最新推薦應(yīng)急法律外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯

1、文獻(xiàn)出處：Thronson P. Toward Comprehensive Reform of America Emergency Law Regime J. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 2013, 46(2).原文TOWARD COMPREHENSIVE REFORM OF AMERICA EMERGENC Y LAW REGIMEPatrick A. ThronsonUnbenownst to most America ns, the Un ited States is prese ntly un der thirty pre

2、side ntially declared states of emerge ncy. They confer vast powers on the Executive Bran ch, in cludi ng the ability to finan cially in capacitate any pers on or orga ni zatio n in the Un ited States, seize control of the nation communications infrastructure, mobilize military forces, expa nd the p

3、ermissible size of the military without congressional authorization, and extend tours of duty without consent from service personnel. Declared states of emergency may also activate Presidential Emergency Action Documents and other continuity-of-government procedures, which confer powers on the Presi

4、de n such as the un ilateral suspe nsion of habeas corpus that appear fun dame ntally opposed to the America n con stitutio nal order. Although the Natio nal Emerge ncies Act, by its plai n Ian guage, requires Con gress to vote every six mon ths on whether a declared n ati onal emerge ncy should con

5、tinue, Con gress has done so only once in the n early forty-year history of the Act.This Note and an accompa nying on li ne compe ndium attempt, for the first time since the 1970s, to reach a reas on ably complete assessme nt of the scope and legal effects of the thirty n atio nal emerge ncies now i

6、n effect in the United States. The Note also proposes specific statutory reforms to rein in the unchecked growth of these emergencies and political reforms to subject the vast executive powers gran ted by the U.S. Emerge ncy law regime to the democratic process.INTRODUCTION“ A n ati onal emerge ncy

7、exists by reas on of te terrorist attacks at the World Trade Cen ter, New Y ork, New Y ork, and the Pen tag on, and the con ti nuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the Un ited States, Preside nt George W. Bush proclaimed on September 14, 2001.“I hereby declare that theioaai emerge ncy ha

8、s existed sinceSeptember 11, 2001. Over a decade later, with Osama bin Laden dead and the infrastructure of al Qaeda “ takenapart, this same emergency, and the vast powers it bestows, is still with us along with twen ty-nine other n atio nal emerge ncies that grant the Preside nt greatly enhanced po

9、wers to regulate the nation s economic, military and foreig n affairs. Although Con gress has bee n required by statute, for n early forty years, to vote every six mon ths on whether a n ati onal emerge ncy should con ti nu e, it has done so only on ce.外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯The curre nt proliferati on of n ati onal

10、 emerge ncies is exactly what the Nati onal Emerge ncies Act (NEA) was en acted to preve nt. The NEA has failed en tirely in this regard. The story of its failure is a story of how the Un ited States Con gress achieved a moment of clarity about the vast emergency powers it had bee n delegati ng to t

11、he Preside nt for decades and the qua ntity and scope of un checked emerge ncy powers the n in effect. It is a story of how Congress, with substantial support and cooperation from the Executive Bran ch,con structed a framework inten ded tocomprehensively regulate and limit future declarations of nat

12、ional emergency. And it is a story of how Congress, enabled by the judiciary, subsequently rendered its own work superfluous by con sig ning the NEA ssafeguards aga inst the abuse of emerge ncy powers to a state of disuse and irreleva nee.I. METHODOLOG YThis Note catalogues statutory provisions and

13、presidential orders containing powers that are explicitly activated by a presidential declarati on of n atio nal emerge ncy, an alyzes the most far-reach ing of these powers, and proposes reforms. The accompanying online compe ndium of emerge ncy powers provides a full descripti on of my methodology

14、.This Note draws on a variety of primary sources, primarily statutes, preside ntial orders, and other gover nment docume nts. Federal law provides for presidential declarations of emergency that are an alogous to a “ n ati on alemerge ncy ” but are classified differe ntly and trigger authorities bey

15、ond those activated by a declaration of n ati onal emerge ncy. These additi onal types of emerge ncies in clude“ nationasecurity emergency, “ “ catastrophiomergency, ”“defense emerge ncy,air defe nse emerge ncy,and civil emerge ncy.My an alysis con cludes that a declaratio n of n atio nal emerge ncy

16、 makes available to the Preside nt powers contained in at least 160 provisi ons of statutory law and doze ns of Executive Orders, presidential directives, and other regulations. The sections that follow analyze some of the provisions with the most far-reaching effects on the in dividual liberties an

17、d livelihoods of Un ited States residents and on the country internationalrelations. II.LEGISLATIVE HISTOR YThis Part exam ines the legislative history of the NEA and the text of the Act. It seeks in part to ascertain the legislative intent of Congress as expressed in revisions to the legislation, c

18、ommittee reports, and floor debates with respect to the Act, and examine whether that intent was betrayed. Understanding this essential history is in dispe nsable to meanin gful reform.A.Origi ns of the Act“ Tcunderstand the full significanee of the National EmergenciesAct, ”Senators Frank Mathias (

19、R-MD) and Frank Church (D-ID) wrote in the in troductio n to a 1976 legislative history sourcebook of the NEA, “ on emust place it with in the con text of Con gressi onal efforts to reclaim prerogatives abandoned to the Executive. ” Senators Church and Mathias had in mind Vietnam- and Watergate-era congressional reforms that represented an “ historic redemption of