Posted on 03/30/2020 12:50:51 PM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
President Donald Trump issued a blistering signing statement over the weekend making it clear that he is calling the shots, not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Congress passed a massive $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus compromise package last week and the president signed the measure into law, which will bring relief to individuals, small businesses, and larger corporations.
Soon after that, Pelosi and Schumer ran to the media and began publicly bragging about how they were able to put strict oversight provisions into the stimulus bill.
Turns out, the two top Democrats spoke too soon as Trump’s signing statement flatly rejects their oversight authority.
Signing statements are not law but inform how the executive branch will interpret the law and it looks like Trump will claim executive power and simply ignore Chuck and Nancy.
The signing statement reads: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-38/]
STATEMENT “Today, I have signed into law H.R. 748, the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” or the “CARES” Act (the “Act”). The Act makes emergency supplemental appropriations and other changes to law to help the Nation respond to the coronavirus outbreak. I note, however, that the Act includes several provisions that raise constitutional concerns.
Section 15010(c)(3)(B) of Division B of the Act purports to require the Chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to consult with members of the Congress regarding the selection of the Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director for the newly formed Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. The Committee is an executive branch entity charged with conducting and coordinating oversight of the Federal Government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.
I anticipate that the Chairperson will be able to consult with members of the Congress with respect to these hiring decisions and will welcome their input.
But a requirement to consult with the Congress regarding executive decision-making, including with respect to the President’s Article II authority to oversee executive branch operations, VIOLATES the separation of powers by intruding upon the President’s power and duty to supervise the staffing of the executive branch under Article II, section 1 (vesting the President with the “executive Power”) and Article II, section 3 (instructing the President to “take Care” that the laws are faithfully executed). Accordingly, my Administration will treat this provision as hortatory but NOT mandatory.
Section 4018 of Division A of the Act establishes a new Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR) within the Department of the Treasury to manage audits and investigations of loans and investments made by the Secretary of the Treasury under the Act. Section 4018(e)(4)(B) of the Act authorizes the SIGPR to request information from other government agencies and requires the SIGPR to report to the Congress “without delay” any refusal of such a request that “in the judgment of the Special Inspector General” is unreasonable.
I do not understand, and my Administration will not treat, this provision as permitting the SIGPR to issue reports to the Congress without the presidential supervision required by the Take Care Clause, Article II, section 3.
Certain other provisions (such as sections 20001, 21007, and 21010 of Division B of the Act) purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds upon consultation with, or the approval of, one or more congressional committees.
These provisions are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement with respect to the execution of the laws.
The Congress may affect the execution of the laws only by enacting a new statute in accordance with the requirements of bicameralism and presentment prescribed in Article I, section 7.
My Administration will make appropriate efforts to notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on prior consultation with or the approval of congressional committees.
Finally, several provisions (such as sections 3511(d)(4) and 3862 (creating section 744N(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) of Division A of the Act) purport to require recommendations regarding legislation to the Congress.
Because Article II, section 3 gives the President the authority to recommend only “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” my Administration will continue the practice of treating provisions like these as ADVISORY and NON-BINDING.”
The relief package includes thousands of dollars in direct payments to most Americans — millions of whom face unemployment related to the spread of the virus — as well as a $500 billion loan fund for large corporations and a $367 billion loan program for small businesses.
The bill also omits many — though not all — items from Pelosi’s version of the legislation that Republicans had called wasteful or irrelevant.
The bipartisan breakthrough capped days of heated negotiations after Pelosi flew into D.C. last weekend and tried slipping in a slew of unnecessary, left-wing proposals.
The move came after Democrats voted against the bill three times in an attempt to include several radical policies they wanted, such as ballot harvesting, climate-change-related emissions restrictions for airlines, various diversity-related provisions, and amnesty for DACA illegal aliens.
I can’t wait for Chuck and Nancy to respond!
Chuck and Nancy - the Dumb*ss siblings.
Based at Lake I’m-long-gone, where the men are women, the women are men, and none live on the right side of the Bell curve.
The Piglouse should be forced to resign over her comments.
Trump was right on Saturday. HE Is the oversight. There was a reason why he allowed to sign the package inn the 1st place and as stephen Miller said, they went thru every line in tbe bill with a small comb. Pelousy just got trumped..
SHOVE IT Tuna Nan, as always!
They couldn’t oversee a pancake breakfast.
I’m sure if the shoe were on the other foot the response would be the same
It’s not like anybody would say “I have a pen and a phone”. That would be stupid.
Maybe they should help their own Governors who seem to have virus driven handicaps.
A line-item veto would be MUCH mor effective.
Dust off that old USSC decision and re-litigate it
The most despicable person in American politics in the last hundred years Nancy Pelosi. Trump should spend the next month trying to destroy her.
I sure hope Jeb! is triggered and will tweet Trump his comeuppance. I will clap.
I knew he would mitigate the most egregious power grabs in that bill
AND I read elsewhere, the bill (at $1.2 or $2.5 trillion, whatevers) could not spare $3 billion (less than 1/3 of 1%) to fill up the strategic petroleum reserve with cheap oil.
TRUMP: “Under the emergency powers granted me in a National Emergency, I hereby nullify congress!” /s
F’ you, Chuck and Nancy.
” my Administration will treat this provision as hortatory but NOT mandatory.”
If Chuck and Nancy are involved, shouldn’t it be:
my Administration will treat this provision as whoreatory but NOT mandatory.
What I would like to see, in addition to these signing statements, is a list of IMPOUNDED funds from the bill in a statement to the House under the Impoundment Act of 1975.
These individual items... like the 35 mill to Kennedy Center among all the many others can be stated to be Recissions from the bill, Impounded for 45 days, and requiring each recission to be re-voted upon by the House, and the Senate to re-instate after the 45 days— or they will remain impounded!
A form of line item veto in reverse. Provided for in detail from an Act of Congress from 1975.
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.