Impoundment power

[kadee79]

This....this is what DT wants...more power to do what he wants & screw everyone else.

Sources close to former President Trump say he has a plan for keeping Congress from ever again forcing him into “disgraceful” and “ridiculous” spending situations. If he returns to the White House, Trump will seek to resurrect authority that Congress stripped from the presidency almost a half century ago.

What President Nixon squandered, his campaign promises, Trump will restore, namely the impoundment power. “A lot of you,” the former president told a New Hampshire crowd Thursday, “don't know what that is.” Indeed, few now remember it.

Impoundment, if restored, would allow a president, in theory, to simply refuse to spend appropriations by Congress. More than just an avenue to cut spending, Trump sees that kind of authority as key to starving, and thus crushing, the so-called “deep state.”

But such a move would fundamentally alter the balance of power, and any effort to restore the long-forgotten authority virtually guarantees a protracted legal battle over who exactly controls the power of the purse. Trump welcomes that fight. Some budget experts believe he won’t get anywhere.

Regardless, advisors close to the former president tell RealClearPolitics they are drawing up plans to challenge the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act in court, and if that fails, to lean on the legislature to repeal it. The latter would require passing a law to surrender power, something lawmakers are loath to do.

Congress already went to war with another president who had expansive views of his own authority. And Congress won.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-plan-to-bypass-congress-and-starve-the-deep-state/ar-AA1daoTZ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=8c421f243b984d5bac8c5efb3701f1f3&ei=24

[teen persuasion]

Oh, here we go:

“The reason why there wasn't an impoundment was because we did not have the authority just to pocket the money and not spend it,” Vought recalled, saying that if a new paradigm was in place, the administration “potentially would have had the ability to go further and pocket the money.”

[Opti]

I wish we could prosecute Trump and his media personality enablers as enemies of the people of America. Because that's what they are. Grifters who want a docile stupid America so they can pick the pockets of the common people like is done in third world countries or Russia.

Why can't they just leave, go to Russia and be Putin's BFFs. They can support Trump as his successor.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Jun 28, 2023 23:56:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

I wish we could prosecute Trump and his media personality enablers as enemies of the people of America. Because that's what they are. Grifters who want a docile stupid America so they can pick the pockets of the common people like is done in third world countries or Russia.

Why can't they just leave, go to Russia and be Putin's BFFs. They can support Trump as his successor.

I don't.  There's the pesky little thing about first amendment rights.  Just because you disagree with them (and I do not agree with them either) doesn't make them prosecutable, and this should NEVER be prosecutable.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 30, 2023 14:14:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Jun 28, 2023 23:56:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

I wish we could prosecute Trump and his media personality enablers as enemies of the people of America. Because that's what they are. Grifters who want a docile stupid America so they can pick the pockets of the common people like is done in third world countries or Russia.

Why can't they just leave, go to Russia and be Putin's BFFs. They can support Trump as his successor.

I don't.  There's the pesky little thing about first amendment rights.  Just because you disagree with them (and I do not agree with them either) doesn't make them prosecutable, and this should NEVER be prosecutable.

or, to put it slightly differently:


"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

Noam Chomsky

[djAdvocate]

having said that, what Trump did ceased to be Free Speech somewhere prior to 1/6/21, and no earlier than November of the prior year.  what he did after that point crossed the line, and became something along the fraud to treason continuum, ALL of which is illegal, and not defensible under A1.