3 ms·

I feel like an entire generation of federal prosecutors are going to make careers by following up on what these folks do for the next four years.

rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- unsnap_biceps 2y ago
  > Impoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office, although one with limits. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to the abuse of power under President Nixon.[1] The Act removed that power, and Train v. City of New York (whose facts predate the 1974 Act, but which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court after its passage), closed potential loopholes in the 1974 Act. The president's ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending was thus removed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_...
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The Impoundment Act doesn’t require the president to make any specific grant unless Congress specifically says so. The Act says the president needs to seek recession: “Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided.” Congress typically provides for these “programs” to be quite broad with a big bucket of funding. The president can’t just shut down a program and refuse to spend the money without seeking rescission, but nothing stops the president from canceling specific grants that the executive decides to make out of some larger program.
    - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
      I understand your overall point, however, it's unclear what exactly is being canceled, so we don't know if it was specifically directed by congress or not (though I admit, in this case, it's likely not), nor is it clear that Trump ordered it, or is approving after the fact, or even knows about it at all. We can agree to disagree, but I do feel that this wasn't done via the legal methods proscribed by the laws, however, it's difficult to point to exactly what that is, given I'm not a lawyer, and it's just my personal opinion.
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        Prescribed by
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- timacles 2y ago
  I dont know how anyone can question the lack of legality, hell even not question basic reasoning of doing something like this.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
- sympil 2y ago
  You think Citizens United was merely about free speech and ignore these consequences that decision has had. An unelected, non Congressionally approved billionaire is now is charge of determing which payments the Treasury Department will make and you want us to cite specific laws that are being broken? Once again you are missing the big picture.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - sympil 2y ago
      …than billionaires publicly announcing everything they’re doing on X. This take is as naive to about the reality of what is going on as your take that Citizens United is merely a free speech case. People like you will thrive in the new system. They will need people to rationalize the upending of decades long political understandings and agreements on how governance occurs. As you know no complex system can rely solely on the written rules. When the norms are thrust aside with the speed and suddenness and scope as they are now there are always sycophants ready to rationalize. Having one person appoint a cabal of people to make decisions on which grants/appropriations to rescind is anti-thetical to the spirit of American governance. The decions made for the grants were spread out over thousands of people and there is safety in decentralization. These were monies appropriated by Congress and signed into law by the Executive branch. The concentration of power and control over the purse is alarming. It’s autocratic in nature. no less “Congressionally approved” than the thousands of civil servants Congress approves the budgets and that includes budgets for hiring people. Congress has not given to the President the authority to rescind previous allocations as his friend sees fit.

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
> Impoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office, although one with limits. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to the abuse of power under President Nixon.[1] The Act removed that power, and Train v. City of New York (whose facts predate the 1974 Act, but which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court after its passage), closed potential loopholes in the 1974 Act. The president's ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending was thus removed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_...
- rayiner 2y ago
  The Impoundment Act doesn’t require the president to make any specific grant unless Congress specifically says so. The Act says the president needs to seek recession: “Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided.” Congress typically provides for these “programs” to be quite broad with a big bucket of funding. The president can’t just shut down a program and refuse to spend the money without seeking rescission, but nothing stops the president from canceling specific grants that the executive decides to make out of some larger program.
  - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
    I understand your overall point, however, it's unclear what exactly is being canceled, so we don't know if it was specifically directed by congress or not (though I admit, in this case, it's likely not), nor is it clear that Trump ordered it, or is approving after the fact, or even knows about it at all. We can agree to disagree, but I do feel that this wasn't done via the legal methods proscribed by the laws, however, it's difficult to point to exactly what that is, given I'm not a lawyer, and it's just my personal opinion.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      Prescribed by
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
timacles 2y ago
I dont know how anyone can question the lack of legality, hell even not question basic reasoning of doing something like this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
sympil 2y ago
You think Citizens United was merely about free speech and ignore these consequences that decision has had. An unelected, non Congressionally approved billionaire is now is charge of determing which payments the Treasury Department will make and you want us to cite specific laws that are being broken? Once again you are missing the big picture.
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sympil 2y ago
    …than billionaires publicly announcing everything they’re doing on X. This take is as naive to about the reality of what is going on as your take that Citizens United is merely a free speech case. People like you will thrive in the new system. They will need people to rationalize the upending of decades long political understandings and agreements on how governance occurs. As you know no complex system can rely solely on the written rules. When the norms are thrust aside with the speed and suddenness and scope as they are now there are always sycophants ready to rationalize. Having one person appoint a cabal of people to make decisions on which grants/appropriations to rescind is anti-thetical to the spirit of American governance. The decions made for the grants were spread out over thousands of people and there is safety in decentralization. These were monies appropriated by Congress and signed into law by the Executive branch. The concentration of power and control over the purse is alarming. It’s autocratic in nature. no less “Congressionally approved” than the thousands of civil servants Congress approves the budgets and that includes budgets for hiring people. Congress has not given to the President the authority to rescind previous allocations as his friend sees fit.