PER FOX: The Senate will start the process that increases checks to $2k, repeals Section 230, starts an investigation into voter fraud, per President Trump's redlines under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (which Nixon signed). RINOs & Ds are furious.
They can't block this. They could wait out the 45 days, and if congress is the same they could just get the funding then. That said, a lot can happen in 45 days and they had enough votes to override a veto. This is likely the best option for now.
They don't have to block this, they just have no obligation to comply with the portions requesting additions to the (now signed-into-law) bill. The actual rescission of funding element can be vetoed by either House under the Act; both Houses have to pass a bill of rescission within 45 days of the President's proposed rescission for it to be permanent.
They could just override a veto and make things worse regardless. This atleast delays the funding 45 days. It also seems like congress is willing to play ball on increasing the stimulus payment, but we will see where it ends up.
Time for a legal lesson, gather round! This is interesting and it could — although, practically speaking, probably won't — be challenged in court as an over-exercise of executive power.
Part of the reason this Act isn't usually heard of is because it's pretty narrowly constructed. The President can only invoke recession/reservation (2 USC § 683) or deferral (2 USC § 684) of "budget authority" under the Act. First, this has been interpreted to mean that the President can only invoke the Act when Congress has explicitly designated that the President has discretion in budgeting under the relevant law. See, County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497, 531 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (Noting "[w]here Congress has failed to give the President discretion in allocating funds, the President has no constitutional authority to withhold such funds and violates his obligation to faithfully execute the laws duly enacted by Congress if he does so"). Thus, every item the President redlines in the COVID bill would have to have been explicitly designated as a discretionary spending by Congress. It's not clear if this is the case, but I'm not going to read that 5,000-page mess to speculate as to what the President can and cannot rescind, so let's just assume he probably can rescind the wasteful spending he wants to.
The Act, however, provides no authority for the President to request that Congress ADD things to a piece of piece of legislation. In fact, the Congress that passed the Impoundment Act intended to prohibit the President from using the Act to effect policy changes — instead, deferments and rescissions are intended to be for routine, programmatic purposes. Consider New Haven v. United States, 809 F.2d 900, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987):
For permanent impoundments (or "rescissions"), Congress adopted the Senate approach, which required prior legislative approval of proposed impoundments. For temporary impoundments (or "deferrals"), Congress adopted the House approach, which allowed impoundments to become effective without prior approval if neither House of Congress passed a resolution disapproving the impoundment. Importantly, Congress also amended the Anti-Deficiency Act to preclude the President from relying on that Act as authority for implementing policy impoundments.
Thus, the President's rescission of part of the COVID bill could be challenged for two reasons. First, it's unclear whether POTUS actually has the budget authority he needs to do these rescissions. Second, the recessions — both by the language and intent of the Act — cannot be based upon contingent additions to a signed law.
Practically speaking, no way in hell this gets challenged in Court. The democrats wanted greater stimulus checks, the republicans will not break with Trump. Expect the stimulus checks to be amended as requested. The only issue I predict is the Democrat-held House resisting any changes to § 230 or the initiation of voter-fraud investigations. That issue, however, is not yet before us.
Oh, absolutely he got crushed and the election fraud argument is worthless. I still agree with my earlier, unrelated comment that you've trekked through my comment history to find.
That said, my personal opinion doesn't invalidate an objective legal analysis. Nor does holding an adverse personal opinion make me a shill. As much as you might want this to be TD.W, it isn't.
However, House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey, D-NY, said that she and her committee's Democratic majority plan to reject the president's request.
“President Trump has indicated that he will now send a rescissions package to Congress that aims to reverse funding his own administration requested and undo the careful bipartisan agreement he has just signed," Lowey said in a statement. “The House Appropriations Committee has jurisdiction over rescissions, and our Democratic Majority will reject any rescissions submitted by President Trump. By turning the page on this request, we will allow the Biden-Harris Administration to begin to Build Back Better.” - Nita M. Lowey
If I'm a platform and I moderate my content (removing posts that don't match the purpose of the platform) and 230 does not exist, then I can be taken to court... over and over and over. I will probably prevail in court but the costs are going to eat me alive.
Exactly right. Congress will quickly tell Trump to get fucked and bypass. I cannot believe how delusional people are being since this bill got signed last night. They're putting lipstick on an ugly gross communist pig
It's the same line of reasoning that believes the election will still be overturned and Trump will somehow maintain power. Logic, reason and the ability to understand process doesn't exist in a cult.
I read on the now disinfo ruined /pol that demfags can block this. Is this true, or just more rats shill lies of the kind that now plague 4chan?
They can't block this. They could wait out the 45 days, and if congress is the same they could just get the funding then. That said, a lot can happen in 45 days and they had enough votes to override a veto. This is likely the best option for now.
I like your name!
They don't have to block this, they just have no obligation to comply with the portions requesting additions to the (now signed-into-law) bill. The actual rescission of funding element can be vetoed by either House under the Act; both Houses have to pass a bill of rescission within 45 days of the President's proposed rescission for it to be permanent.
The Impoundment Act is a fucking mess, sorry.
Why does POTUS think Congress won't just ignore him again or make things worse?
They could just override a veto and make things worse regardless. This atleast delays the funding 45 days. It also seems like congress is willing to play ball on increasing the stimulus payment, but we will see where it ends up.
Time for a legal lesson, gather round! This is interesting and it could — although, practically speaking, probably won't — be challenged in court as an over-exercise of executive power.
Part of the reason this Act isn't usually heard of is because it's pretty narrowly constructed. The President can only invoke recession/reservation (2 USC § 683) or deferral (2 USC § 684) of "budget authority" under the Act. First, this has been interpreted to mean that the President can only invoke the Act when Congress has explicitly designated that the President has discretion in budgeting under the relevant law. See, County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497, 531 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (Noting "[w]here Congress has failed to give the President discretion in allocating funds, the President has no constitutional authority to withhold such funds and violates his obligation to faithfully execute the laws duly enacted by Congress if he does so"). Thus, every item the President redlines in the COVID bill would have to have been explicitly designated as a discretionary spending by Congress. It's not clear if this is the case, but I'm not going to read that 5,000-page mess to speculate as to what the President can and cannot rescind, so let's just assume he probably can rescind the wasteful spending he wants to.
The Act, however, provides no authority for the President to request that Congress ADD things to a piece of piece of legislation. In fact, the Congress that passed the Impoundment Act intended to prohibit the President from using the Act to effect policy changes — instead, deferments and rescissions are intended to be for routine, programmatic purposes. Consider New Haven v. United States, 809 F.2d 900, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987):
Thus, the President's rescission of part of the COVID bill could be challenged for two reasons. First, it's unclear whether POTUS actually has the budget authority he needs to do these rescissions. Second, the recessions — both by the language and intent of the Act — cannot be based upon contingent additions to a signed law.
Practically speaking, no way in hell this gets challenged in Court. The democrats wanted greater stimulus checks, the republicans will not break with Trump. Expect the stimulus checks to be amended as requested. The only issue I predict is the Democrat-held House resisting any changes to § 230 or the initiation of voter-fraud investigations. That issue, however, is not yet before us.
Obvious shill is obvious
Nice deflection from the actual content of the post you're responding to. What are you quoting?
I'm assuming the user he responded to posted that somewhere else so it invalidates anything he says now by not towing the Trump line.
Oh, absolutely he got crushed and the election fraud argument is worthless. I still agree with my earlier, unrelated comment that you've trekked through my comment history to find.
That said, my personal opinion doesn't invalidate an objective legal analysis. Nor does holding an adverse personal opinion make me a shill. As much as you might want this to be TD.W, it isn't.
And people say he ain't playing 4D chess. The dude is always one step ahead of TPTB.
This is a mesningless gesture that has no consequence at all?
Bless your heart :)
Clinton vs New York.
The President does not get a Governor like Line-Item veto.
This is a list of "pretty please do this" and all they have to do is say no, or wait 45 days.
However, House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey, D-NY, said that she and her committee's Democratic majority plan to reject the president's request.
“President Trump has indicated that he will now send a rescissions package to Congress that aims to reverse funding his own administration requested and undo the careful bipartisan agreement he has just signed," Lowey said in a statement. “The House Appropriations Committee has jurisdiction over rescissions, and our Democratic Majority will reject any rescissions submitted by President Trump. By turning the page on this request, we will allow the Biden-Harris Administration to begin to Build Back Better.” - Nita M. Lowey
Ref: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/president-trump-signs-covid-relief-government-funding-bill-averting-government-shutdown
"Build Back Better" - Nita M. Lowey who has her very own profile page on the WEF web site: https://www.weforum.org/people/nita-m-lowey
Can someone PLEASE explain how alt-tech is supposed to survive if 230 is repealed? This is my one sticking point with MAGA.
If I'm a platform and I moderate my content (removing posts that don't match the purpose of the platform) and 230 does not exist, then I can be taken to court... over and over and over. I will probably prevail in court but the costs are going to eat me alive.
230 repeal will be the absolute death of a website like this one.
Exactly right. Congress will quickly tell Trump to get fucked and bypass. I cannot believe how delusional people are being since this bill got signed last night. They're putting lipstick on an ugly gross communist pig
It's the same line of reasoning that believes the election will still be overturned and Trump will somehow maintain power. Logic, reason and the ability to understand process doesn't exist in a cult.
Sharpiegate
Muh Affidavits!
Kraken
Electoral College will vote against Biden!
6th of January
20th of January
Martial law!
Did I miss a goalpost? I wonder what they will come up with after Biden is sworn in.
China won is how I'll interpret Biden being sworn in.