7 ms·

The President's ability to affect spending is definitely limited, and hasn't been exercised really since Reagan, but still exists. Congress rarely makes spendi

The President's ability to affect spending is definitely limited, and hasn't been exercised really since Reagan, but still exists. Congress rarely makes spending money it's goal, rather it appropriates money to accomplish some goal. Which is to say that if Congress wants a bridge across a river and appropriate 10 billion to build it, the President is not obligated to spend $10 billion if 7 or 8 or 9 will do. In some cases, Congress does appropriate money toward causes and intends all the money to be spent in furtherance of some guiding principle and in these cases all the money must be spent.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
If that money has already been awarded to be given out the executive can not arbritrality withdraw it. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Trump was already slapped for doing this by the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
- zeagle 2y ago
  I think it has become pretty clear Trump can do whatever the hell he wants because nobody will call him out or prosecute him for it.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Or if he gets convicted of a crime by a jury, he receives no consequences.
    - trashtester 2y ago
      I'll probably be downvoted for this, but don't you think winning the popular vote is similar to being found "not guilty" after appealing to a higher court?
      - voltaireodactyl 2y ago
        I for one do not think that they are similar because an election is a popularity contest not a logical examination of facts, and voters are not required to sit through a thorough presentation of the facts in evidence, which means they tend to make less than ideal jurors.
        saalweachter 2y ago
        It's at least a little akin to jury nullification, where the jury finds an obviously guilty person not guilty out of a belief the law is unjust. (You hear about it on the Internet as a way to Fight The Man on eg arrests stemming from protests or minor drug charges, but historically it was more often used to absolve white supremacists of murder.)
        trashtester 2y ago
        Don't you think this is precisly why there is a jury system in the first place? It seems that most legal systems from the start was intended to codify what was considered "just and fair" in the eyes of "the people". Juries seem to have been put in place specifically to ensure that the legal system operates within this mandate, and to preven overreach or abuse.
        tsimionescu 2y ago
        The jury system is not intended as a substitute for the law, it's intended as a safeguard to protect from the subjectivity of judges. Juries, like all of the legal system, are still intended to be subordinate to the legislative branch's decisions in terms of what is and isn't wrong. Jury nullification is a weird rule that goes against the constitutional framework, but is so rarely used, at least for any important matter, that it has never really received too much scrutiny.
        trashtester 2y ago
        A lot has been written about this. The jury system has many purposes, but I don't think protection against individual subjective or corrupt judges are among the most important. (If anything, judges are much more likely to be objective than jurors.) Rather, juries are generally a mechanism to prevent overreach by the executive (primarily) but also other branches of government (including the legislative branch). Not necessarily by going directly against laws (though that could also happen), but for instance by identifying laws that contradict the principles of the constitution. (Or other "deeper" laws, for that matter.) Jefferson wrote : "Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution." [1] Now, a liberal interpretation of this is that a jury has an independent power, possibly even a duty, to disregard laws they consider to be against the legal basis (constitution, legal traditions, etc) of a country, basically overruling the legislative in such cases. In fact, this type of thinking is probably a big part of the reason why the SCOTUS will not and can not override many aspects of jury verdicts. Specifically, even the SCOTUS cannot overturn an aquittal. In other cases (such as when the SCOTUS thinks the jury has violated the constitution, due process hasn't been followed, etc) it will instead invalidate a decision. (Which can lead to the case being dismissed or to a retrial, depending on the details) [1]: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-15-02-0259 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-15-02-0...
    - chgs 2y ago
      It’s a travesty that he wasn’t tried for Jan 6 in 4 months let alone 4 years. Justice delayed is justice denied.
      - trashtester 2y ago
        I believe they tries impeaching him in 2021. At the time, though, even people like Tucker thought his career was over after his behaviour. But I suppose 4 years with Biden/Kamala made it easier to forgive him, for many. Not just the MAGA base, but even swing voters. Honestly, I think Democrats were contributing to this by the outrage over the January 6 riots. Half the country would consider the BLM riots as equally bad. If instead, Democrats had focused on Trump's betrayal of Pence and general disregard for the institutions and traditions of the country, a lot more moderates would remain with the Democrats. But as a foreigner, it seems to me that the prosecution of the Jan 6 rioters, not to mention Trump himself was excessive and overtly politically motivated. And it definitely took attention away from the less spectacular, but far more obviously immoral behavior he definitely, provably WAS guilty of leading up to January 6.
        chgs 2y ago
        Normal riots and criminality are very different from the attempted overthrow of a democratic government. If the anti-Brexit brigade had descended on Downing Street with violence, with nooses swinging, after Boris Johnson in 2019 I personally would consider that far worse than say the riots in London in 2011 or the recent Southport originated ones.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Judges thankfully did call him out. Prosecute? Who knows.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rhinoceraptor 2y ago
It's not limited if he hijacks the entire government from the inside and installs loyalists everywhere
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Clinton did try to pass something but it was vetoed. Pretty much all case law in this area has ruled thst Congress's budget is final and very hard to modify. Trump's case was a completely constitutional overreach. Thankfully they shot it down fast in court.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

If that money has already been awarded to be given out the executive can not arbritrality withdraw it. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Trump was already slapped for doing this by the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.

zeagle 2y ago
I think it has become pretty clear Trump can do whatever the hell he wants because nobody will call him out or prosecute him for it.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  Or if he gets convicted of a crime by a jury, he receives no consequences.
  - trashtester 2y ago
    I'll probably be downvoted for this, but don't you think winning the popular vote is similar to being found "not guilty" after appealing to a higher court?
    - voltaireodactyl 2y ago
      I for one do not think that they are similar because an election is a popularity contest not a logical examination of facts, and voters are not required to sit through a thorough presentation of the facts in evidence, which means they tend to make less than ideal jurors.
      - saalweachter 2y ago
        It's at least a little akin to jury nullification, where the jury finds an obviously guilty person not guilty out of a belief the law is unjust. (You hear about it on the Internet as a way to Fight The Man on eg arrests stemming from protests or minor drug charges, but historically it was more often used to absolve white supremacists of murder.)
        trashtester 2y ago
        Don't you think this is precisly why there is a jury system in the first place? It seems that most legal systems from the start was intended to codify what was considered "just and fair" in the eyes of "the people". Juries seem to have been put in place specifically to ensure that the legal system operates within this mandate, and to preven overreach or abuse.
        tsimionescu 2y ago
        The jury system is not intended as a substitute for the law, it's intended as a safeguard to protect from the subjectivity of judges. Juries, like all of the legal system, are still intended to be subordinate to the legislative branch's decisions in terms of what is and isn't wrong. Jury nullification is a weird rule that goes against the constitutional framework, but is so rarely used, at least for any important matter, that it has never really received too much scrutiny.
        trashtester 2y ago
        A lot has been written about this. The jury system has many purposes, but I don't think protection against individual subjective or corrupt judges are among the most important. (If anything, judges are much more likely to be objective than jurors.) Rather, juries are generally a mechanism to prevent overreach by the executive (primarily) but also other branches of government (including the legislative branch). Not necessarily by going directly against laws (though that could also happen), but for instance by identifying laws that contradict the principles of the constitution. (Or other "deeper" laws, for that matter.) Jefferson wrote : "Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution." [1] Now, a liberal interpretation of this is that a jury has an independent power, possibly even a duty, to disregard laws they consider to be against the legal basis (constitution, legal traditions, etc) of a country, basically overruling the legislative in such cases. In fact, this type of thinking is probably a big part of the reason why the SCOTUS will not and can not override many aspects of jury verdicts. Specifically, even the SCOTUS cannot overturn an aquittal. In other cases (such as when the SCOTUS thinks the jury has violated the constitution, due process hasn't been followed, etc) it will instead invalidate a decision. (Which can lead to the case being dismissed or to a retrial, depending on the details) [1]: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-15-02-0259 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-15-02-0...
  - chgs 2y ago
    It’s a travesty that he wasn’t tried for Jan 6 in 4 months let alone 4 years. Justice delayed is justice denied.
    - trashtester 2y ago
      I believe they tries impeaching him in 2021. At the time, though, even people like Tucker thought his career was over after his behaviour. But I suppose 4 years with Biden/Kamala made it easier to forgive him, for many. Not just the MAGA base, but even swing voters. Honestly, I think Democrats were contributing to this by the outrage over the January 6 riots. Half the country would consider the BLM riots as equally bad. If instead, Democrats had focused on Trump's betrayal of Pence and general disregard for the institutions and traditions of the country, a lot more moderates would remain with the Democrats. But as a foreigner, it seems to me that the prosecution of the Jan 6 rioters, not to mention Trump himself was excessive and overtly politically motivated. And it definitely took attention away from the less spectacular, but far more obviously immoral behavior he definitely, provably WAS guilty of leading up to January 6.
      - chgs 2y ago
        Normal riots and criminality are very different from the attempted overthrow of a democratic government. If the anti-Brexit brigade had descended on Downing Street with violence, with nooses swinging, after Boris Johnson in 2019 I personally would consider that far worse than say the riots in London in 2011 or the recent Southport originated ones.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Judges thankfully did call him out. Prosecute? Who knows.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rhinoceraptor 2y ago

It's not limited if he hijacks the entire government from the inside and installs loyalists everywhere

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Clinton did try to pass something but it was vetoed. Pretty much all case law in this area has ruled thst Congress's budget is final and very hard to modify. Trump's case was a completely constitutional overreach. Thankfully they shot it down fast in court.