Obama Judge Unfires Agency Head

[Kruska]

What law, or what part of the constitution says that the president cannot freeze spending?

The one that a federal judge has cited - a Constitutional law, which requires that CONGRESS decides onto Federal spending's onto a fund that has been introduced by Congress and approved, signed by the President.

The same law - that today Trump in a White House press conference acquitted to "respect" - which as such makes ALL of your previous arguments a JOKE. And further proves that you got no clue about the US constitution.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the ability to create a federal budget – in other words, to determine how much money the government can spend over the course of the upcoming fiscal year. Congress’s budget is then approved by the President.

And BTW - neither Congress nor Trump has so far outlined nor PASSED a fiscal spending budget for e.g. 2025.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The one that a federal judge has cited - a Constitutional law, which requires that CONGRESS decides onto Federal spending's onto a fund that has been introduced by Congress and approved, signed by the President.

That law specifies no freezes or that the money must be spent at a certain pace?

The same law - that today Trump in a White House press conference acquitted to "respect" - which as such makes ALL of your previous arguments a JOKE. And further proves that you got no clue about the US constitution.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the ability to create a federal budget – in other words, to determine how much money the government can spend over the course of the upcoming fiscal year. Congress’s budget is then approved by the President.

Look it up, but I know that the answer is no. budgets are continuing resolutions are for one year or whatever period of time the CR specifies. They never say that the money must be all spent, or spent by a certain date or that their can be no pauses.

The judge is substituting his opinion for law.

It has never come up that an agency wanted to spend less money than congress authorizes, so they made no law prohibiting it.

This is a giant leap in the direction of fiscal responsibility.

And BTW - neither Congress nor Trump has so far outlined nor PASSED a fiscal spending budget for e.g. 2025.

Correct. I expect the Dems in Congress to try to stall the process in order to get concessions from Trump which would amount to abdicating his constitutional power.

It will be interesting to see the Democrats "shut down the government and watch the American people say "Okay!"

 

[Kruska]

That law specifies no freezes or that the money must be spent at a certain pace?

You keep turning in circles - to avoid the obvious FACT, that anything to do with a Federal budget needs to be passed by and through Congress, and not by a President via e.g. an EO.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You keep turning in circles - to avoid the obvious FACT, that anything to do with a Federal budget needs to be passed by and through Congress, and not by a President via e.g. an EO.

Show me that in the law.

 

[Rogue AI]

You keep turning in circles - to avoid the obvious FACT, that anything to do with a Federal budget needs to be passed by and through Congress, and not by a President via e.g. an EO.

Congress authorizes the money, the executive administers it. The executive has quite a bit of freedom to enact the president's agenda. You really haven't made any cogent point that contradicts the thus far perfectly legal actions of the Trump administration.

 

[Kruska]

Show me that in the law.

As already stated: Trump today acquitted to "respecting" that law.

Since obviously he knows about those laws.

Fiscal Data Explains Federal Spending

Check out @FiscalService Fiscal Data’s new federal spending page! #FederalSpending

fiscaldata.treasury.gov

When issuing a contract or grant, the U.S. government enters a binding agreement called an obligation. This means the government promises to spend the money, either immediately or in the future. As an example, an obligation occurs when a federal agency signs a contract, awards a grant, purchases a service, or takes other actions that require it to make a payment.

Who has the power to control the budget?

Loading…

crsreports.congress.gov

The Constitution vests Congress with the power of the purse, with provisions that refer to congressional authority to levy taxes, authorize the issuance of debt, and make appropriations to fund the federal government.

1 The Constitution does not provide an explicit role for the President in the budget process.

In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).

The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power. One of the most prominent examples is the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which eliminated all military funding for the government of South Vietnam and thereby ended the Vietnam War.

Other recent examples include limitations on military funding placed on Ronald Reagan by Congress, which led to the withdrawal of United States Marines from Lebanon.

Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." This is what gives Congress the power to make these appropriations.

The president, however, still has the power to veto appropriations bills. However, the president does not have Line-Item veto authority, so they must either sign the entire bill into law or veto it.

Again - NEITHER Congress nor Trump have passed a budget for 2025. Till then they are LEGALLY COMMITTED to the already enacted bills

Now feel free to enjoy running in circles

Trump and his scumbag vassals know all this - and that is why they are hell-bend onto destroying US Democracy and as such the US Constitution.

 

[Rawley]

"Judge to Trump-terminated ethics watchdog: You’re un-fired
Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger won an order allowing him to remain in his job for now.
A federal judge reined in President Donald Trump’s firing spree Monday, ruling that a federal ethics watchdog can return to his job for at least a few days while the judge receives more detailed legal arguments about the case.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued the reprieve to Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, after he sued to contest the Friday night email he received from the White House indicating he’d been dismissed from his position. Dellinger, an appointee of President Joe Biden, is just one of various officials across the government whom Trump has tried to fire in recent days. Some of them are covered by federal statutes that limit the president’s authority to dismiss them.

Although his title is special counsel, Dellinger’s position is different from the more prominent special counsels who prosecute politically sensitive cases for the Justice Department. Rather, Dellinger leads an independent federal agency that handles whistleblower issues and complaints about violations of the Hatch Act, which limits political activity by government employees."

Loading…

www.politico.com

Now the judicial tyrants of the Left will try to block Trump at every turn as he tries to bring down the deep state.
The Demcorats claims about respecting democracy were just lies. Trump won democratically, but they will try to thwart the will of the people.

**This article was brought to you by USAID funded Politico.

Dude is a political appointee. WTF?

 

[Rogue AI]

Looks like Trump could easily fire this guy with cause, gross incompetence. He was given one simple task, pack his stuff and leave, and he mucked it all up. He is unfit to lead anything.

 

[toobfreak]

"Judge to Trump-terminated ethics watchdog: You’re un-fired
Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger won an order allowing him to remain in his job for now.

Trump should reassign his office to be at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

 

[Seymour Flops]

As already stated: Trump today acquitted to "respecting" that law.

Since obviously he knows about those laws.

No idea what you mean by "acquitted to respecting" that law, nor what law you mean.

Fiscal Data Explains Federal Spending

Check out @FiscalService Fiscal Data’s new federal spending page! #FederalSpending

fiscaldata.treasury.gov

When issuing a contract or grant, the U.S. government enters a binding agreement called an obligation. This means the government promises to spend the money, either immediately or in the future. As an example, an obligation occurs when a federal agency signs a contract, awards a grant, purchases a service, or takes other actions that require it to make a payment.

First of all that is not a law, it is a paragraph on a .gov website.

Second of all, it is NOT the full paragraph. You must be used to posters who don't check you on your facts. Here is the whole paragraph, with the part you left out highlighted:

Changes the whole meaning, but you tried to slip it by me? This is the kind of dishonesty we always see from Democrat posters that's why I check.

"Obligations do not always result in payments being made." If obligations do not always result in payments being made, what Trump is doing is nothing new. The new part is that it is being viewed through the lens of extreme TDS.

Who has the power to control the budget?

Loading…

crsreports.congress.gov

The Constitution vests Congress with the power of the purse, with provisions that refer to congressional authority to levy taxes, authorize the issuance of debt, and make appropriations to fund the federal government.

1 The Constitution does not provide an explicit role for the President in the budget process.

In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).

The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power. One of the most prominent examples is the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which eliminated all military funding for the government of South Vietnam and thereby ended the Vietnam War.

Other recent examples include limitations on military funding placed on Ronald Reagan by Congress, which led to the withdrawal of United States Marines from Lebanon.

Now feel free to enjoy running in circles

Trump and his scumbag vassals know all this - and that is why they are hell-bend onto destroying US Democracy and as such the US Constitution.

Congress budget money to fund the federal government. The executive uses that money to run the government. We have a new executive and he is running it a new way.

Yes, sometimes Congress will put specific restrictions on how the money is spent, as in your withdrawal from Lebonon. Let me know when you find any such specifics that Trump is violating.

Congress did NOT specifically budget money for LGBT shows in Columbia, nor for Millions of dollars worth of condoms for the Taliban. Voters would have ridden them out of DC on a rail if they had.

Congress funded USAID for a certain amount, and USAID made those decisions. Fine, it was under a Democrat executive and that's what Democrats like to spend tax money on.

Now the Democrats are gone, so the executive will run it as the voters demanded. No law prevents it, and no judge can do a damn thing if Trump doesn't obey a TRO's not to protect taxpayers from FWA.

 

[Kruska]

Second of all, it is NOT the full paragraph. You must be used to posters who don't check you on your facts. Here is the whole paragraph, with the part you left out highlighted:

View attachment 1077516

Bullshit - the article explains the ENTIRE process regarding the OVERSIGHT of spending's by the Treasury Department.
Therefore the TREASURY shows actual outlays that reflect actual spending occurring.

And has no bearing onto the powers invested solely by the Constitution onto Congress.

Since you are not just living in constant denial of FACTS - but also to dumb to read and comprehend - I regards this discussion as being over.

Now keep running in circles whilst relentlessly proofing your own ignorance - it's what Trump aficionados like you do best.

 

[Rogue AI]

Bullshit - the article explains the ENTIRE process regarding the OVERSIGHT of spending's by the Treasury Department.
Therefore the TREASURY shows actual outlays that reflect actual spending occurring.

And has no bearing onto the powers invested solely by the Constitution onto Congress.

Since you are not just living in constant denial of FACTS - but also to dumb to read and comprehend - I regards this discussion as being over.

Now keep running in circles whilst relentlessly proofing your own ignorance - it's what Trump aficionados like you do best.

You got your ass handed to you and now you're running away. How sad. Not one of your arguments demonstrated Trump's actions fall outside is Constitutional duty.

 

[22lcidw]

Whether it is or not, it's still law. Judges are appointed to rule on the law. If it's bad law, you don't pretend it's not there, you change it.




If MAGA can ignore laws, everyone can.

Progs went after parents in school meetings and Catholics in their homes. They have given prison sentences to people protesting and/or praying in front of abortion centers. Some elderly. Federal police if great against ICE to you and Local police must be defunded. Progs do not spew that anymore and in a shirt time it will be like the defund the police agenda never happened.

 

[Kruska]

You got your ass handed to you and now you're running away. How sad. Not one of your arguments demonstrated Trump's actions fall outside is Constitutional duty.

Only a Trump dolt would state such an obvious lie - so why should I care?

LOOK !! .. a ball... - go run....

 

[Seymour Flops]

Bullshit - the article explains the ENTIRE process regarding the OVERSIGHT of spending's by the Treasury Department.
Therefore the TREASURY shows actual outlays that reflect actual spending occurring.

And has no bearing onto the powers invested solely by the Constitution onto Congress.

Since you are not just living in constant denial of FACTS - but also to dumb to read and comprehend - I regards this discussion as being over.

Now keep running in circles whilst relentlessly proofing your own ignorance - it's what Trump aficionados like you do best.

Caught in a lie, and now you're bailing.

Making the best of a bad situation, I get it.

Wise move.

 

[Lastamender]

Some of them are covered by federal statutes that limit the president’s authority to dismiss them.

So it seems perhaps a judge telling Trump that he is not above the law.

Trump will tell the judge the same thing.

 

[fncceo]

Fuck Donald Trump

I’m fairly certain he’s out of your league.

 

[Slade3200]

Someone apparently hasn't thoroughly read thru the posts, and just made a fool of themselves. Par for the course.

Well then do better and LMK when you’re ready to engage

 

[pknopp]

Trump will tell the judge the same thing.

He likely will while adhering to the court ruling in the end.

 

[SeaMajor7]

He likely will while adhering to the court ruling in the end.