Trump's Praise for DeSantis' Democratic Opponent Rankles MAGA World

[corbe]

Correct, but it's become murky legal territory since the Nixon Administration. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/03/03/toying-with-the-budget-process/0991e6bb-c8c6-4d79-a847-8248aa22ed15/

   Correct me if I'm wrong @Timber Rattler BUT the President still can VETO any Budget that Congress passes.  Sure, they can override his/her Veto, but it's on them.  The President has a lot of say on the Annual Budget.   
   He/She submits their own and fights for it, in most instances.

   Signed:

   The (self proclaimed) King of DEBT!

[Hoodat]

Correct, but it's become murky legal territory since the Nixon Administration. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/03/03/toying-with-the-budget-process/0991e6bb-c8c6-4d79-a847-8248aa22ed15/

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act is blatantly unconstitutional.  Congress may not deny the President powers delegated to him/her under the Constitution.

Article II, Sec 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

[Timber Rattler]

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act is blatantly unconstitutional.  Congress may not deny the President powers delegated to him/her under the Constitution.

Article II, Sec 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

I agree with that.  There was a lot of unconstitutional stuff that came out of Congress in reaction to Nixon and Watergate.  But it's never been knocked down in court as far as I know.

[LMAO]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Yes,but a Dim president working with a Dim Congress can really  blow that up to the point where the new president starts out trying to play "catch-up" his entire first year,and it would have an effect on 2nd year budgetting,too.

That means that the previous President's budget can basically tie up  the next President for almost half of his term of office,.

Not true, but continue to convince yourself that Trump was nothing more than a victim of Obama’s budgets if it makes you feel better

[sneakypete]

I agree with that.  There was a lot of unconstitutional stuff that came out of Congress in reaction to Nixon and Watergate.  But it's never been knocked down in court as far as I know.

@Timber Rattler

Has it ever been taken before a court,or has any tried to take it before a court,and the court refused to view it?

[sneakypete]

Not true, but continue to convince yourself that Trump was nothing more than a victim of Obama’s budgets if it makes you feel better

@LMAO

Trump just lives rent-free inside your brain,doesn't he?

[Kamaji]

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act is blatantly unconstitutional.  Congress may not deny the President powers delegated to him/her under the Constitution.

Article II, Sec 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

It's not nearly so simple as that.

[LMAO]

   Correct me if I'm wrong @Timber Rattler BUT the President still can VETO any Budget that Congress passes.  Sure, they can override his/her Veto, but it's on them.  The President has a lot of say on the Annual Budget.   
   He/She submits their own and fights for it, in most instances.

   Signed:

   The (self proclaimed) King of DEBT!

Yes

[cato potatoe]

So,you are saying the spending bills passed by Congress,and made into law can be ignored by the next President?

Every president has a responsibility to negotiate with congress over discretionary spending.  Trump has a record, so we can evaluate him as any other politician.  His record is one of a progressive.  I have seen zero evidence Trump intends to moderate his own spending binge which grew federal outlays to 33% of GDP (as compared to 18% under Newt Gingrich).  In addition, some unpopular steps are needed to curtail mandatory spending ... which represents 2/3 of the budget ... before it inevitably leads to a financial crisis.  Trump is destined to own the worst outcome by destroying the only politicians who are willing to deal with the entitlement debt bomb. 

[Idiot]

https://youtu.be/JECufYRGX2g

@Right_in_Virginia

[Hoodat]

It's not nearly so simple as that.

Enforcement of the law rests with the Executive Branch.  If the legislature passes a law making it a crime to drive over 60 mph, and a cop clocks you doing 62 mph, is he compelled by the legislature to pull you over and charge you with speeding?  Or is it solely up to his discretion?

[Kamaji]

Enforcement of the law rests with the Executive Branch.  If the legislature passes a law making it a crime to drive over 60 mph, and a cop clocks you doing 62 mph, is he compelled by the legislature to pull you over and charge you with speeding?  Or is it solely up to his discretion?

If the President decides he doesn’t like the current Congress, can he shut down the entire government by refusing to spend a single penny lawfully appropriated by Congress?  Can he decide that Congress’ spending priorities were misplaced and decide to spend appropriated money on his own personal priorities because, in his sole judgment, that is better for the country?

The discretion to spend exists around the margin; Nixon abused it and Congress, which has the sole power to MAKE the law put its foot down.

Congress can make spending mandatory, and the president would have no discretion about it.

And to answer your question, if the legislature passed a law that made pulling every speeder over, no discretion, then no discretion would exist.

If you really took your own position seriously, you would be arguing in favor of Biden’s refusal to enforce immigration law and instead open the border because, well, because he’s the president and has sole executive discretion.

WADR, that’s a pretty f**king pathetic position.

[Hoodat]

If the President decides he doesn’t like the current Congress, can he shut down the entire government by refusing to spend a single penny lawfully appropriated by Congress?

Yes.

Can he decide that Congress’ spending priorities were misplaced and decide to spend appropriated money on his own personal priorities because, in his sole judgment, that is better for the country?

No.

Congress can make spending mandatory, and the president would have no discretion about it.

Congress can dictate spending to be mandatory all they want.  But it won't make it so.  Congress sets the budget.  But they don't send out the checks.  The Treasury does that.  And the Treasury falls under the Executive Branch.  The Executive can either write a check that Congress has budgeted, or it can do nothing.  It cannot write a check for something not budgeted. 

And to answer your question, if the legislature passed a law that made pulling every speeder over, no discretion, then no discretion would exist.

Likewise, if the legislature passed a law saying that $100 billion allocated for food stamps had to be paid out regardless of whether there were enough people who qualified, no discretion, then no discretion would exist either.  Thankfully, our Founding Fathers had the sense to award this executive power to only one branch of government - the branch that the President heads.

If you really took your own position seriously, you would be arguing in favor of Biden’s refusal to enforce immigration law and instead open the border because, well, because he’s the president and has sole executive discretion.

Biden's refusal to enforce immigration law is his discretion.  It doesn't mean I support the decision.  But it is his Constitutional right.  And if the States were stupid enough to select someone like him as President, then they deserve what they get.  Let's not forget that there is a Fourth Branch of government.

Open border is another matter altogether.  Biden is violating Article IV, Section 4.

[Kamaji]

Yes.


No.


Congress can dictate spending to be mandatory all they want.  But it won't make it so.  Congress sets the budget.  But they don't send out the checks.  The Treasury does that.  And the Treasury falls under the Executive Branch.  The Executive can either write a check that Congress has budgeted, or it can do nothing.  It cannot write a check for something not budgeted. 


Likewise, if the legislature passed a law saying that $100 billion allocated for food stamps had to be paid out regardless of whether there were enough people who qualified, no discretion, then no discretion would exist either.  Thankfully, our Founding Fathers had the sense to award this executive power to only one branch of government - the branch that the President heads.


Biden's refusal to enforce immigration law is his discretion.  It doesn't mean I support the decision.  But it is his Constitutional right.  And if the States were stupid enough to select someone like him as President, then they deserve what they get.  Let's not forget that there is a Fourth Branch of government.

Open border is another matter altogether.  Biden is violating Article IV, Section 4.

All wrong. 

[Timber Rattler]

@Timber Rattler

Has it ever been taken before a court,or has any tried to take it before a court,and the court refused to view it?

Not that I'm aware of, except for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_v._City_of_New_York

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Enforcement of the law rests with the Executive Branch.  If the legislature passes a law making it a crime to drive over 60 mph, and a cop clocks you doing 62 mph, is he compelled by the legislature to pull you over and charge you with speeding?  Or is it solely up to his discretion?

@Hoodat

That's prosecutorial discretion.  Different issue.

There are plenty of examples of executive-branch personnel being ordered to perform legally-required acts.  It's the entire basis of a writ of mandamus.

So here's a concrete example: Could a President order the government not to send out Social Security or military pension checks, and no person or other branch of government would.have any legal recourse?

[Hoodat]

So here's a concrete example: Could a President order the government not to send out Social Security or military pension checks

Yes.  Same rule applied when Obama shut down the national parks and suspended government payroll checks during a debt crisis.  It is solely the power of the Executive Branch.

and no person or other branch of government would.have any legal recourse?

There is always recourse.

[Kamaji]

Yes.  Same rule applied when Obama shut down the national parks and suspended government payroll checks during a debt crisis.  It is solely the power of the Executive Branch.


There is always recourse.

No, actually, he can’t. If he does, an aggrieved recipient can sue and the courts will order the payment disbursed.

Writing checks is a ministerial duty of the president; not an independent, or constitutional, font of power.

[Hoodat]

I am not of the opinion that the Executive Branch is an extension of the Legislative Branch.  You clearly believe that it is.

[Hoodat]

Article II, Sec 1

The executive power ministerial duty shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

[Kamaji]

I am not of the opinion that the Executive Branch is an extension of the Legislative Branch.  You clearly believe that it is.

/snicker

No. You just want to rewrite the Constitution so that the power to spend is an executive power, not an expressly granted Congressional power.

If you’d actually bothered to read up on the power you argue for, you would see that it really only gives discretion to the executive when funds have been appropriated for the executive’s use, such as in purchasing ships for the military.  It is not some overarching spending power that allows the executive to independently second-guess the spending priorities of Congress.

The Constitution does give the President power over Congressional spending decisions, but at a completely different locus in the decision-making process.  The presidents only independent power over spending decisions is the power to veto spending bills. Once that point is passed, either because the president signed a particular bill, or because Congress overrode a veto, the president no longer has an independent grant of power over spending decisions.

It’s fascinating how all one has to do is to scratch the surface on most self-proclaimed conservatives to find a “living Constitution “ underneath. 

The president does not have an independent impoundment power under the Constitution, and the impoundment act was a valid exercise of Congressional authority.

[Hoodat]

Keep in mind, I am the one here going by what the Constitution actually says - not by what you wish it said.

Again, the Treasury Department is under the authority of the President, not the Congress.  But if you insist that the Treasury Department is some sort of Executive adjunct of the Legislative Branch, then by all means show me where in the Constitution that power is derived.  "Living Constitution"?  Please.  There is nothing more Conservative than placing limits on Government which is what our Constitution does.  Except for some unknown reason, you wish to remove one of those limits to give Congress Executive authority.  Bah!  To hell with that.

You continue to ignore the fact that there are four branches of government.  And that the powers of both the Executive and Legislative Branches are derived from the fourth.

Want another example?  How about the EPA.  The EPA (allegedly) runs a superfund that accumulates money from year to year.  But how can that be?  According to you, Congress ordered the EPA to spend the money.  Yet the money accumulates unspent at the direction of the Executive Branch.  Is it possible that Executive Power is vested to the President and not to Congress?  Our Constitution certainly thinks so.

The problem here is that you simply don't like the fact that the President does not have to spend money that Congress appropriates because you fear that it could cost you somewhere down the line.  But that is the government we have.  Congress doesn't like it either which is why they enacted a law to circumvent it.  If it was truly Constitutional for the Executive Branch to be a patsy of Congress, then Congress wouldn't have felt compelled to pass that law increasing their power.  But they did.  Which proves that even Congress recognizes the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch.

But for the sake of argument, let's see your fear scenario through to the end.  Let's say that the President decides to clean up the food stamp program.  Throughout a fiscal year, the Executive Branch determines that half the people collecting food stamps did not qualify.  So it chooses not to hand that food stamp money out, leaving a surplus of funds at the end of the fiscal year.  According to you, the President is in violation of the Constitution in doing so since you insist that the President MUST spend money that Congress has appropriated.  So let's examine the Constitutional courses of action here.  Congress can use its power of the purse to extort the President into reversing course.  Or someone can sue leaving it up to nine black-robed tyrants who may or may not rule based on the Constitution.  Or the fourth branch of government may step in and remove Congress, the President, or both.  This is the Constitutional government we have, like it or not.  And there is NOTHING in that Constitution that compels the President to spend money that Congress appropriates.  Nothing.

[mountaineer]

Donald Trump praises governorships of Charlie Crist and Rick Scott in video addressing DeSantis. "Florida was doing fantastically. You had a governor named Rick Scott who did a very good job. Even Charlie Crist, a Democrat, did a good job - and he had very good numbers."

John Cardillo
@johncardillo
Whomever is advising Trump to praise Charlie Crist should be fired immediately.

Agreed.

5:25 PM · Mar 13, 2023

https://twitter.com/FLVoiceNews/status/1635362516460265472

[Kamaji]

Keep in mind, I am the one here going by what the Constitution actually says - not by what you wish it said.

Again, the Treasury Department is under the authority of the President, not the Congress.  But if you insist that the Treasury Department is some sort of Executive adjunct of the Legislative Branch, then by all means show me where in the Constitution that power is derived.  "Living Constitution"?  Please.  There is nothing more Conservative than placing limits on Government which is what our Constitution does.  Except for some unknown reason, you wish to remove one of those limits to give Congress Executive authority.  Bah!  To hell with that.

You continue to ignore the fact that there are four branches of government.  And that the powers of both the Executive and Legislative Branches are derived from the fourth.

Want another example?  How about the EPA.  The EPA (allegedly) runs a superfund that accumulates money from year to year.  But how can that be?  According to you, Congress ordered the EPA to spend the money.  Yet the money accumulates unspent at the direction of the Executive Branch.  Is it possible that Executive Power is vested to the President and not to Congress?  Our Constitution certainly thinks so.

The problem here is that you simply don't like the fact that the President does not have to spend money that Congress appropriates because you fear that it could cost you somewhere down the line.  But that is the government we have.  Congress doesn't like it either which is why they enacted a law to circumvent it.  If it was truly Constitutional for the Executive Branch to be a patsy of Congress, then Congress wouldn't have felt compelled to pass that law increasing their power.  But they did.  Which proves that even Congress recognizes the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch.

But for the sake of argument, let's see your fear scenario through to the end.  Let's say that the President decides to clean up the food stamp program.  Throughout a fiscal year, the Executive Branch determines that half the people collecting food stamps did not qualify.  So it chooses not to hand that food stamp money out, leaving a surplus of funds at the end of the fiscal year.  According to you, the President is in violation of the Constitution in doing so since you insist that the President MUST spend money that Congress has appropriated.  So let's examine the Constitutional courses of action here.  Congress can use its power of the purse to extort the President into reversing course.  Or someone can sue leaving it up to nine black-robed tyrants who may or may not rule based on the Constitution.  Or the fourth branch of government may step in and remove Congress, the President, or both.  This is the Constitutional government we have, like it or not.  And there is NOTHING in that Constitution that compels the President to spend money that Congress appropriates.  Nothing.

The Constitution does not give the President the independent authority to decide at his whim whether or not to spend funds that have been appropriated by Congress.

Congress has the spending power, that is crystal clear in the Constitution.  The President does not.

Faithly executing the laws of the U.S. includes treating the check-writing responsibility as largely ministerial unless Congress has granted discretion.

You simply wish to invert the process and give the spending power to the President.

Whatever. 

[Hoodat]

The Constitution does not give the President the independent authority to decide at his whim whether or not to spend funds that have been appropriated by Congress.

Again, all executive power rests with the President.  That is what the Constitution says.

Congress has the spending power, that is crystal clear in the Constitution.

Crystal clear, eh?  Show me where it says that.

Faithly executing the laws of the U.S. includes treating the check-writing responsibility as largely ministerial unless Congress has granted discretion.

Show me where it says that, too.