Opinion piece: why, if under our Constitution, should a President be required to spend money authorized by Congress?

[rightwinger]

It looks so to you.

I have always owned you, Leftwhiner.

You’re not even a challenge.

Looks like another one of your threads exploded in your face again Liability

 

[Votto]

The President runs the executive branch
He executes the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

No. We have been over this

The Executive Branch is supposed to execute the laws, but what you have is an entire branch of government created by the Legislative Branch that essentially has them write regulations which are just as good as laws written down by unelected people like Elon Musk.

The kicker is, Trump is the head of the Executive Branch and is being told by the Judicial branch that he can't do as he pleases within his own branch of government.

When the bureaucratic state was created that allowed unelected officials to write laws behind the scenes, the nation had a constitutional crisis on their hands but no one realized it.

Naturally, the DNC controlled media would never make a peep about it.

Why is it that the nation is being held hostage today by unelected Federal judges trying to defend unelected bureaucrats within the Executive Branch?

 

[BackAgain]

Looks like another one of your threads exploded in your face again Liability

No.

Another swing and expected whiff from you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Opinion piece.

(No link for am opnion).

I see that our judicial branch seems hell bent on insisting that the President has n discretion over once Congress has authorized spending. That, alone, is deemed a command to spend.

This led me to wonder: what if (for any set of reasons) Congress crafted an array of legislation (probably passed over a veto) which would require the Federal leviathan to spend so much so fast that it would undercut our ability to survive as a nation?

In complying with such laws, wouldn’t it be a violation of the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution?

Why can’t the Executive Branch serve as a check and balance on the Legislative Branch?

I would say (my opinion) that the president is required to spend money in he way that congress specifies and the president signed off on, or even if the congress specified and over-rode his or her veto.

Key word is "specify."

If Congress authorized specifically $75,000 for drag shows in Ecuador, those words were in the bill they passed and the president signed it, then the money was meant to be spent on drag shows in Ecuador.

However, I highly doubt that was what it said. If the 75K was part of a few billion authorized for "cultural events in Latin America," or some such, then the president can of course say "no more of that bullshit," and pause spending while he makes sure there are no such shenanigans in future spending under his watch.

It's new territory, intellectually speaking. Thus far, the custom has been for the whackos on one side to agree to the spending wanted by whackos on the other side in a "you okay my nonsense, and I'll okay yours," arangement. It is the first time we've had a president say, "stop destroying our country, you whackos.

As to authorizing $XX Billion to be spent by USAID, and USAID seeming hell-bent on finding as muc craziness as they can to spend it on, that's why it is important to pause all spending until the crazies can be ferreted out and eliminated.

Then America-firsters can easily find projects that will benefit the American voter/taxpayer to spend that money on. For example, Border Czar Kamal Harris was tasked with solving the root causes of illegal immigration. She failed miserably, of course, becasue thought lack of DEI was driving people out of their homelands. Give a hundred billion to groups promiting free enterprise, private investment, and capitalism in those countries and they can solve those root causes.

Or, he can have them give a grant to the treasury to pay for his refund to taxpayers, by far the most just use of the money.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Opinion piece.

(No link for am opnion).

I see that our judicial branch seems hell bent on insisting that the President has n discretion over once Congress has authorized spending. That, alone, is deemed a command to spend.

This led me to wonder: what if (for any set of reasons) Congress crafted an array of legislation (probably passed over a veto) which would require the Federal leviathan to spend so much so fast that it would undercut our ability to survive as a nation?

In complying with such laws, wouldn’t it be a violation of the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution?

Why can’t the Executive Branch serve as a check and balance on the Legislative Branch?

The Unconstitutional Budget Impoundment Act of 1974 tilted the balance

 

[Foxfyre]

Opinion piece.

(No link for am opnion).

I see that our judicial branch seems hell bent on insisting that the President has n discretion over once Congress has authorized spending. That, alone, is deemed a command to spend.

This led me to wonder: what if (for any set of reasons) Congress crafted an array of legislation (probably passed over a veto) which would require the Federal leviathan to spend so much so fast that it would undercut our ability to survive as a nation?

In complying with such laws, wouldn’t it be a violation of the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution?

Why can’t the Executive Branch serve as a check and balance on the Legislative Branch?

The President can veto any spending package Congress passes and it requires a super majority of both the House and Senate to override that veto.

But once Congress has passed the legislation and the President signs it into law, it requires, Congress, and not the President, to reverse that legislation. Of course if the President determines the money is going to other than what Congress authorized, he can intervene. And if He determines the money creates a security risk or does other harm to America and Americans, he can hold it up at least temporarily until Congress can act.

But he cannot just arbitrarily refuse to administer funds that have been signed into law just because he thinks it is bad legislation.

 

[BackAgain]

The Unconstitutional Budget Impoundment Act of 1974 tilted the balance

It might be unconstitutional. I don’t know for sure. But I do believe it might not be ruled as being unconstitutional these days.

 

[BackAgain]

The President can veto any spending package Congress passes and it requires a super majority of both the House and Senate to override that veto.

But once Congress has passed the legislation and the President signs it into law, it requires, Congress, and not the President, to reverse that legislation.

So far, so good.

Of course if the President determines the money is going to other than what Congress authorized, he can intervene.

I’d say so.

And if He determines the money creates a security risk or does other harm to America and Americans, he can hold it up at least temporarily until Congress can act.

Yes.

But he cannot just arbitrarily refuse to administer funds that have been signed into law just because he thinks it is bad legislation.

Also, I agree.

The key word in that final portion is “arbitrarily.”

 

[rightwinger]

The kicker is, Trump is the head of the Executive Branch and is being told by the Judicial branch that he can't do as he pleases within his own branch of government.

Actually, he is being told he must follow the law

 

[Z99]

The President does not get to declare what is Constitutional …we have a Supreme Court for that

You don't care about the constitutional or the SCOTUS. You cite them, however, when you believe it will help you win the argument. The truth is that you would throw them into the garbage in a heartbeat if it would serve the interests of your masters in the Washington elite.

 

[Z99]

Here's my novice take. Funding that has already been approved for a SPECIFIC purpose should continue for the appropriate fiscal year.

However, as the president and other officials take an oath to protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic, I believe it is obligatory for fraudulent and wasteful spending to be canceling.

The corrupt judges are doing their best to get the billions released to their political masters so that they can all get their cut at the expense of the poor and middle-class Americans that they're robbing.