Posted on 11/26/2019 7:53:56 PM PST by Ainast
Can the president legally withhold congressionally approved aid? Is there any examples of Obama doing this?
Ive been researching a response to a friend but im stuck on this one. Help please.
Yes it is within the power of the presidency to withhold foreign aid funds. If you listened to to Bidens tape when he blackmailed Ukraine that should be apparent.
He bluntly stated that he had talked to the president, Obama, about it and had the authority to do so.
Ainast gets a great example, AND gets to rub the friend's nose in Biden's pile of corrupt horsepoo.
Of course.
The obvious example is that Biden withheld aid to Ukraine in order to cause Ukraine to fire a prosecutor.
You can watch a video of him bragging about this to the Council on Foreign Relations :
Moreover, ALL foreign aid is conditional. For example, you cannot use US aid for some other purpose or perhaps to murder civilians. If nations cannot or will not abide by our expectations, aid is revoked, withheld, reduced etc. That is absolutely normal and in fact required by law.
Because the President is the Executive branch, these enforcements of the laws passed by Congress fall to him.
Elizabeth Warren recently explained that she would condition aid to Israel on forbidding the building of settlement ts in the West Bank.
That is a stupid bad idea but is precisely the kind of thing Presidents can and regularly do.
Democrats and media brag about Biden and Warren doing exactly this while pretending that Trump must be removed from office and then jailed for even considering this possibility.
It is catastrophically reactionary and easily demonstrably false to assert this against President Trump.
Yes, Obama withheld previously approved aid to Uganda because of lack of support for gay rights.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday cut aid to Uganda, imposed visa restrictions and canceled a regional military exercise in response to a Ugandan law that imposes harsh penalties on homosexuality.
Blegh... what happened to my formatting?
Here is an article: https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid with relevant info.
“Once Congress designates money for a program, the executive is typically bound to spend those funds on that program. If the president wants to significantly alter a program’s budget, he is required to obtain congressional approval.
Within these bounds, the White House OMB has some discretion to determine when congressional money can be released to an agency and spent. But this discretion is limited to ensuring that congressional funding lasts for the allotted time and that the money is spent appropriately.
OMB is prohibited from using its “apportionment power” to determine or set an executive agency’s policy. OMB can only use its authority to ensure a congressional law is appropriately executed, and the money allocated for that law typically lasts through the fiscal year unless the money is made available for obligation over a longer period.”
The ultimate answer is there are limits on Executive power and there may have been some kind of violation of the strict letter of the law in the case of the Ukranian aid. Though it is unlikely any kind of punishment or consequence would result were it not for the current Media/Political environment.
You have liberal friends???
You have liberal friends???
Watch Ratcliffe’s questioning. He brought up two or three other countries where aide was delayed. Not that unusual.
Lol technically hes a nephew.
Its going to be a fun thanksgiving.
Good information guys. I think the biggest problem is that reality doesnt matter to liberals.
I wish we would cut off all Foreign aid to Ukraine.
“Once Congress designates money for a program, the executive is typically bound to spend those funds on that program. If the president wants to significantly alter a program’s budget, he is required to obtain congressional approval.
Within these bounds, the White House OMB has some discretion to determine when congressional money can be released to an agency and spent. But this discretion is limited to ensuring that congressional funding lasts for the allotted time and that the money is spent appropriately.
OMB is prohibited from using its “apportionment power” to determine or set an executive agency’s policy. OMB can only use its authority to ensure a congressional law is appropriately executed, and the money allocated for that law typically lasts through the fiscal year unless the money is made available for obligation over a longer period.”
The ultimate answer is there are limits on Executive power and there may have been some kind of violation of the strict letter of the law in the case of the Ukranian aid. Though it is unlikely any kind of punishment or consequence would result were it not for the current Media/Political environment.
That’s incorrect, Congress can allocate money but it can’t force the executive to spend it.
And the law required Trump to withhold aid if Ukraine wasn’t cracking down on corruption, Biden was a major example of corruption in Ukraine.
Obama talked Ukraine into disarming, saying the US would protect them from Russia. After their missles were gone, Russians invaded and took the Crimera ‘Bama refused to send any military aid to Ukraine for 7+ years.
He was deep in bed with Putin.
Once Congress designates money for a program, the executive is typically bound to spend those funds on that program. If the president wants to significantly alter a program’s budget, he is required to obtain congressional approval.
Within these bounds, the White House OMB has some discretion to determine when congressional money can be released to an agency and spent. But this discretion is limited to ensuring that congressional funding lasts for the allotted time and that the money is spent appropriately.
The White House’s discretion is granted and limited through the president’s “apportionment power” and “deferral power,” or the ability to limit spending for brief periods if the budget is at risk of not lasting the fiscal year. The president subsequently delegates both these responsibilities to OMB. Usually, plans or instructions for an agency’s budget are detailed by OMB Circular A-11, a standard White House document. (An example of one is here.) Once Congress has allocated this money, career OMB employees, and not political appointees, normally review and approve each agency’s planned post-appropriation spending.
So the President was supposed to send the Congress a message and didn't.
OMB might have had the ability to withhold this aid if the White House had provided Congress with a message meeting the ICA’s requirements. But no message appears to have been sent. Furthermore, the aid from both Defense and State was held long past the mandated 45-day period and in apparent contravention of his powers defined by 31 U.S.C § 1512. The president and OMB did ultimately release the $250 million in aid from the Defense Department (on Sept. 11) and the $141 million from the State Department (around the same date). Whether there is some good legal or other explanation for the long delay in releasing the money is a question that lacks a clear answer, and that might remain unanswered indefinitely if Congress cannot get its hands on the requested documents.
So basically the Deep State Department wants to impeach the President for not sending them a message about why it took so long to convince himself that it wasn't going to be wasted on a corrupt foreign government. Boy, these people have an inflated sense of importance.
The only thing that matters is what a person's political party is.
Democrat: No laws apply. They can do whatever they want. No consequences.
Republican: All laws apply. And person is guilty even if they didn't break any law.
Laws can also be made up, and people can lie, if it helps democrats in any way- i.e. cover up for their own corruption.
Republicans are always guilty, even when they aren't.
That was the case until the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Nixon angered Congress by refusing to spend (impounding) certain appropriations.
This is precisely correct.
This is a silly discussion.
Obama literally sent a crate of unmarked treasury bills to Iran to bypass congress. Complete treason. Completely fine. He’s a democrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.