Posted on 03/23/2018 11:17:53 PM PDT by ResisTyr
It’s not true. It’s 100% horsesh!t. The Constitution is clear: No money shall be spent from the treasury except as appropriated by law. People posting and tweeting this crap are morons.
“It’s not true. It’s 100% horsesh!t. The Constitution is clear: No money shall be spent from the treasury except as appropriated by law”
Like that 150 billion Obama sent to the terrorists in iran?
He’s RIGHT! We have precedence from Obama. Trump is a builder, he knows how to build the wall ;)
Now, now be gentle . . . They are just a little confused. After 8 years of Obama, they forgot the Constitution actually means something.
What we learned today...The Republican party is dead & our fed govt is irreparably corrupt and illegitimate.
The victims of the “flaming wreckage” are only dead for six months.
Then they become zombies and get to roam the planet again on October 1 and try to avoid their fate—again!
Only 0bama got a stash of cash to spend as he desired.
Second, the $150 billion was in freed assets frozen by the US because the Iranians stole US property. It was the Iranians own money.
Third, just because 0bama broke the law, doesn't mean Trump is going to do that, or be allowed to do that by the Federal Courts.
Example: 0bama restricts travel from several dangerous countries: no problem. Trump restricts travel from almost exactly the same countries? Struck down by Federal courts.
It's a double standard, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Money can't be spent except as appropriated by law. That's the Constitution. Period. 0bama's lawlessness doesn't justify our side being lawless.
I’m not buying this. Doesn’t make sense.
Nevertheless, there is more than one way to get a wall built.
I guess you’re correct. There is a process we have to follow. I do believe insurrection is the next step in the process.
I will patiently wait for clarification from Rush, Sean, Levin etc.
Looking toward November elections is now like looking at Opening day of MLB knowing Mets are not going to do well.
It’s actually not a bad argument. The Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 revised various aspects of the budgeting process and stripped away the president’s right to impound money he didn’t want to spend. The argument could be made that since there’s no budget, POTUS has the right to impound since the bill specifically dealt with his right to impound within the context of a budget. It could be argued that this was a limited revision of the Impoundment authority. And it’s arguable that the initial bill was unconstitutional since it took away a presidential power used since Jefferson. It was passed while Watergate was going on and Nixon was distracted and just signed. The only SCOTUS case dealing with it happened before the law was passed. Will it work? Perhaps after Anthony Kennedy retires.
1st you don’t know how much he sent.
2nd you’re pulling the rest out your ass. “Iranians own money”...Those are demoncrat talking points. He sent taxpayers cash to the terrorist mullahs in Iran. Textbook treason if O’muslim were actually a U.S. citizen.
3rd The Demoncrats had unfettered access to the U.S. Treasury for 8 years. That’s why O’muslim racked up 9 trillion in debt and we have nothing to show for it.
it’s 3-D chess!( we are never getting a wall )
lol
Don’t believe it.
Not saying you’re wrong. Only that many loopholes have been found in our Sacred Document. Where was congress when o-care was born again according to SCCJ Roberts as tax revenue? Or congress who failed to mention that BO’B was ineligible due to the fact he was not conceived by two AMERICAN citizens as parents?
I’m open to discussion here, willing to give those coming forward an opportunity to be heard. Just dying to hear the spin either side will use for this. Our POTUS, both parties in the house and senate. POTUS-VSG has proven himself a very smart guy who thinks out of the box. Certainly willing to see how it all shakes out before this support is withdrawn.
Have a wonderful weekend. And a better Monday.
Unfortunately, you’ve got it reversed.
The annual Budget bill, when they pass it (Congress often hasn’t bothered in recent years), is only a guideline.
An appropriations bill is an actual authorization to to spend money. And unfortunately, there is legal precedent that the money has to be spent as Congress directed. Nixon once tried to “sequester” some funds that he thought were wasteful expenditures. He argued that all statutory obligations could be met without the expenditures and the money could be saved, but the courts ruled that the appropriated funds had to be spent whether or not they were needed.
Are we to assume that being a FReeper is not only dependent upon signup dates, but also numbers of postings?
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.