Should Trump avoid declaring a national emergency because a future Dem president might also do it?

So we have a budget deal, and President Trump plans to sign it, even though it doesn't have as much money usable for barrier-building as he wanted.  Reports are that he will also declare a national emergency with regard to the border and exploit it to free up money to build additional miles of barriers.

For some reason, the declaration of an emergency is viewed as laying the groundwork for a disaster the next time a Democrat is president.  The thought seems to be that if a Republican president does it, then a Democrat president will do it.  The underlying explanation for the angst seems to be that this cuts Congress out of the loop of deciding details of how to spend the taxpayers' money.

'The Constitution definitely says Congress is the only party authorized to appropriate funds, a process that results in and is documented by the budget.  If this president tries to move or reassign funds for purposes other than what Congress authorized, he will be taken to court.  The case might eventually get to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to it.  The SCOTUS should weigh in on the limits required by existing law.  Otherwise, there are no limits, and the next Democrat president will exploit that lack of definition.  That president will likely be a minority of some sort, and any protests that it isn't legitimate will be spun as something-ism.  At least with Trump, the issue can be adjudicated cleanly.

This won't be the first declared emergency, or the last.  I'm not sure if there is any definition of guidelines on what constitutes an "emergency" for purposes of the law.  Such a definition is necessary to avoid what the Democrats are currently doing: insisting there is no emergency at the border.  Without definitive guidelines, it's like "he said, she said."  One man's emergency is another man's "how dare you exploit an alleged crisis to undermine our agenda?"

Let the emergency be declared.  Let the president be sued.  Let the SCOTUS determine if the president has exceeded his authority, setting precedent for future presidents regardless of their intersectionality.  Democrats have no boundaries on their behavior with regard to pursuing their goals, so now that the idea is in their heads, it will happen whether Trump does it or not.  Remember the "pen and phone" president?  I favor a first strike, without any -isms to cloud the issue.

Meanwhile, most of Trump's supporters will understand that he could never have unilaterally built the wall.  The shutdown process and its denouement showed the Democrats for the obstructionists they are.  Trump voters won't blame Trump for Democrat actions and inactions.  The emergency declaration is the last weapon in his negotiating arsenal.  He'll have done everything in his personal power, which is all anyone can reasonably expect.  He wins.

So we have a budget deal, and President Trump plans to sign it, even though it doesn't have as much money usable for barrier-building as he wanted.  Reports are that he will also declare a national emergency with regard to the border and exploit it to free up money to build additional miles of barriers.

For some reason, the declaration of an emergency is viewed as laying the groundwork for a disaster the next time a Democrat is president.  The thought seems to be that if a Republican president does it, then a Democrat president will do it.  The underlying explanation for the angst seems to be that this cuts Congress out of the loop of deciding details of how to spend the taxpayers' money.

'The Constitution definitely says Congress is the only party authorized to appropriate funds, a process that results in and is documented by the budget.  If this president tries to move or reassign funds for purposes other than what Congress authorized, he will be taken to court.  The case might eventually get to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to it.  The SCOTUS should weigh in on the limits required by existing law.  Otherwise, there are no limits, and the next Democrat president will exploit that lack of definition.  That president will likely be a minority of some sort, and any protests that it isn't legitimate will be spun as something-ism.  At least with Trump, the issue can be adjudicated cleanly.

This won't be the first declared emergency, or the last.  I'm not sure if there is any definition of guidelines on what constitutes an "emergency" for purposes of the law.  Such a definition is necessary to avoid what the Democrats are currently doing: insisting there is no emergency at the border.  Without definitive guidelines, it's like "he said, she said."  One man's emergency is another man's "how dare you exploit an alleged crisis to undermine our agenda?"

Let the emergency be declared.  Let the president be sued.  Let the SCOTUS determine if the president has exceeded his authority, setting precedent for future presidents regardless of their intersectionality.  Democrats have no boundaries on their behavior with regard to pursuing their goals, so now that the idea is in their heads, it will happen whether Trump does it or not.  Remember the "pen and phone" president?  I favor a first strike, without any -isms to cloud the issue.

Meanwhile, most of Trump's supporters will understand that he could never have unilaterally built the wall.  The shutdown process and its denouement showed the Democrats for the obstructionists they are.  Trump voters won't blame Trump for Democrat actions and inactions.  The emergency declaration is the last weapon in his negotiating arsenal.  He'll have done everything in his personal power, which is all anyone can reasonably expect.  He wins.