Posted on 01/23/2017 9:33:30 AM PST by Degaston
Hi, I'm no lawyer but I see the game that the Left is playing now. They are going to go to Court to try to get injunctions to stop Trump's orders for the federal agencies to follow the law and respect the rights of the people where the federal government has overstepped its boundaries so that continued abuses can happen. I'd like to recommend that someone put in place some motion & suggested order for a federal judge to put an injunction in place to protect us from the abuses of the federal government before someone else gets some injunction put in place that allows continued abuse to occur.
Sample Court Motion
1. The United States federal government, through its three branches (hereinafter "federals"), have been grossly violating the legal rights of people and lower levels of government in the United States which are specified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The federals have been denying or disparaging the powers retained by them. The powers not delegated to the federals by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers and other powers vested by the Constitution. This section also grants Congress the power to regulate Commerce. However there are numerous sections of the United States Code, Code of Federal Regulations, budgets, and appropriations present and future where the federals have overstepped their boundaries with ambiguity.
2. Examples of these abuses through the "power to regulate Commerce" or "necessary and proper" clauses are enumerated in Exhibit A.
3. Due to the financial hardships and unfairness for the people and lower levels of government to challenge the abuses of the federals on these powers it is imperative that Congress's use of its powers be unambiguously defined so that the parties seeking redress can challenge them fairly.
4. The Court is asked to provide relief to the people and lower levels of government in prohibiting any federal agency from any future spending on its "power to regulate Commerce" or "necessary and proper" powers starting October 1, 2017 except where Congress may appropriate in the future.
5. The Court is asked to provide relief to the people and lower levels of government in prohibiting any federal agency from any future spending on any purpose starting October 1, 2017 except where Congress has unambiguously defined which power(s) authorize them to make such appropriations.
Sample Court Order
1. The Court orders relief to the people and lower levels of government in prohibiting any federal agency from any future spending on its "power to regulate Commerce" or "necessary and proper" powers starting October 1, 2017 except where Congress may appropriate in the future.
2. The Court orders relief to the people and lower levels of government in prohibiting any federal agency from any future spending on any purpose starting October 1, 2017 except where Congress has unambiguously defined which power(s) authorize them to make such appropriations.
I believe that President Trump has significant power to selectively limit spending by bureaucracies now, by precedent.
Knowledge of Federal law and rules, and strategic and tactical use of that knowledge may allow considerable reform outside the Courts, and that same strategic and tactics can be used on the Courts to move them to Constitutional rulings.
If we can get rid of baseline budgeting we get a huge spending reduction and end some automatic increases in the budget.
Congress controls the purse strings.
Of course Congress controls the purse strings. But the Lefties may be shopping right now for some Leftie judge in a Leftie-controlled federal circuit to go get some court injunction to last a few years as its tied up in the federal courts where Congress and all the agencies are under temporary order to keep bankrupting America through some “necessary and proper” spending that violates our Bill of Rights (see Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution).
What we need is an Article V Convention to more specifically limit Federal interference in our lives.
Note that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutinoal Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The states need to amend that excerpt to the Constitution.
Actually - there are several laws on the books that Obama and his minions could be ‘hoisted on’.
Anyone who works for the Federal Government and is responsible for authorizing spending (like issuing contracts to contractors/vendors for goods or services) learns of the various laws....and these laws come with warnings like it is a felony...and the individual can be forced to make up payments that were not legal.
From my memory....it is against the law to transfer money from something that was authorized to something that wasn’t authorized. (I believe that Obama has done lots of this...and I would LOVE to see him gone after...and they could seize his retirement AND monies that he generates from book deals, speaking fees, etc.) ALSO - it is illegal to spend more money that was authorized....so if you go over the amount....stop spending, don’t spend more and hope it is okay - because it ISN’T.
For example: One of the above is the “Anti-Deficiency Act”. The ADA prohibits the federal government from entering into a contract that is not “fully funded” because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract. This Act of Congress is sometimes known as Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.
Obama - transferring funds to a UN group involved with climate change - where Congress did NOT authorize funds - would be in violation of one or more existing laws.
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.