General Discussion

FBaggins

(26,721 posts)

32. They could do something like that verbally or as a memo

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 11:01 AM

Sep 2019

In fact, a House committee did that very thing when the administration moved around funds for the wall. I can't remember who it was, but one of the Democrats came right out and said that they were less likely to include such flexibility in the next budget if the Pentagon was going to abuse the power. The guy form the Pentagon basically said "I know and it concerns me... but this Trump guy is in charge"

But they couldn't put it into the bill - because one Congress cannot bind the hands of the next one. Each budget is a new entity with its own existence. So there couldn't put in the bill "there will be a 10% in future appropriations if you use toilet seat funding for anything else"... but they CAN say "funds in this section may only be used to purchase toilet seats".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Acting Director of National Intelligence should not be permitted to defy a subpoena... [View all] kentuck Sep 2019 OP

I would support sending the House Seargent at Arms to detain this guy TheRealNorth Sep 2019 #1

Just heard Digby make a great point ok_cpu Sep 2019 #2

That actually defeats the argument FBaggins Sep 2019 #4

He is violating a statute passed by the Congress and signed by a President... Thomas Hurt Sep 2019 #6

He is... but did Congress have the authority in the first place? FBaggins Sep 2019 #8

On the other hand Congress does have the power of the purse that they can wield and withhold cstanleytech Sep 2019 #12

Could the House withhold salary funds for 'acting' directors until they are confirmed Captain Zero Sep 2019 #28

This is why line item veto isn't actually a thing that exists...because Volaris Sep 2019 #21

The signing statement itself has little effect FBaggins Sep 2019 #22

'You can have this money, but...' Volaris Sep 2019 #23

Congress can only appropriate money... it can't manage the spending of it directly. FBaggins Sep 2019 #24

Well if the Executive has the power to spend the money congress appropriates Volaris Sep 2019 #25

Apologies if I oversimplified it. That isn't what I meant FBaggins Sep 2019 #30

They could however attache a warning to the money that if its used for x or x instead that cstanleytech Sep 2019 #31

They could do something like that verbally or as a memo FBaggins Sep 2019 #32

Either way they do have the ability to apply pressure with the power of the purse but it cstanleytech Sep 2019 #33

I get what you're saying ok_cpu Sep 2019 #7

But the Legislative Branch of the People is "more equal" than the other two. kentuck Sep 2019 #9

Arguably true... but not relevant here FBaggins Sep 2019 #10

They are "co-equal" for the purpose of governing. kentuck Sep 2019 #11

Just the opposite in fact FBaggins Sep 2019 #13

+1 uponit7771 Sep 2019 #18

Yay! Another lawsuit we'll win in 5 or so years. gldstwmn Sep 2019 #16

Probably not in this case because we would likely lose FBaggins Sep 2019 #17

and yet, he has lindysalsagal Sep 2019 #3

He has because they have let him. I am sure there is a politician that can figure out the answer Maraya1969 Sep 2019 #5

the whole "send officers to arrest" seems highly unlikely stopdiggin Sep 2019 #27

No! Because damn it I am so sick of Democrats saying, "This won't work" "You can't do that" Maraya1969 Sep 2019 #29

I like your spirit stopdiggin Sep 2019 #34

And if he refuses to pay the $25,000 a day? What then? Kablooie Sep 2019 #14

It's all the rage now. gldstwmn Sep 2019 #15

Yes malaise Sep 2019 #19

once you have shown a willingness to roll over and over Skittles Sep 2019 #20

These GOPers only care about money and power dawg day Sep 2019 #26