Democrats Demanding Trump Break Numerous Laws and Regulations

[martybegan]

It’s called prosecutorial discretion and has been a part of every administration.

There’s nothing stopping the Trump administration from allowing stores to help needy families.

There is nothing stopping Dem Senators from voting on cloture for a CR. They don't even have to vote for the CR itself, just cloture.

 

[Marener]

There is nothing stopping Dem Senators from voting on cloture for a CR. They don't even have to vote for the CR itself, just cloture.

There’s nothing stopping Republicans from agreeing to help Americans with expanded ACA subsidies.

But again, helping Americans isn’t really their style when it’s not also somehow connected to padding the wallets of the elites.

 

[struth]

What a dumb question.

My professors always told me, the dumb question was the one you didn’t ask.

But it’s very telling you can’t answer and resort of name calling

 

[martybegan]

There’s nothing stopping Republicans from agreeing to help Americans with expanded ACA subsidies.

But again, helping Americans isn’t really their style when it’s not also somehow connected to padding the wallets of the elites.

That isn't the point of a Continuing Resolution.

Those subsidies have to be renewed by additional legislation.

a clean CR is just that.

If Dem want the government as is funded, they have to just agree to cloture in the Senate.

 

[struth]

That isn't the point of a Continuing Resolution.

Those subsidies have to be renewed by additional legislation.

a clean CR is just that.

If Dem want the government as is funded, they have to just agree to cloture in the Senate.

Correct at CR couldn’t extend the Obamacare COVID bailouts to big insurance

The Dems know this, the poster you are replying knows this

They don’t care

 

[excalibur]

You’re okay with Trump ignoring the laws and rules about churches being political ...

Explain that.

When has the IRS enforced that on black churches, which for decades were hotbeds of promoting Democratic Party candidates?

 

[Marener]

That isn't the point of a Continuing Resolution.

Those subsidies have to be renewed by additional legislation.

a clean CR is just that.

If Dem want the government as is funded, they have to just agree to cloture in the Senate.

It can be added on to the continuing resolution.

Republicans just have to agree to do it.

 

[struth]

When has the IRS enforced that on black churches, which for decades were hotbeds of promoting Democratic Party candidates?

Remember Obama’s pastor? Rev Wright?

 

[martybegan]

It can be added on to the continuing resolution.

Republicans just have to agree to do it.

Nope, Dems can vote for cloture.

 

[struth]

It can be added on to the continuing resolution.

Republicans just have to agree to do it.

Wrong. That violated the rules of the senate. A continual resolution can only allow the current funding to continue

Which funds the subs

To change the expiration date they need another piece of legislation

You just lie

 

[Marener]

Nope, Dems can vote for cloture.

Nope? Of course it can be added to the CR.

 

[martybegan]

Nope? Of course it can be added to the CR.

The Dems are the ones holding out, and they can end it by voting for cloture.

But keep pretending otherwise.

 

[Marener]

A continual resolution can only allow the current funding to continue

Like containing the current funding for expanded ACA subsidies?

 

[struth]

Nope? Of course it can be added to the CR.

Link…https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46595

Once again dembot…you are wrong

But go ahead read the link and tells us where a CR allows you to add more spending and make it permanent

 

[Marener]

The Dems are the ones holding out, and they can end it by voting for cloture.

Both sides are holding out. Both sides are capable of ending it.

Don’t be a hack.

 

[struth]

Like containing the current funding for expanded ACA subsidies?

Yes the CR allows that, the one the Dems have voted no to

 

[martybegan]

Both sides are holding out. Both sides are capable of ending it.

Don’t be a hack.

Nope. The House passed a CR. The Senate is willing to pass it. Trump is willing to sign it. The Dems refuse to bring it to a clean vote.

Dems are holding out, no one else.

 

[Marener]

Link…https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46595

Once again dembot…you are wrong

But go ahead read the link and tells us where a CR allows you to add more spending and make it permanent

Legislative Provisions

Substantive legislative provisions, which have the effect of creating new law or changing existing law, have also been included in some CRs. One reason why CRs have been attractive vehicles for such provisions is that they are often widely considered to be must-pass measures to prevent funding gaps. Legislative provisions previously included in CRs have varied considerably in length, from a short paragraph to more than 200 pages.

House and Senate rules restrict the inclusion of legislative provisions in appropriations bills, but such restrictions are applicable in different contexts. Although House rules prohibit legislative provisions from being included in general appropriations measures (including amendments or any conference report to such measures), these restrictions do not apply to CRs.<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46595#fn12" name="ifn12" title="House Rule XXI, clause 2, prohibits such language in general appropriations measures and applicable amendments. House Rule XXII, clause 5, in effect, generally extends the House Rule XXI, clause 2, prohibition to conference reports. CRs, however, are not considered to be general appropriations bills because they provide only temporary appropriations. John V. Sullivan, Thomas J. Wickham Jr. and Jason A. Smith , House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the Hou...">12</a> Senate rules prohibit non-germane amendments that include legislative provisions either on the Senate floor or as an amendment between the houses.<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46595#fn13" name="ifn13" title="Senate Rule XVI, paragraphs 2-6.">13</a>While these Senate restrictions do apply in the case of CRs, there is considerable leeway on when such provisions may be included, such as when the Senate amends a legislative provision included by the House.<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46595#fn14" name="ifn14" title="For further information on House and Senate restrictions on legislation in appropriations, see CRS Report R41634, Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural Issues , by James V. Saturno .">14</a> The rules of the House and Senate are not self-enforcing, however. A point of order must be raised and sustained during floor consideration to enforce the prohibition.<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46595#fn15" name="ifn15" title="For further information on points of order, see CRS Report 98-307, Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the House of Representatives , by Valerie Heitshusen ; and CRS Report 98-306, Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the Senate , by Valerie Heitshusen .">15</a>

Substantive provisions in CRs have included language that established major new policies, such as an FY1985 CR, which contained the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46595#fn16" name="ifn16" title="P.L. 98-473 , 98 Stat. 1837.">16</a>

More frequently, CRs have been used to amend or renew provisions of law. For example, Section 140 of P.L. 112-33 retroactively renewed import restrictions under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-61):

(a) Renewal of Import Restrictions Under Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.—

(1) In general.—Congress approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) and section 3A (b)(1) and (c)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

(2) Rule of construction.—This section shall be deemed to be a "renewal resolution" for purposes of section 9 of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

(b) Effective Date.—This section shall take effect on July 26, 2011.

CRs have also contained legislative provisions that temporarily extended expiring laws. For example, Section 146 of P.L. 116-159 extended the National Flood Insurance Program:

(a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking "September 30, 2019" and inserting "September 30, 2021".

(b) Section 1319 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking "September 30, 2019" and inserting "September 30, 2021".

(c) (1) This section shall become effective immediately upon enactment of this Act.

(2) If this Act is enacted after September 30, 2020, this section shall be applied as if it were in effect on September 30, 2020.

Legislative provisions that temporarily extend expiring laws are effective through the date the CR expires, unless otherwise specified

 

[struth]

Both sides are holding out. Both sides are capable of ending it.

Don’t be a hack.

What is the gop holding out on? They’ve voted 15 times to pass a clean CR

 

[Marener]

Nope. The House passed a CR. The Senate is willing to pass it. Trump is willing to sign it. The Dems refuse to bring it to a clean vote.

Dems are holding out, no one else.

Apparently the Senate isn’t willing to pass it.