Warren 2020

[El OchoCinco]

Other way around.

The lawsuits are all about stopping Trump from reducing illegal immigration.That is the overarching goal.

The various lawsuits attacking the method of funding the wall are just the means by which they attack. If not one thing, then another. Whatever Soros can fund, and he can fund a lot.

I mean the dems are not going to step forward and say "we object to the transfer of funds but let's work together to find another source." I dont exactly think they have that as a goal, eh?

100% about making progress toward open borders.

You miss the point whether you wish to put your spin on the immigration issue. the fact that you cannot look past the immigration issue means you are looking at this biased.

The President is mis appropriating funds. This is not about the wall or a debate about immigration.

A PRESIDENT CANNOT TAKE A CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AS PER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND RE DIRECT IT ELSEWHERE ON A WHIM.

It is an ultra vires act. Stop focusing on immigration and the fact you are ok with the use to justify an unconstitutional act.

Let's put it a different way: GOP passes Defense Authorization Bill and Dem President re directs $3 billion to build compounds to house asylum seekers in the U.S. and accept more. Now your thoughts?

The law does not care if the outcome makes you happy, it is still the law. If GOP cared so much about the borders versus the Dems they would have authorized the amount the past two years but they didn't. Trump cannot spend money Congress did not authorize. This is constitution 101.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I mean the dems are not going to step forward and say "we object to the transfer of funds but let's work together to find another source." I dont exactly think they have that as a goal, eh?.

Dems are being as useless as GOP was past two years but I don't hear a peep. All Presidents have to follow the law on appropriations. Sorry if that goes against the law and order party of the GOP.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

You miss the point whether you wish to put your spin on the immigration issue. the fact that you cannot look past the immigration issue means you are looking at this biased.

Nope. You stated that this was not about the wall or immigration and flat out reject that, and repeat the same.

The fact that the opponents of the wall have found a legitimate constitutional issue to use as part of their resistance does not counter that point. That is just another front that is opened up in the war but not what the war is about and soros is not paying all these groups just to help straighten out constitutional issues between the executive and legislative branches.

And,he fact that you cannot see what their large motivation is means you are the one with the blinders on, not me.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Nope. You stated that this was not about the wall or immigration and flat out reject that, and repeat the same.

The fact that the opponents of the wall have found a legitimate constitutional issue to use as part of their resistance does not counter that point. That is just another front that is opened up in the war but not what the war is about and soros is not paying all these groups just to help straighten out constitutional issues between the executive and legislative branches.

And,he fact that you cannot see what their large motivation is means you are the one with the blinders on, not me.

No you keep missing the point. Obviously the motive behind the lawsuit is clearly to stop Trump's policies but who gives a shit. A President has nothing to fear from challenges if they follow the law and have majority control. Trump failed on both counts.

I dont have to see what their larger motivation is because I am not President and I am not bound by the Constitution and trying to go around it.

I think the blinders is you having an issue with the motivation of the lawsuit but not one single problem with Trump's action. How could that not bother you, nor GOP controlled inactivity bother you but the lawsuit is such a problem??

Warren wins the election and says, like Trump, we don't have to follow the appropriations approved by the GOP Congress and redirect money to what we wanted all along but failed to get approval.

Is that ok?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Is that ok?

No. I went flaccid at your "this is not about immigration."

Same as all these people out there arguing that Jerry Nadler is looking at the Stormy Daniels thing again, and trying to get Trump's taxes again because he really cares about the rule of law in this country. Yeh. Guess what. It is about Trump and it is about impeachment. That's what it is about. Within that effort he may uncover some legitimate legal issues, but that is not what it is all about or what is driving him.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Wow.....what does any of that have to do with plain and simple facts.

Trump is violating the Constitution plain and simple. There is no other argument or topic you can bring in that changes the fact pattern.

Jerry Nadler, Stormy Daniels, AOC, Sleepy Joe or 1,000 other topics you can respond with off topic.

No President can defy a Congressionally approved appropriation and spend the money for a completely different use.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress's power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, preventing most spending that in effect does not implicitly have broad support with respect to both representational popular will in the House of Representatives and inter-regional approval in the Senate.

That's it.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Wow.....what does any of that have to do with plain and simple facts.

Trump is violating the Constitution plain and simple. There is no other argument or topic you can bring in that changes the fact pattern.

Jerry Nadler, Stormy Daniels, AOC, Sleepy Joe or 1,000 other topics you can respond with off topic.

No President can defy a Congressionally approved appropriation and spend the money for a completely different use.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress's power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, preventing most spending that in effect does not implicitly have broad support with respect to both representational popular will in the House of Representatives and inter-regional approval in the Senate.

That's it.

So it is not about resisting the wall and immigration?

Okay. You stick with that.

 

[El OchoCinco]

So it is not about resisting the wall and immigration?

Okay. You stick with that.

This is you trying to stay on topic:

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

This is you trying to stay on topic:

The analogy I gave over to Jerry Nadler was 100% and instructive for you and the issue at hand. ie. there are many who argue that an issue is actually about one thing, when any idiot knows that it is actually about something else.

Don't be surprised if almost everyone else but you got it and did not see it as being off topic.

 

[El OchoCinco]

No Jerry Nadler is doing a fishing expedition without any idea if he has something at all and is digging. IN other words he is not taking action because of a clear violation of a law, he is hoping to find one.

How could you be this dense on the law and still keep digging a whole for yourself. Even the GOP knows it is unconstitutional but you are the lone wolf fighting for the cause?

Trump's actions are a clear violation of the Constitutiuon, no real grey area or fishing expedition to see if he may be violating the Constitution like Nadler is fishing for tax returns to MAYBE find a wrong doing.

Your analogy FAILS. Don't be surprised that everyone else did not jump in to defend your comment because it was a fishing bullshit.

My post is : FACT - Trump using funds already appropriated by law for another use is violating the Constitution. So easy a child would understand.

Make a statement that proves the above FACT wrong...... I will wait.