Posted on 01/16/2020 7:57:13 AM PST by Swordmaker
You don’t see Ukrainian corruption as a consideration for withholding funds ‘appropriated by congress’?
Trump discover that appropriated funds are an advanced money laundering scheme...
I think it could be but there are two problems.
First, the Defense Authorization Act required the administration to certify that reforms were in place in Ukraine to protect the money. Pompeo and the DOD provided that certification in writing to Congress. Hard to claim corruption once DOD and State say it's OK.
Second, regardless of what we think, the law's explicit. If Trump thinks things have gone to hell and we shouldn't send them the money he can go back to Congress and request a rescission of the authorization. He didn't do that.
The Impoundment Control Act says that with a couple of exceptions the President has to spend the money Congress authorizes, and do it in a timely manner. Trump didn't meet any of the exceptions yet delayed the funding - and in doing so broke the law (according to the GAO).
I know people who work for GAO; and every single one oh them are democrats. That office is a joke. They are liberal partisan hacks? Remember their biased report on Obamacare, which was 100% wrong?
My point as well, same GAO, which was 100% wrong on Obummercare.
"...unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability".
Did or did not the funds get obligated before the end of the fiscal year, the statutory requirement included in the law? Oh, they did.
The announcement from the GAO that conflicting policy was not a good enough explanation for withholding the funds is not their call; it is entirely a political statement. The spending authorization itself required an executive determination that sufficient changes be made in the levels of corruption in Ukraine before the release of any aid. Constitutionally, that cannot be delegated by Congress to any one other than the President.
There is nothing in the law that removes the President’s power under the Constitution to decide Foreign Aid and shifts that power over to Congress. That would take an amendment to the Constitution, and I don’t see that here, do you? That is the result of this law and that makes it unconstitutional. SCOTUS has ruled many times that you do not have to wait for a ruling to ignore unconstitutional laws. YOU are a poled steer who is comfortable waiting to be slaughtered. Fine, go join the Democrat Party. Oh, wait, you obviously already are a member; it drips from your every post on FR.
How could they not be Democrats? They hire from a pool of employees in the Washington D. C. area where the population is 90% if not higher Democrat. Their H.R. department is most likely already 90% Democrat with a Democrat bias, and any Republican is not going to feel comfortable working among fellow employees who shun him and refuse to talk to him, and is likely to get the hell out just for self-preservation.
A timely manner was still satisfied. A few weeks while they sorted everything out is not unjustified.
Especially when Joe Biden is on video BRAGGING about the corruption he committed.
Not so. They cite the ICA and other court and administrative rulings.
One example:
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
In fact, OMB doesn't even contest it. They accept that policy differences aren't a valid reason for deferring funds but argue that their reasons weren't policy related.
GAO disagreed.
The spending authorization itself required an executive determination that sufficient changes be made in the levels of corruption in Ukraine before the release of any aid. Constitutionally, that cannot be delegated by Congress to any one other than the President.
Nonsense.
You're not seriously arguing that the President can't delegate the notification to his SOS and/or SECDEF are you? Trump has to personally sign every administrative notification from The Executive to Congress?
There is nothing in the law that removes the President’s power under the Constitution to decide Foreign Aid and shifts that power over to Congress. That would take an amendment to the Constitution, and I don’t see that here, do you?
Again, the President can come up with any foreign policy that he wants. He just can't ignore Congress's constitutional control of the taxpayer's money when executing that policy.
A rogue government under Obama and still a rogue government.
You still have not answered my question about where the President has had his overriding authority in Foreign Affairs or anything else about the EXECUTIVE BRANCH removed by a STATUTE, which somehow trumps the CONSTITUTION. Pompeo can certify all he wants, as can the DOD, but it is still the the PRESIDENT’S branch. NOT THEIR’S. Under the constitution, they are merely advisors. They have ZERO authority that does not derive from the President.
Yes, the president can delegate his authority, but he can take it back at any time. AND YES, Constitutionally, the President CAN ignore any policy set by Congress when it impacts foreign policy. All they can do is NOT fund or limit the amount of finding on what he wants to do, as the Democrats tried to do on the border wall. They cannot force funding something when it comes to foreign policy. That is the President’s purview.
It is different on domestic policy. There, Congress can set policy.
Being that this issue is based in Foreign Policy is why this is even MORE unconstitutional than just trying to micromanage another co-equal branch of government saying that House’s policies are more important than the policies of the Executive Branch, when international conditions can change far quicker than Congress can react to them.
So is it your position that the President can spend as much of the taxpayers' money as he wants on foreign policy, or does Congress first have to appropriate it?
If Congress has to appropriate it you're acknowledging that POTUS' power over foreign affairs isn't absolute.
If you're saying they don't have to appropriate it you're completely tossing out the Constitutional order.
Yes, the president can delegate his authority, but he can take it back at any time.
True, but as far as I know he hasn't in this case. Do you have any evidence that State or Defense have withdrawn their certifications?
They cannot force funding something when it comes to foreign policy.
So you continue to say but the laws say otherwise, and have since 1974.
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.