El gobierno de Alemania expresó su apoyo a la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela para que asuma el Poder Ejecutivo mañana, debido a la falta de veracidad del proceso electoral presidencial realizado en el país en mayo del año pasado.

Christofer Burger, portavoz del Ministerio de Exteriores alemán, indicó que la entidad forma parte de la Unión Europea, por lo tanto, sigue los lineamientos y decisiones de este organismo, como el desconocimiento de la legitimidad de dichas elecciones presidenciales.

“El notablemente reducido calendario electoral, las prohibiciones y otros impedimentos significativos para la participación de los partidos y líderes de la oposición, así como el incumplimiento de las normas democráticas mínimas, hicieron que esos comicios no fueran libres ni justos. Bajo estas circunstancias, la legitimidad de la elección y sus resultados fueron insuficientes, pues el proceso no proveyó las garantías necesarias para unas elecciones inclusivas y democráticas”, afirmó el representante de la Cancillería al medio DW.

Una analista política de la cadena de noticias agregó que una de las razones por las que el gobierno de Angela Merkel mantiene la presión sobre los líderes políticos venezolanos radica en la detención de un periodista alemán en Venezuela, procedimiento que ha mantenido las relaciones diplomáticas activas y constantes entre las dos naciones para darle solución a este hecho.

El portavoz también exigió la liberación del diputado Juan Requesens, preso en El Helicoide desde agosto del año pasado y a quien se le allanó su inmunidad parlamentaria.</s>WASHINGTON (dpa-AFX) - The US Government vowed that it will recognize Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who was sworn in for a second term, and pledged support to the country's Opposition.



Having easily won the presidential election boycotted by the Opposition parties in May, the authoritarian Maduro has consolidated his power and assumed office for a second six-year term Thursday.



Major Opposition parties boycotted the election alleging that the electoral system was rigged in favor of the President.



The United States was the first country to react to Maduro's inauguration. 'The US will not recognize the Maduro dictatorship's illegitimate inauguration,' national security advisor John Bolton said on Twitter Thursday.



'We will continue to increase pressure on the corrupt regime, support the democratic National Assembly, and call for democracy and freedom in Venezuela,' he tweeted.



US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on the people of Venezuela not to co-operate with Maduro, but with the Opposition-controlled National Assembly.



'We urge those who support this regime, from everyday employees getting by on food subsidies to the Venezuelan security forces sworn to support the constitution, to stop enabling repression and corruption and to work with the National Assembly and its duly elected leader, Juan Guaido, in accordance with your constitution on a peaceful return to democracy,' Pompeo said in a statement.



In response to the Nicolas Maduro regime's attempt to bypass US economic sanctions by launching a national cryptocurrency, Petro, the Trump administration imposed a fresh round of sanctions targeting Venezuelan government associates in March last year.



Washington alleges that President Maduro decimated the Venezuelan economy and spurred a humanitarian crisis.



Inflation in the socialist nation has spiralled, creating food and medicine shortages, and triggering an exodus of Venezuelans to neighbouring countries. The national currency bolivar lost its value.



It was in this context that the Maduro administration launched the Petro, aiming to ease the country's economic crisis, and circumvent U.S.-led sanctions.



He introduced a currency reform in August, and allocated five billion barrels of oil to back Petro.



But the reforms have not helped Venezuela's economy recover from the pressure of the sanctions, falling oil revenue and the plunging value of its fiat currency.



Late last month, Venezuela filed a complaint against U.S. sanctions before the World Trade Organization.



The Venezuelan National Assembly has declared Petro as illegitimate, but the newly formed Constitutional Assembly, which is loyal to Maduro, had stripped the former of its legislative powers.



Copyright RTT News/dpa-AFX</s>President Donald Trump has weighed in on executive power, saying he could declare a state of emergency to build his wall, even though he may be bitterly opposed by the new Congress. "I can do it if I want," he told reporters last week, adding that the White House can "call a national emergency because of the security of our country."

It's possible that the president, who is addressing the nation in prime time on Tuesday night, is right. But probably not.

The Constitution does little to define national security powers and how the branches of government share them. Article I gives Congress the power to support armies and declare war, and call upon the militia "to … suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Congress also has the power to regulate international commerce and establish the rules of naturalization.

Article II vests the president with the oft hazy "executive power," the power to make treaties, and it names him commander in chief of the armed forces. Left vague is the president's command over foreign affairs and the relative authority between the two branches in this area. Also vague is the president's enumerated power during emergencies, other than suspending "Habeas Corpus."

Accordingly, most of the president's emergency power derives from statute — laws enacted by the same Congress that might now oppose his actions. The Brennan Center for Justice has identified 136 statutory powers available to the president upon declaration of a national emergency.

So, then, the source and extent of the president's emergency power is complicated. His authority to act contrary to the wishes of Congress is also complicated. It's happened before, and the Supreme Court has weighed in.

In the middle of the Korean War, in 1952, facing a threatened strike by steelworkers and the loss of critical war production, President Harry Truman invoked his emergency powers and directed his secretary of commerce "to take possession of the steel mills, and to keep them operating."

The steel mill owners immediately filed suit, and, in record time, the case arrived at the Supreme Court, which struck down the executive order. The six justices in the majority each wrote separate opinions, meaning they arrived at this conclusion for different reasons. In this landmark case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Truman's secretary of commerce), the assertion of emergency power ultimately failed because it lacked authorization "from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself."

Nationalizing the steel mills is a markedly different executive action than building slat fences along the border, and 1952 was a different time than 2018. But Justice Robert Jackson's famous concurring opinion in Youngstown attempts to give some future guidance to the courts in evaluating the executive's power during a national emergency.

Jackson divided unilateral presidential actions, like the one proposed by Trump, into three categories. First, when the executive "acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress," then there's little controversy because he speaks for the entire federal government. What exactly constitutes an "implied" authorization by the legislature is open to interpretation, however.

The second category is the "Twilight Zone." When the president takes action, but Congress has neither granted nor denied his authority, and there is a "zone of twilight" in which the executive and legislative branches have shared authority. In these cases, the president might act where Congress has remained silent, but that also raises the question of how to define Congress' "silence" on a subject.

Trump's proposed action falls into the third Youngstown category: When the president "takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress," his power is at its "lowest ebb." Here, the Supreme Court would have to deny any congressional power to act in the controversy to sustain the president's exclusive control. In this category, when the president acts in defiance of Congress, he should usually lose — but not always. Indeed, in a 2015 case, the Court upheld the rare exercise of presidential power in category three.

If Trump invokes emergency powers against the express will of Congress, he acts at his "lowest ebb" of power. The action would be immediately challenged, and it would likely arrive at the Supreme Court in record time, as Truman's steel seizure did. Under Youngstown and the cases that have followed, the odds are against the president. But he still could win.

Danny Cevallos is an MSNBC legal analyst. Follow @CevallosLaw on Twitter.
Germany has announced its support for the Venezuelan National Assembly to take over Executive powers in Venezuela.