Trump's EO's that strip funding

[Moonglow]

Trump thinks he has the line item veto power.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Trump thinks he has the line item veto power.

Line item vetoes, of course, have been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, can anyone provide me a legal, constitutional basis for his actions?

 

[Stryder50]

Spending cuts aren't the issue. The execution of these cuts isn't legal though, at least by my interpretation.

The alternative is to decline to sign off on = approve the budget from Congress.
That has the Federal Guv'mint out of funds(money) and at end of the Fiscal Year and all of it is broke.

Can we assume you prefer this "all of it" solution over "some of it" ???

 

[TemplarKormac]

The alternative is to decline to sign off on = approve the budget from Congress.
That has the Federal Guv'mint out of funds(money) and at end of the Fiscal Year and all of it is broke.

Can we assume you prefer this "all of it" solution over "some of it" ???

I would prefer the President to act within his means, to be honest.

 

[Orangecat]

Perhaps chess-player Trump knew the bureaucracy would never dissolve its power, and therefore configured the highest court in the land to be composed of similarly minded justices. Three branches of government with equal powers can be controlled by two in agreement.
I don't really think Trump planned it this way, but I've found that doing the right things in life often pays out in unexpected ways down the road.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's be clear about something here. My interpretation of the separation of powers says that these EOs infringe on the right of Congress to dictate the nature and disbursement of funds.

But that's my interpretation. What is yours? Can you cite to me what Constitutional authority he has to do this?

Rulings? Laws? Acts? Statutes? I'm happy to listen.

The President can lawfully stop disbursements of funds not to exceed the current year. If Congress disagrees with the suspension of the funds, it has means to expedite an override and require the disbursement of the funds

The President's job, among many other jobs, is to ensure that funds authorized by Congress are spent as Congress intended. But because circumstances can change he does have authority to suspend funding at least temporarily.

". . .Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in response to the controversy. Title X in the act is commonly referred to as the Impoundment Control Act (or ICA), and it requires the president to report to Congress when he impounds funds as a deferment (or a temporary delay) or a recission (a permanent cancellation) of spending.

Under the ICA, spending deferrals must not extend beyond the current fiscal year, and Congress can override deferrals using an expedited process. For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending. . ."

Can a president refuse to spend funds approved by Congress? | Constitution Center

Shortly after President Donald Trump took office, his administration briefly paused federal spending on various programs. Although that spending has been restored, the move led to questions about the separation of powers between the president and Congress.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[candycorn]

So, can anyone provide me a legal, constitutional basis for his actions?

Can you show me where executive orders are in the Constitution?

If he orders everyone to drive on the opposite side of the road tomorrow...do we have to do it?

 

[candycorn]

The President can lawfully stop disbursements of funds not to exceed the current year. If Congress disagrees with the suspension of the funds, it has means to expedite an override and require the disbursement of the funds

Not even remotely true. You're talking about a veto. There is no provision for over-riding a "suspension of funds" dumbass.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The President can lawfully stop disbursements of funds not to exceed the current year. If Congress disagrees with the suspension of the funds, it has means to expedite an override and require the disbursement of the funds

The President's job, among many other jobs, is to ensure that funds authorized by Congress are spent as Congress intended. But because circumstances can change he does have authority to suspend funding at least temporarily.

". . .Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in response to the controversy. Title X in the act is commonly referred to as the Impoundment Control Act (or ICA), and it requires the president to report to Congress when he impounds funds as a deferment (or a temporary delay) or a recission (a permanent cancellation) of spending.

Under the ICA, spending deferrals must not extend beyond the current fiscal year, and Congress can override deferrals using an expedited process. For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending. . ."

Can a president refuse to spend funds approved by Congress? | Constitution Center

Shortly after President Donald Trump took office, his administration briefly paused federal spending on various programs. Although that spending has been restored, the move led to questions about the separation of powers between the president and Congress.

constitutioncenter.org

Perhaps chess-player Trump knew the bureaucracy would never dissolve its power, and therefore configured the highest court in the land to be composed of similarly minded justices. Three branches of government with equal powers can be controlled by two in agreement.
I don't really think Trump planned it this way, but I've found that doing the right things in life often pays out in unexpected ways down the road.

These are the two best responses.

It appears now that the President IS within his bounds to pause funding. So long as his pause doesn't exceed the current fiscal year, impair government functions or cause harm to the national interest. Given that excessive spending is contrary to the national interest, his actions are well within the bounds of the ICA and his Executive Power. There is an overriding national interest regarding the regulation of excessive spending.

The judge has ruled incorrectly on the spending freeze.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Amazing what happens when we put our heads together, eh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Final verdict:

Trump has the legal authority to pause spending until the end of the current fiscal year. The judge has erred in his ruling and has misinterpreted the Impoundment Control Act. There is no cause of immediate harm to the plaintiffs.

SCOTUS may rule 6-3 or 5-4 in his favor.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Missouri_Mike]

But nevertheless, the Separation of Powers still exists. Congress not doing its job is not a justification for usurping its power.

If they aren’t doing the job correctly then the president can act as the check and balance right? Congress is also supposed to pass a budget every year not these continuing resolutions for years on end. The people want this ridiculous spending shut down one way or another.

 

[Independent thinker]

Let's be clear about something here. My interpretation of the separation of powers says that these EOs infringe on the right of Congress to dictate the nature and disbursement of funds.

But that's my interpretation. What is yours? Can you cite to me what Constitutional authority he has to do this?

Rulings? Laws? Acts? Statutes? I'm happy to listen.

I see what you're saying. You're saying that the government and government spending should get bigger and bigger with 100 Senators and 435 Congress critters all spending like drunken sailors and that no one anywhere should have a check or balance on any of it. How big of a debt are you comforable with? 36 trillion? 50 trillion? 100 trillion? 200 trillion? At what point should someone step in and say enough is enough? Or, is their no limit to spending?

 

[BluesLegend]

When budgets are 50,000 pages long and no congress member has even read the damn thing let alone understands it then congress really isn’t doing their job in the first place.

WINNER! Since those gas bags in congress refuse to do their jobs it falls to the executive branch to make sure the people's money isn't pissed away on fraud and stupid shit.

 

[BluesLegend]

If they aren’t doing the job correctly then the president can act as the check and balance right? Congress is also supposed to pass a budget every year not these continuing resolutions for years on end. The people want this ridiculous spending shut down one way or another.

Right, those useless lazy asses in congress don't even bother to pass a budget. Who the fuck can spend $7 trillion freaking dollars without a budget? That's just here everyone pig out on this huge pile of money.

 

[konradv]

Let's be clear about something here. My interpretation of the separation of powers says that these EOs infringe on the right of Congress to dictate the nature and disbursement of funds.

But that's my interpretation. What is yours? Can you cite to me what Constitutional authority he has to do this?

Rulings? Laws? Acts? Statutes? I'm happy to listen.

He only has the right if payouts are discretionary as laid out in the enabling legislation. Nixon tried and was shot down by the courts.

 

[BluesLegend]

He only has the right if payouts are discretionary as laid out in the enabling legislation. Nixon tried and was shot down by the courts.

Trump will stop the fraud and if Democrats fight him on this there won't be a Dem party in 2026.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Let's be clear about something here. My interpretation of the separation of powers says that these EOs infringe on the right of Congress to dictate the nature and disbursement of funds.

But that's my interpretation. What is yours? Can you cite to me what Constitutional authority he has to do this?

Rulings? Laws? Acts? Statutes? I'm happy to listen.

Have they “”stripped funding” or are the EOs pausing funding to give the Trump admin time to identify and prevent the worst abuses?

Did the congressional spending bill explicitly specify 2 million bucks for sex changes and activism in Guatemala, for example, or was that a decision by an appointee of the previous administration?