Because, ya know - the filthy mag convicted felon criminal traitor admin is inept and incompetent
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., is concerned that the Trump administration is still implementing the spending freeze she and a Rhode Island judge temporarily halted last week.
Why It Matters
The freeze was announced by Matthew J. Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, on Monday. The effort aims to stop government funding for causes that do not align with Trump's agenda.
The freeze was scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. EST on Monday.
and SCOTUS will bitch-slap his partisan ass and remind him that the court does not have the authority to interfere with the way the executive branch chooses to do its job unless it raises a constitutional question. Liberal courts have been overreaching on their authority for many years, and this will be but one example of Trump putting them in their place. Congress is given oversight, not the courts.
Why it Doesn't Matter . . . .
Trump was voted into office to advance his agenda, which he ran on and the voters approved by electing him. The court has no authority to second-guess the well of the people unless its a constitutional issue, and it's not. The judge should do his own job and leave the executive branch to Trump. What a loser this fucking judge is. It's a sign of incompetence when they don't stay in their lane and make a fool out of themselves in the process.
Question for you . . . . Do you really believe a Federal District Court has the authority to stop Trump from putting his agenda in place?
the ability to spend tax payer money is the authority of CONGRESS. No POTUS can shift/steal money already appropriated by Congress. Don't worry. We know you don't get it, understand or comprehend how government works in our Constitutional Representative Republic based on the core foundational principles of DEMOCRACY.
Now tell us all how much you HATE democracy and the USA form of government. Which is the envy and shining beacon of the world.
Here's more: Don't worry - we know you falsely claim and LIE about being a 'Patriot' and wanting to support, protect and defend the Constitution - but we all know those are just fucking filthy maga traitor cunt LIES. You are all for illegal orders as long as they are issued by convicted felon criminal traitor trump and are a "blatant violation of Constitution".
Trump funding freeze a blatant violation of Constitution, federal law: Legal experts
Despite all the confusion over the impact of his sudden move Tuesday, the Constitution, federal law and court decisions make it clear, experts tell ABC News: President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to indefinitely pause federal funding is illegal.
"The basic idea is the power of the purse is given by Article I to Congress," Michael Dorf, constitutional law professor at Cornell University Law School, told ABC News. "If Congress says you're spending that much money on the federal programs, that's how much is being spent. The president cannot stop it even temporarily."
While past presidents have tried to impound -- or hold back -- federal funding in specific cases, Trump's directive to indefinitely freeze financial assistance, grants and loans and foreign aid has taken it to a new level, according to Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at Georgetown Law School.
A federal judge agreed Tuesday and temporarily blocked the funding pause from taking effect until next week.
Despite Trump's influence and GOP backing of most of his policies, the experts warned that his orders have no legal ground to stand on -- and history has shown that such blatant disregard for legislative power has been consistently overruled.
MORE: White House budget office suspends federal financial aid programs
"It's a question of when, not if, this block is overturned by the courts," Vladeck told ABC News.
The use of executive power to curtail federal spending came to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970s when President Richard Nixon ordered the Environmental Protection Agency not to dole out funding for various programs, including water treatment. The Supreme Court ruled in 1975 in Train v. City of New York that the president had no power to overrule Congress by impounding funding.
Dorf said the controversy over the move led Congress in 1974 to pass the Impoundment Control Act that closed some loopholes and made it harder for a president to try to stop spending money lawmakers allocated.
"Congress passed this statue this very particular rules of what exactly the president has to do if he wants to not spend money on money Congress has spent," Dorf explained. "He can ask Congress to for a recission, but there is a 45-day clock and a bunch of procedures, none of which have been followed by Trump."
she's not a trannie. If she's a lefty, she very well could have a dick.
I love democracy when it's practiced the way the constitution and the founders intended. Censorship and cancel culture are the antithesis of democracy, but ironically, were invented in the US by Democrats in the last 20 years. Trump's going to fix all of that for us and get us back to pure free speech, which is what the constitution calls for.
that's hilarious - since you just stated in your other post that you don't believe "The Constitution" gives the power of the purse to Congress in Article 1
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
I specifically SAID Congress has oversight over the executive branch, not the courts. Show me where I said anything different. Of course, Congress has the power of the purse, but the Congress is in control of the Republicans this time, so what is your point.
You don't seem to argue that you are completely wrong about the judge having any authority over the executive branch, UNLESS, AS I SAID, it's a constitutional question. The judiciary cannot tell the Executive Branch how to do their job, but they can rule that an act is unconstitutional.
In his “Let him try, . . . .”post above, CDL writes in the first paragraph: “the court does not have the authority with the way the executive branch chooses to do its job unless it raises a constitutional question.”
But in the last sentence of the same paragraph CDL writes: “Congress is given oversight not the courts.” RIGHT!!! Congress is given oversight, not the Executive branch either.
Since Trump is trying to usurp a power granted to Congress by Article One of the Constitution, it raises…wait for it…A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION!!
Therefore, it is up to the courts to decide if Trump‘s executive order is lawful. In other words, CDL is a moron for contradicting himself in the same paragraph.
And every single TER righty is also a moron for not knowing that CDL’s post was stupid.
Thanks, SnowKing69 for pointing out how stupid CDL is. He bitch-slapped himself and then you bitch-slapped him too. Run, CDL, run away like all cowardly righties do.
Just ask him....
(PS: one of the main roles of our court system is EXACTLY to adjudicate Constitutional disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches.)
Geeesh!!!!
Yep, and this dolt cuck-douche-liar also thinks the illegal and unconstitutional 'agenda' of head filthy maga traitor convicted felon criminal trump should be pushed through - no matter how illegal or unconstitutional. What a moron.
over the executive branch. The Courts can only intercede when there is a question of constitutional authority. I stand by my post. You are the one who doesn't know the constitution. Contact Hillsdale college online. They have a free course on the Constitution for ignorant people, which would certainly seem to include you. The chocolate pies are frying your brain again.
The Constitution gives Congress the sole right to legislate the funding of government operations. The Congress further solidified this right with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which has never been successfully challenged. Trump is trying to impound money legally appropriated by Congress in violation of both the Constitution and the 1974 law, so OF COURSE the courts are authorized to step in and rule. And Trump can appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court, which he's likely to do. Only then will the issue be decided.
CDL is over-complicating a fairly simple issue. And he's dead WRONG.
That's why the first line of my post up top to the OP is that SCOTUS will bitch-slap this District Judge because SCOTUS is the only place to decide the constitutionality. You get guys like Snowflake and PigPapasan going off on tangents and wasting bandwidth here when all they have to do was read my original post.
Such as in this case. In fact, it is the lower courts where issues like this are supposed to first be raised. So it's entirely appropriate for the District Judge to take the case. In issues like this one, SCOTUS takes cases ONLY on appeal. Its ability to hear cases directly for the first time is limited by the Constitution.
Here's the way the court itself fames the issue:
"The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts."
Time to take the "L" and retire from the field, CDL.
…keeps on displaying his utter STUPIDITY.
The case will NEVER reach the Supreme Court. There are about 8,000 petitions for certiorari filed every year but the Court only hears about ONE PERCENT, or 80 cases a year.
This case is so obvious that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it and let the lower court’s ruling stand.
Trump is counting on the justices he appointed to be his puppets but they’ haven’t displayed the fealty he thought they would.
This case is a no brainer…and so is CDL.
8000 certs concern a dispute over a constitutional question involving the decision-making of the President of the US. You're such a simpleton. Some issues are much more likely to get to SCOTUS than others. Even a nitwit like you should know that not all certs are the same, nor do they have the same chance of being heard by SCOTUS.
He lost the debate on jurisdiction so now he grasps at the straw of cert.
It's almost funny.
Almost.
I would not discount the possibility of the CORRUPT SCOTUS taking up this case - UNCONSTITUTIONALLY - in an effort to give filthy criminal convicted felon traitor trump ULTIMATE power - like the CORRUPT SCOTUS has already has with the IMMUNITY ruling. The filthy corrupt maga SCOTUS is just an arm of the filthy maga TRAITOR scum admin.
The President does have some ability to move money around, but as I recall President Clinton fought for the line item veto and the courts ruled against him. What Trump is doing I think falls beyond the scale of moving money around a bit. If complete funding is to be cut to particular agencies then it is something that Congress needs to take care of.
Wow. Did you just defy and contradict cuck-douche-liar? Well done Willy!!
Despite the popular notion that it’s impossible to fire federal employees, it’s not. New hires typically face a 2 year probationary period where they can be easily fired. If we just culled all of them you’d reduce the federal workforce by around 7%. But doing this isn’t exactly wise. Not all agencies are overstaffed. Some are and some are severely understaffed. OPM could help the administration figure out which is which.
But sending out mass emails to all federal workers and offering a buyout with pay until September is, well, technically illegal. There’s an 1883 law on the books that prohibits any offer to any federal employee monies that has not yet been appropriated by Congress, unless Congress has explicitly permitted it. They haven’t. And since the CR only funds things until March, this violates the law. It’s pretty dumb because the administration is creating an impeachment vulnerability. There’s ways to cut spending and staff, but this ain’t it. Clinton reduced the budget in part using worker furloughs, so it can be done.
The much bigger problem is the risk this poses to national security. OPM is not supposed to be communicating to federal workers directly, especially through a server that no one knows is secure. OPM is supposed to contact the Department heads and the Department then contacts everyone within the Department. This helps prevent hostile foreign governments from gaining access to federal employees private info. In 2015 there was a privacy breach, so rules were put in place to avoid this in the future. It’s the same reason Hillary got into trouble with her private server while at State.
With that being said, go fuck yourself Chinchilla.