Posted on 11/22/2019 3:18:12 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 11/22/2019 3:30:19 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
The president sets foreign policy according to the Constitution. Appointments and treaties must be approved by the senate, of course, but the president sets the overall policy. The giving of foreign aid, military aid, etc, is part of foreign policy and is controlled by the president, with congressional approval for the funds.
There's nothing in the constitution prohibiting the president from attaching strings or conditions to foreign aid and I do believe this is routine and common practice. This is not bribery or extortion.
Can the president withhold foreign aid or threaten to withhold foreign aid to a country unless certain conditions are met? Even if they are an ally and even if they are at war? Even if the congress has already approved the funds?
There's nothing in the constitution prohibiting it.
Congressional acts even if signed by the president cannot alter the above without an appropriate constitutional amendment being passed and ratified by the states.
Am I correct that we also coerced Mexico to help with border security (their North AND South) by threatening to withhold their “aid” payments?
Some TV clown was declaring that it was "unconstitutional" for Trump to interfere with Congressional funding allocations. (i.e. aid to Ukraine)
Not only is he wrong about that but the Javelins were a MILITARY SALE, NOT "foreign aide"!!!!
President Roosevelt denied military aid to Britain and Russia even though they were at war and were desperately begging for it. And this was a personal political decision. Roosevelt wanted to be re-elected. Pearl Harbor got him off the hook.
Foreign aid provided by law,must, of course be provided as the law provides.
The claim against Trump, without any clear evidence, is that he added additional provisions for that aid.
That would be illegal.
Apparently it did not happen though.
Foreign aid, like all diplomacy, is a very dirty business. Bribery and coercion are at the heart. But it beats war.
President Roosevelt had to resort to developing a Lend Lease program under which England could acquire much needed arms from us.
Does the constitution require the president to give or continue giving foreign aid unconditionally?
President Roosevelt had to resort to developing a Lend Lease program under which England could acquire much needed arms from us.
Ok, so he was not required to give foreign aid to an ally even though they were at war and begging for the aid?
It requires him to “faithfully execute the law”.
A law is a law. Be it good or bad.
There is no good reason to think Trump did not faithfully execute the law for Ukraine aid.
But that is at least a political question that would be subject to impeachment.
If it were reasonable.
A foreign aid law would last as long as the law stated.
Does a law trump the constitution?
We give countries Foreign Military Funding (FMF) that they must spend on contracts purchasing our stuff. That’s the world of Foreign Military Sales. Then there’s DCS, which is Direct Commercial Sales - if you want a lesson in graft, corruption and bribery, this is the place to be. Look up the term ‘offsets’ and you’ll see what I mean. Some major US companies have built hotels to line the pockets of foreign leaders and their relatives.
It brings it into ‘impeachment territory’ if the President does not ‘faithfully execute’ a law.
The Ukraine aid was not “unconditional”. Obama holdovers got it through the conditions in the law.
IMHO Trump has not transgressed the Constitution’s requirement that he “faithfully execute” the law. Mighty tricky that. I see no need to address the constitutionality of that law.
Congress does have some power over our foreign policy.
I assume the aid was provided by a majority vote in the Senate and not a Treaty vote.
Which part of the Constitution authorizes CONgress to disperse TaxPayer funds to Foreign Countries in the first place???
Did not know that. Have heard FDR was given advanced warning of Pearl Harbor attack but deliberately did nothing. So this may provide one reason he wanted to get into war?
Jim it’s all so absurd it’s SICKENING.
They are not going to stop, even when this falls in the senate.
The deep state is losing TOO MUCH MONEY without endless wars and the slowing of cheap labor pouring in.
We need to take the house back this year.
I did not see the terrible ramifications of losing it.
The carriers were sent out from Pearl. That’s what FDR did in response to the prior notice. The people who died in that attack have FDR to thank for pulling our carriers away from the coming Japanese Attack by carriers. Midway turned it around, but just barely.
sent to Hillarys Foundation...and the top country contributor no less!
I just believe Ukraine is clearly into money laundering of all types..and a whole lot of US politicians and the like are 'invested' in their corruption. They will do what is neccessary from being found out!...
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.
