united-states
What can the President of the United States do when a national emergency renders Congress unable to do its job?
<p>A zombie virus is sweeping the nation! Every US Congressperson is either dead or in hiding. Either way, they're unreachable. Thankfully, we managed to keep the President and his Cabinet safe in underground bunkers. The judiciary is also safe.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for us, some government watchdog is up our butts. They don't approve of the recently-enacted regulations and executive orders and will happily sue us the first chance they get to prove the executive is acting without authority from Congress.</p>
<p>Which begs the question - until we can get a Congress assembled, what can the President do to restore peace and order?</p>

<p>It's not clear what the big deal is. Congress has already passed vast numbers of laws for POTUS to enforce, and has left the details of implementation up to the executive branch. The main limitation is that you need a Congress to fund any new federal government projects. The Constitution anticipates this problem, and there are clauses regarding filling vacancies (clearly applicable to the dead). Assuming that zombies are rioting in the streets, POTUS can <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act" rel="noreferrer">invoke the National Emergencies Act</a>, issuing an executive order to call out the National Guard.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Which begs the question - until we can get a Congress assembled, what
can the President do to restore peace and order?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It depends upon how long it takes. The real crunch would hit when there are no longer Congressional appropriations for spending, which could be sooner or later depending upon how long ago the last appropriations bills were passed. It the world falls apart just on the verge of a government shutdown for lack of spending bills that could happen quickly, but it could take longer if spending bills were just passed for the next year or two.</p>
<p>Of course, in practice, most individuals wouldn't have standing to complain about unauthorized spending in any case and judges would probably turn a blind eye given the emergency anyway, perhaps inventing some new &quot;zombie spending doctrine.&quot; The end of the world would also screw up tax collections and the ability to issue new debt, so this interim period of inability to carry out the constitution as directed due to lack of Congressional input would be irrelevant soon enough anyway.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>They don't approve of the recently-enacted regulations and executive orders and will happily sue us the first chance they get to prove the executive is acting without authority from Congress.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Congress does not participate in such lawsuits.  They are of course heard by the judiciary, where the plaintiff is an aggrieved party -- someone who claims to have been injured by the executive's exceeding its authority -- and the defendant is an officer of the executive -- for example the secretary of the department that issued the regulations or the officer who acted on the executive order.  The defendant is represented by lawyers from the Department of Justice.</p>
<p>It would be necessary to assemble congress only if there was a need to change the law or to remove the president from office.</p>
