Warren 2020

TreeFrogTrader said:
Yeh sure. In your world maybe.

But if you ever get a grade school education you will find that "trillion" and "billion" are sorta the same but not really. They are both big numbers. Close enough for the government work that you did though. No need to get bogged down in details.

Otherwise. Warren's plan calls for 3 trillion.

And Trump diverted 3.5 billion, or thereabouts.

They are same "almost to the penny" as you said?

Let the viewers decide.
More...
C'mon on, i'm only off by a factor of 1ooo.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
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.
More...
Oops. Your wrong. OchoCinco is right. Please don't make me call you an asshole.
 
El OchoCinco said:
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.
More...

I'm pretty sure SCOTUS already took the power of the purse away from congress though:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/us/politics/supreme-court-border-wall-trump.html
 
Ahh the devil is in the details my friend:

"While the order was only one paragraph long and unsigned, the Supreme Court said the groups challenging the administration did not appear to have a legal right to do so."

The Court did not side with Trump nor declare what he did was legal. It said, the group that filed the lawsuit had no standing to do so.

Sierra Club, a private organization brought the suit and they really have no standing on this so the SC overturned lower court stay. Private organizations have limited standing to sue over government actions and Breyer said:

"This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power. I would express no other view now on the merits of those questions."

"The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005. The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting a permanent injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment."

Lot of legal mumbo jumbo but the main part is in red.

Congress could file a suit or a recipient of funds under the law now denied by redirection could sue and both parties would have direct standing. Doubt they will though...
 
El OchoCinco said:
Ahh the devil is in the details my friend:

"While the order was only one paragraph long and unsigned, the Supreme Court said the groups challenging the administration did not appear to have a legal right to do so."

The Court did not side with Trump nor declare what he did was legal. It said, the group that filed the lawsuit had no standing to do so.

Sierra Club, a private organization brought the suit and they really have no standing on this so the SC overturned lower court stay. Private organizations have limited standing to sue over government actions and Breyer said:

"This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power. I would express no other view now on the merits of those questions."

"The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005. The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting a permanent injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment."

Lot of legal mumbo jumbo but the main part is in red.

Congress could file a suit or a recipient of funds under the law now denied by redirection could sue and both parties would have direct standing. Doubt they will though...
More...

But the injunction should still stand. Regardless of the plaintiff's standing, if the action is unconstitutional, isn't the injunction on the action, not the merit of the plaintiff's standing to sue?

This "no standing" is sounding like BS:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/politics/trump-hotel-emoluments-constitution.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top