Replies

Thank you for posting OneVike.

With all due respect, please consider the following critique of your article.

"As such, he is not bound by law to do everything it calls for."

Noting that I watched the March 23, 1 PM EST Trump critique of the pile of paper that he said he would sign, please consider this. If Trump had discretionary control of the funding of the bill, then why did he give the impression that he had a noose around his neck (imo), assuring everybody that he will never sign another bill like that?

And do the “winning” Democrats actually not care if recipients of the unconstitutional domestic funding in the bill never got their funds?

And if the Democrats don’t care, then Trump’s 1 PM lament seemed like a pro-Democratic dog-and-pony show in an election year imo.

Note that the way that the corrupt federal fiscal budget is set up, a new president, for his first year in office, has to deal with a budget signed by his predecessor. So Pres. Trump and everybody else was arguably still under Obama’s thumb for 2017 federal fiscal year.

Patriots need to exercise their voting power so that one of the first jobs of a new president is to sign a new fiscal budget.

Also, here’s the Constitution’s mandatory transparency clause for the federal budget.

"Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time [emphasis added]."

Again, thanks for posting, but dust not settled on this issue.

Insights welcome.

> why did he give the impression that he had a noose around his neck (imo), assuring everybody that he will never sign another bill like that?

Perhaps because, if the ‘cRats realize they’ve been played, they will never send him such a bill again. Thus, he indeed my never sign such a bill again. The Constitution calls for the primary job of Congress to appropriate and authorize project funding. They have failed to complete that basic task of their job description for the past decade.

If Trump had discretionary control of the funding of the bill, then why did he give the impression that he had a noose around his neck (imo)

Perhaps I put too much stock in 3D chess, but the media and the Democrats spent a fair amount of time crowing about how They Won. This was a great bill. The Progressives made it happen! This wasn't Trump's bill! This was the Schumer and Pelosi! As they said, they can get more done while in the Minority than they could when in the Majority!

And here we are, with Trump possibly getting exactly what he wanted and the Democrats getting possibly nothing.

Will they now declare defeat? Will they say that Trump outsmarted them? Is "their" appropriations bill a bad bill? I say that Trump snookered them twice -- he got the bill, and he got them to go on TV and praise the bill as the best thing ever. Because, you know, he looked so defeated when he signed it.

assuring everybody that he will never sign another bill like that

The POTUS should sign budget bills. Not appropriations bills. Trump knows that. I think he just won a nice victory with this appropriations bill, and I think he is ALSO saying: we'll be doing budget bills from here on out. We need to do it the right way. And let me show you why ... [because they just handed him 1.3T to play with].