4 ms·

I really don't think "Trump can't do it, if it's illegal" is going to fly this time. I hope so, but I'm not very confident. Of course, he can't get away with t

by ks2048 2y ago

I really don't think "Trump can't do it, if it's illegal" is going to fly this time. I hope so, but I'm not very confident. Of course, he can't get away with too much alone, but with the right appointees, judges, etc, who knows.

ks2048 2y ago
And people saying "Congress controls spending, not the President" - there are already reports of Musk trying to take control of the system that sends out money. https://newrepublic.com/post/190983/top-treasury-official-quit-elon-musk-fight-payment-system https://newrepublic.com/post/190983/top-treasury-official-qu... EDIT: apparently Musk succeeded: https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23 https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23
- lowercased 2y ago
  Congress appropriates money to be spend. Executive branch ... 'executes' things with appropriated money. Previous Trump administration tested a lot of norms, and current one is going to be pushing past every boundary of normal/accepted/traditional behaviour we've ever seen. The will of the people, expressed through Congress, is that Dept X gets $Y, but the incoming admin is claiming their own 'will of the people mandate' to completely upend how appropriated money is spent, and indeed, if it's spent at all. When you do not believe government agencies should exist, why would you want to enable them to spend money?
  - ks2048 2y ago
    Well, we'll see what the courts do - and maybe more importantly - what the people on the street do when/if it starts affecting their lives. I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm going to guess that saying "congress appropriates money, but the President can decide if they actually get it" is a pretty fringe idea.
    - lowercased 2y ago
      Most of the MAGA ideas are fringe. And they're pissed they've not been 'listened to' for years. That's part of the point. This is all revenge/retribution, both on Trump's part, but also for a minority class of people who've felt 'left out' and 'ridiculed'.
      - __loam 2y ago
        We ridiculed them because their ideas, like slapping blanket tariff on our closest allies, are really really stupid.
        Viliam1234 2y ago
        Yeah, but that doesn't make them any less angry.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Shame, maybe they should have focused on subsidizing therapy. I don't even know what more to say. Paradox of tolerance so I'm no even going to pretend to empathize with ideas like"deport the illegals in chains " and ćmy body your choice".
      - vixen99 2y ago
        There are other sites where you can deliver this kind of homily to your heart's desire.
      - watwut 2y ago
        [dead]
    - __loam 2y ago
      It's called impoundment and it's patently illegal and unconstitutional. There's already been a SCOTUS case. The executive branch absolutely does not have the authority to decide how money is allocated.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  I'm more afraid of Musk getting access to IRS information and using that information against people/intimidate/blackmail. Remember people are compelled to report all kinds of things on the understanding that 1. It won't be used against them and 2. Will be kept confidential. If Musk breaks that not only does he wield a powerful weapon against those he dislikes, but suddenly it could be argued 'the right to self incrimination' comes into play on taxes.
  - exe34 2y ago
    he'll tweet them in revenge.
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    I wouldn't be afraid of it in any capacity. I'd plan for it to happen
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  Isn't this whole thing just a bunch of political grandstanding? Train v. City of New York isn't a constitutional case. So if Congress controls spending, it's a power they gave to themselves. Any other portion of government could likewise determine they control spending. So maybe it goes back to the SCOTUS because they agree to hear another case about it. Maybe they like the idea that the executive branch controls spending? Or maybe they don't after all. The tell the President to stop doing that. But the president does not. Does Congress pass another law reaffirming they control the power for spending? If the executive branch is in charge of running the government and they listen to the President & the President decide's they aren't spending any money, who exactly is going to change that? Would Congress fund another department to change this? Would it also just report to the President? From what I understand it's actually pretty common for the executive branch not to actually be able to spend appropriated money. The simplest case would be if you put out a contract and get no bids on it. There are other cases, like Congress agreeing to fund military submarines for Taiwan. But no one is going to build them internationally and we don't build diesel-electric combat submarines in the US as a matter of policy.
  - neaden 2y ago
    The legislature is the supreme power in the federal government with the power to impeach the other two branches. So no, it's not political grandstanding. Now if the congressional majority allows for the executive to take an illegal amount of power there's no one to stop that, in the same way that I'd the police stop enforcing laws against their own family members there's not really anyone to enforce those laws in their place.
celdon25 2y ago
Hmm, I'm not sure if "is it legal" would be at the top of my priority list if I was working (in good faith) on the team to recover the country from a nose dive and prevent world war 3. But it is ok to disagree on whether those things actually are real imminent risks to fix.
- Erem 2y ago
  How can someone in good faith try to “recover” a nation governed by laws by publicly flouting the law?
  - celdon25 2y ago
    Those laws aren’t for them, as much as we want to believe it. You can’t sue them, and presidents are basically immune from prosecution.
    - plokiju 2y ago
      That argument feels entirely circular to me Why are you ok with the president being above the law? That idea was not considered normal even a couple years ago
      - celdon25 2y ago
        The key fact here is that the president was elected by the people in a time of crisis (both for the country and the world). Laws are not perfect, sometimes you have to be bold and take risks. The election is a seal of trust to get the job done. Now if a president is not doing their job, not improving the lives of the citizens, and doing things for personal gain, that's another matter. That was more of a description of the previous administration, but I know I will probably get some downvotes here for saying so. Removing data about provably unfair things like DEI is only going to upset people who still are hanging on to any hope that it will return. BTW, I check several of the boxes for DEI, and I'd rather it be gone as well. That ship has sailed and the president decided it is time to move past that phase for the greater good. I wouldn't call that an abuse of power. And even if it was, the same people saying so cried wolf so many times before, that it undermined trust in the system of checks and balances. So here we are.

by ks2048 2y ago

ks2048 2y ago

And people saying "Congress controls spending, not the President" - there are already reports of Musk trying to take control of the system that sends out money. https://newrepublic.com/post/190983/top-treasury-official-quit-elon-musk-fight-payment-system https://newrepublic.com/post/190983/top-treasury-official-qu... EDIT: apparently Musk succeeded: https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23 https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23

lowercased 2y ago
Congress appropriates money to be spend. Executive branch ... 'executes' things with appropriated money. Previous Trump administration tested a lot of norms, and current one is going to be pushing past every boundary of normal/accepted/traditional behaviour we've ever seen. The will of the people, expressed through Congress, is that Dept X gets $Y, but the incoming admin is claiming their own 'will of the people mandate' to completely upend how appropriated money is spent, and indeed, if it's spent at all. When you do not believe government agencies should exist, why would you want to enable them to spend money?
- ks2048 2y ago
  Well, we'll see what the courts do - and maybe more importantly - what the people on the street do when/if it starts affecting their lives. I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm going to guess that saying "congress appropriates money, but the President can decide if they actually get it" is a pretty fringe idea.
  - lowercased 2y ago
    Most of the MAGA ideas are fringe. And they're pissed they've not been 'listened to' for years. That's part of the point. This is all revenge/retribution, both on Trump's part, but also for a minority class of people who've felt 'left out' and 'ridiculed'.
    - __loam 2y ago
      We ridiculed them because their ideas, like slapping blanket tariff on our closest allies, are really really stupid.
      - Viliam1234 2y ago
        Yeah, but that doesn't make them any less angry.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Shame, maybe they should have focused on subsidizing therapy. I don't even know what more to say. Paradox of tolerance so I'm no even going to pretend to empathize with ideas like"deport the illegals in chains " and ćmy body your choice".
    - vixen99 2y ago
      There are other sites where you can deliver this kind of homily to your heart's desire.
    - watwut 2y ago
      [dead]
  - __loam 2y ago
    It's called impoundment and it's patently illegal and unconstitutional. There's already been a SCOTUS case. The executive branch absolutely does not have the authority to decide how money is allocated.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
I'm more afraid of Musk getting access to IRS information and using that information against people/intimidate/blackmail. Remember people are compelled to report all kinds of things on the understanding that 1. It won't be used against them and 2. Will be kept confidential. If Musk breaks that not only does he wield a powerful weapon against those he dislikes, but suddenly it could be argued 'the right to self incrimination' comes into play on taxes.
- exe34 2y ago
  he'll tweet them in revenge.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  I wouldn't be afraid of it in any capacity. I'd plan for it to happen
sidewndr46 2y ago
Isn't this whole thing just a bunch of political grandstanding? Train v. City of New York isn't a constitutional case. So if Congress controls spending, it's a power they gave to themselves. Any other portion of government could likewise determine they control spending. So maybe it goes back to the SCOTUS because they agree to hear another case about it. Maybe they like the idea that the executive branch controls spending? Or maybe they don't after all. The tell the President to stop doing that. But the president does not. Does Congress pass another law reaffirming they control the power for spending? If the executive branch is in charge of running the government and they listen to the President & the President decide's they aren't spending any money, who exactly is going to change that? Would Congress fund another department to change this? Would it also just report to the President? From what I understand it's actually pretty common for the executive branch not to actually be able to spend appropriated money. The simplest case would be if you put out a contract and get no bids on it. There are other cases, like Congress agreeing to fund military submarines for Taiwan. But no one is going to build them internationally and we don't build diesel-electric combat submarines in the US as a matter of policy.
- neaden 2y ago
  The legislature is the supreme power in the federal government with the power to impeach the other two branches. So no, it's not political grandstanding. Now if the congressional majority allows for the executive to take an illegal amount of power there's no one to stop that, in the same way that I'd the police stop enforcing laws against their own family members there's not really anyone to enforce those laws in their place.

celdon25 2y ago

Hmm, I'm not sure if "is it legal" would be at the top of my priority list if I was working (in good faith) on the team to recover the country from a nose dive and prevent world war 3. But it is ok to disagree on whether those things actually are real imminent risks to fix.

Erem 2y ago
How can someone in good faith try to “recover” a nation governed by laws by publicly flouting the law?
- celdon25 2y ago
  Those laws aren’t for them, as much as we want to believe it. You can’t sue them, and presidents are basically immune from prosecution.
  - plokiju 2y ago
    That argument feels entirely circular to me Why are you ok with the president being above the law? That idea was not considered normal even a couple years ago
    - celdon25 2y ago
      The key fact here is that the president was elected by the people in a time of crisis (both for the country and the world). Laws are not perfect, sometimes you have to be bold and take risks. The election is a seal of trust to get the job done. Now if a president is not doing their job, not improving the lives of the citizens, and doing things for personal gain, that's another matter. That was more of a description of the previous administration, but I know I will probably get some downvotes here for saying so. Removing data about provably unfair things like DEI is only going to upset people who still are hanging on to any hope that it will return. BTW, I check several of the boxes for DEI, and I'd rather it be gone as well. That ship has sailed and the president decided it is time to move past that phase for the greater good. I wouldn't call that an abuse of power. And even if it was, the same people saying so cried wolf so many times before, that it undermined trust in the system of checks and balances. So here we are.