3 ms·

This is a completely false equivalence. Trump used emergency powers to divert military construction funding to build the wall. He also diverted funds from other

This is a completely false equivalence. Trump used emergency powers to divert military construction funding to build the wall. He also diverted funds from other sources, like asset forfeiture. Biden did not stop payments on money that congress had authorized for building the wall. If Congress has explicitly appropriated funds for refugee resettlement, then Elon Musk can't decide to just not spend that money because he doesn't like refugee resettlement. See Train v. City of New York.

rayiner 2y ago
Congress appropriated funds for a border wall. From the GOA: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-333110-0 https://www.gao.gov/products/b-333110-0 (“Congress has appropriated funds to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) specifically for constructing fencing or barrier system at the southern border of the United States, commonly referred to as the border wall. On January 20, 2021, the President issued a Proclamation directing a pause in the construction of the border wall and a pause in obligation of funds for the wall.”). And Congress didn’t specifically appropriate funds for these payments. They’re coming out of block grants. Congress has the power to appropriate funds for specific purposes that the president can’t block. But often it doesn’t do that.
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  Dude, read the link that you sent. > We conclude that delays in the obligation and expenditure of DHS's appropriations are programmatic delays, not impoundments. DHS and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have shown that the use of funds is delayed in order to perform environmental reviews and consult with various stakeholders, as required by law, and determine project funding needs in light of changes that warrant using funds differently than initially planned. As explained below, because the delay here is precipitated by legal requirements, That's not the same thing as the richest guy in the world going after a refugee charity because a convicted felon and QAnon conspiracy theorist (Flynn) happened to tweet a screenshot of himself searching the government contract database for the word "Lutheran" because for some crazy reason he hates Lutherans or something Yes, Congress did appropriate some money for the wall, but most of it was entirely at the discretion of the executive. There was a huge court case about it that was rendered moot when Trump lost the election.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    None of that makes a legal difference. The legal distinction is whether Congress has specifically appropriated money for something or not. Congress didn’t specifically appropriate money for this refugee charity. So the President doesn’t have to spend that money.
    - ggm 2y ago
      So there is actually a conversation about what is legal or not then? It's not stupid to ask "is this legal" it's in nuances, and your position is: it's entirely legal. Ok. thats a view. I imagine others hold a different view, and it will be put to courts. I don't want to get sidelined into how courts behave in this economy, Jurisprudence is complicated.
    - apical_dendrite 2y ago
      What is your source for this? Congress appropriated money for a purpose and specified a mechanism for that money to be spent, namely through grants to non-profits. What about the administrative procedures act? Elon cutting off payments because Mike Flynn doesn't like Lutherans for some weird reason is the definition of arbitrary and capricious. What about the impoundment control act? What about the take care clause of the constitution? What about the terms of the grant? Here's what Brett Kavanaugh wrote: > Like the Commission here, a President sometimes has policy reasons (as distinct from constitutional reasons, cf. infra note 3) for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds. Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescission bill. See 2 U.S.C. § 683; see also Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S. Ct. 839, 43 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1975); Memorandum from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to Edward L. Morgan, Deputy Counsel to the President (Dec. 1, 1969), reprinted in Executive Impoundment of Appropriated Fun ds: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Separation of Powers of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 92d Cong. 279, 282 (1971) (“With respect to the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds, we must conclude that existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.”)

rayiner 2y ago

Congress appropriated funds for a border wall. From the GOA: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-333110-0 https://www.gao.gov/products/b-333110-0 (“Congress has appropriated funds to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) specifically for constructing fencing or barrier system at the southern border of the United States, commonly referred to as the border wall. On January 20, 2021, the President issued a Proclamation directing a pause in the construction of the border wall and a pause in obligation of funds for the wall.”). And Congress didn’t specifically appropriate funds for these payments. They’re coming out of block grants. Congress has the power to appropriate funds for specific purposes that the president can’t block. But often it doesn’t do that.

apical_dendrite 2y ago
Dude, read the link that you sent. > We conclude that delays in the obligation and expenditure of DHS's appropriations are programmatic delays, not impoundments. DHS and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have shown that the use of funds is delayed in order to perform environmental reviews and consult with various stakeholders, as required by law, and determine project funding needs in light of changes that warrant using funds differently than initially planned. As explained below, because the delay here is precipitated by legal requirements, That's not the same thing as the richest guy in the world going after a refugee charity because a convicted felon and QAnon conspiracy theorist (Flynn) happened to tweet a screenshot of himself searching the government contract database for the word "Lutheran" because for some crazy reason he hates Lutherans or something Yes, Congress did appropriate some money for the wall, but most of it was entirely at the discretion of the executive. There was a huge court case about it that was rendered moot when Trump lost the election.
- rayiner 2y ago
  None of that makes a legal difference. The legal distinction is whether Congress has specifically appropriated money for something or not. Congress didn’t specifically appropriate money for this refugee charity. So the President doesn’t have to spend that money.
  - ggm 2y ago
    So there is actually a conversation about what is legal or not then? It's not stupid to ask "is this legal" it's in nuances, and your position is: it's entirely legal. Ok. thats a view. I imagine others hold a different view, and it will be put to courts. I don't want to get sidelined into how courts behave in this economy, Jurisprudence is complicated.
  - apical_dendrite 2y ago
    What is your source for this? Congress appropriated money for a purpose and specified a mechanism for that money to be spent, namely through grants to non-profits. What about the administrative procedures act? Elon cutting off payments because Mike Flynn doesn't like Lutherans for some weird reason is the definition of arbitrary and capricious. What about the impoundment control act? What about the take care clause of the constitution? What about the terms of the grant? Here's what Brett Kavanaugh wrote: > Like the Commission here, a President sometimes has policy reasons (as distinct from constitutional reasons, cf. infra note 3) for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds. Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescission bill. See 2 U.S.C. § 683; see also Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S. Ct. 839, 43 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1975); Memorandum from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to Edward L. Morgan, Deputy Counsel to the President (Dec. 1, 1969), reprinted in Executive Impoundment of Appropriated Fun ds: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Separation of Powers of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 92d Cong. 279, 282 (1971) (“With respect to the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds, we must conclude that existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.”)