Does that matter? The point is that there is precedent for a President to not enforce laws.
I wasn’t disagreeing with your point. I was adding to it. And it matters because the SCOTUS is typically nuanced about things like that.
…or to abide by court rulings.
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it” – Andrew Jackson (apocryphal)
For the record, I am totally opposed to a President going against the laws passed by Congress. It’s one thing if Congress takes away funding for a law, and the President is unable to enforce it. But the President shouldn’t purposely not enforce laws. That’s one of the main jobs the President has.
1 Like
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 seems relevant. Title X here:
Passed because Nixon had claimed he had the power to not spend appropriated money. There is at least one SC case
The SC sided with the side that said presidents do not have the power to impound money. The case dealt with an action in 1972 but was decided in 1975.
This is what got Trump impeached the first time. He did not send money to Ukraine that Congress had appropriated. The GAO said:
"we conclude that OMB withheld the funds from obligation for an unauthorized reason in violation of the ICA.1 See 2 U.S.C. § 684 "
Of course, the current SC could reverse the 1975 decision.
1 Like
Things are different now though. We have a GOP majority in Congress that will submit to anything Trump wants to do, and a Supreme Court opinion that says Trump can break any and all laws he wants to as long as it can be dressed up as an official act.
Thank you, I wasn’t aware of that. In that case, yes, I believe Trump has crossed a line (assuming the funds were allocated specifically for the things he is withholding them from.)
As I wrote earlier, I don’t like that so many programs fall under the Executive Branch, because they’re at the whims of one person. I’d much prefer that they are either independent, or under the Legislative Branch.
it’s like a back door line item veto. but once the law is in place…you gotta follow it. or expect it to head to the courts for clarity
I think he is simply holding off spending until he gets what he wants: a blowjob, metaphorical or literal, from those who want the money. He thinks he can hold out longer than those he is “dealing” with. Especially since no one who is supposed to “check and balance” will do anything of the sort.
This is how he deals, all the time, since he lost his first million dollars.
He lost his first million dollars because he couldn’t get a BJ?
Red state AGs going after Costco for keeping its DEI program
Well, no. I mean, by waiting out his poorer counterparts, cuz more money and power behind him. If he can get a bj out of it, bonus. No one will be impeaching him for that. (Especially since he wouldn’t lie about it.)
GOP used-to-be’s not letting a company run its business as it sees fit?
I don’t know. That might depend on what’s in Melania’s latest pre-nup.
1 Like
“It was a guy, so by the terms, it’s ok. I am not allowed to cheat on her with any women.”
Who is in charge of enforcing the laws that congress writes?
Fair enough. Maybe we just need Congress to be more detailed.
There are plenty of government agencies that shouldn’t be subject to the whims of the President. The FDA, for example - I don’t think that decisions which can affect the health of millions of people should be based on the mood of one person.
Get ready for RFK Jr, as that’s what’s coming.
4 Likes
We usually put actual science people in roles like at the FDA where the decisions should be guided by science and not the whims of one person. Science can obviously change views, but it does so after some amount of rigor.
You need to stop blaming the system for what Trump is doing and recognize that he is the problem along with a SCOTUS and GOP congress that is enabling him. Yeah, Biden did a version of this, as did every other POTUS before, since they all operate within a normal range around the laws that are stated.
2 Likes