tutional pow­ers have been in­fringed. Such a case likely would be filed in the U.S. Dis­trict Court in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., which pre­vi­ously sided with the House in an ap­pro­pri­ations dis­pute with the Obama-era White House.

In gen­eral, courts pre­fer not to de­cide dis­putes be­tween other branches of gov­ern­ment, re­ly­ing in­stead on the po­lit­i­cal process to work things out. But if the House's De­mo­c­ra­tic lead­ership pro­ceeds with its own law­suit against Mr. Trump, it can thank the pre­vi­ous Re­pub­li­can ma­jor­ity for paving the way. Un­der Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), the House voted to sue the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion al­leg­ing it had taken un­law­ful steps to im­ple­ment the Af­ford­able Care Act, in­clud-ing re­al­lo­cat­ing cer­tain funds to re­im­burse in­sur­ers. In 2015, a fed­eral dis­trict court in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., found the House had stand­ing to pur­sue ar­gu­ments that the ex­ec­u­tive branch usurped its prin­ci­pal power, that of ap­pro­pri­at­ing fed­eral funds. The "con­sti­tu­tional struc­ture would col­lapse, and the role of the House would be mean­ing­less, if the Ex­ec­u­tive could cir­cum­vent the ap­propri­a­tions process and spend funds how­ever it pleases," Judge Rose­mary Col­lyer wrote.

What would a po­ten­tial suit fo­cus on?

A suit filed by the House would likely fo­cus on two le­gal claims: First, it would con­tend that the stale­mate over the bor­der wall is a po­lit­i­cal dis­pute be­tween the elected branches, not a na­tional emer­gency as con­tem­plated by the Na­tional Emer­gen­cies Act, a 1976 law that for­mal­izes the process for pres­i­den­tial de­c­la­ra­tions. Dozens of pres­i­den­tial de­c­la­ra­tions have been made in the past 40 years with lit­tle con­tro­versy, on crises as nar­row as the civil war in Sierra Leone and as sweep­ing.

Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2019.

###

February 15, 2019

Post Script. In case you were wondering, 2/3 of Americans are opposed to Trump calling a national emergency over his wall. Call your elected officials and say how you feel.#StopTrump