IHeartBadCode
can absolutely withhold weapons see leahy
He can't legally, and Republicans in the House would absolutely jump at the chance to impeach Biden and have it carry over into the next session as Democrats did with Trump's second impeachment. It would literally be the train they ride till midterms.
Gosh you are really bad at this.
You clearly confuse words on paper with real world consequences
I don't think you've ever worked for the Government. You are insanely bad at this.
I've given you plenty of opportunity and you're just spewing "nothing means anything anymore!!!" Gosh, it's not like I haven't met countless numbers of you types.
Not once have you managed to identify how the judicial branch can hold a president accountable\
Enjoined. You clearly aren't reading anything, I'm not typing any more. Consider yourself blocked, you are a waste of time.
Really I'm just disappointed in the lack of blackjack here.
You know I commented, but you aren't even worth that reply.
But here's that link just in case you missed it.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-declares-stein-eligible-to-receive-2024-matching-funds/
Ugh. This is why I hate summary because there's always someone who is like "you didn't explain EvErYtHiNg so you're wrong!" While you're trying to flesh things out you always miss a ton of things too that neither one of us touched on, and I didn't because it increases what needs to be talked about when what I originally said was correct.
entire wall of text
I hate this term because it shows that people are trying to oversimplify something that is in itself complex. Additionally, you're trying to point out things but you didn't cover everything either. Which is why especially here, this annoying. You're basically trying to make an argument of "you explain too much" and "you didn't explain enough". It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't argument that you're trying to make. I'm calling you out on it because you are attempting a no correct way to answer line of questioning. I'll give you this reply, but you keep going on this thread like this, I'll just block you. I don't have the time for childish game. If you have a point make it, if you don't stop beating around the bush. That's all there is to it.
a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed
That's not correct. I'll point to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 5 USC § 3345. You seem smart enough, you can figure out why Sec. of State quitting and the deputy becoming acting would trigger such a response.
someone didn't pay attention to trumps presidency at all
Again, I'll point to the many failures on exclusive authority during that term. Namely you can see the multiple failures along the regulation of coal that failed exclusive authority. Acting has only nonexclusive duties for the 210 day period and the extended period of 300 days on inauguration. Hence the failures on rule making.
what you're missing is that during that time the president can just not due what the law says and these things can take years.
Yes, this is why enjoining an EO exists as a measure for the courts. Immediate relief is something the claimants can seek when bringing the issue up to the courts. That's why you hear emergency relief often with controversial orders.
Secondly even if a judge blocks an EO the president can still do it the judge has no enforcement mechanism.
The enforcement is via Congress at that point. If a just rules something as violation of the Court order, that's easily handled by Congress.
worcester v georgia
Just so we're clear the Nullification scandal, Jackson indicated he was ready to march troops into South Carolina and shooting the government if need be. That was with eye to Georgia daring them the exact same thing. We'd revisit that willingness to march troops into the State and start shooting State Government members about thirty years later.
So just, so we're clear the Worcester you cite, we got ready to have a preemptive war over the matter. I'm not sure the argument you're providing holds a lot of water here in that "they can do what they want to do with no ramifications". Clearly getting shot at by the Army is a ramification that at the time neither party wanted to try out. But we did give it a go a bit later.
abraham lincoln did it w/ habeus corpus
Yeah. Thing called the Civil War.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Was kicked to Congress, like I said it would be. Was mulled and Congress decided to take a pass. But that's not free from consequences. Additionally, Congress had indicated to FDR to wrap that shit up with the alphabet groups. You'll note how many of them didn't last. CCC still a thing?
biden can easily deal with blinken, its called firing and assigning a temporary individual to the role
Again see FVRA.
not like he has a lot of time left there'd be no time to confirm a new individual anyways
Again see FVRA, carry over has a lot more impact in the first 300 day period than having an acting position.
Now Harris is, she's the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken
That is just plainly incorrect.
You're entire 'civics' lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs
And you covered zero of them either. I've provided more context to the examples that you gave. But the reality is that "the historical realities of EOs" is a complex issue. But apparently you don't like walls of text.
especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers which expanded this ability by conferring it judicial backing
I take it that you are referring to Trump v US. None of that has any bearing on the matter of what Bliken does or doesn't do. If Biden simply just withheld funds and gave everyone the finger, he'd still be subject to Congressional review of his actions and possible impeachment. That is not being free of ramifications.
If you want to keep up with daily events in the Executive, the Federal Register (Fed. Reg. or FR) cannot be beat. It contains all of the FOIA request, every public inspection requirement, CFR proposals, Executive Orders, Presidential Proclamations, and so forth.
If you want something more specific to rule making, you can find that here. Rule making makes a bit more sense when you think about it. Say Congress passes a law that says "build me a road between Texas and South Dakota". The law will usually say who (department) is in charge of that and then that department will take the money and begin rule making. Rule making is basically laying out the path the road will take, what kind of materials will be used, what companies are allowed to bid, environmental guidelines, etc, etc ,etc... Once those rules have been made the who is going to do it is determined. Like Highways in this case, the Federal Government provides the money and the States are the ones who select the labor and make minor course corrections to the highway (like if it's about to pass through a cemetery or something).
Rule making is also sometimes called regulation. Because the agency put in charge is regulating the action being done to ensure compliance with what they think the law is asking for, because Congress is very NOT detail oriented until they really want to be. Also with rule making, Congress can "ask" a department to come in and meet with them if Congress thinks some of the rules don't mesh with what they were thinking.
There's also override laws, which Congress passes like a normal law. These laws, remember the Constitution requires laws to be applied equally if they involve the public so these override laws are written as such so that they only apply to a executive department, specifically smack the department over the head and "corrects" where the rule making went wrong. These don't happen often, but we did have one back in Trump days over the FCC. The FCC had made a new rule that required ISPs to get permission to sell customer data, and Congress plus then President Trump overrode the FCC, explicitly banning them from ever creating such a rule. It's still open if the FTC could make such a rule. But that's an example of an override of regulation.
Oh also my whole comment didn't even touch on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which is what would happen if a Secretary quits. Very, very, very long story short. The Deputy Secretary automatically gets to become the "acting" Secretary BUT they cannot do any "exclusive actions", which that Leahy rule is indeed an exclusive action. The "acting" Secretary can only maintain "status quo" until the Senate Confirms that the acting secretary is indeed the actual secretary. But an "acting" position can only last for 210 days, after which the office is then considered "vacant", but none of that matters anymore because Congress uses "pro forma" sessions to prevent recessed appointments. But typically, if a position is "vacant" and Congress is not in Session, the President can make a recess appointment.
If you ask me, what we really need is an Amendment to the Constitution that provides the President a way to declare Congress as absent and if some threshold of Congress doesn't become present, then the President can then call Congress not in Session. The whole "pro forma" sessions of Congress really needs to stop, like in a really bad way. Sort of like how Filibuster should return to requiring a person physically speak for the entire duration of the filibuster and must remain on topic.
Congress has gotten really soft on everything and that's allowed them to permit a lot of bad faith actions in Congress to happen. It used to be that it was "gentleman's agreement" that Congress would behave and act in good faith, but boy have we really fallen down on that since the 1980s.
Anyway, I'm rambling.
Oh man, this is a doozy. You aren't wrong but I've got to get some sleep. To explain this is A LOT.
The thing is the Leahy Law doesn't put the power directly in the President's hands. It grants the vetting process to the Secretary of State. Which is a member of the cabinet of the President. Which I don't know how familiar you are with how the Executive Office works or not. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel's aid.
There's Executive Orders (EO) that the President can give but there's the whole "what if" Blinken quits given an EO and then we have to get the Senate involved which is currently 50-50 on Republicans and Democrats. Which that turns it even more complex and Senators can delay confirmation until after the election or if they're really bitter, until next year. Which means that everything that requires a Secretary of State would get put on pause.
I get that everyone thinks the President gets to have the final say, but the President orders people around on EOs, which the various Secretaries can just quit if they don't want to follow them, and then that kicks everything to the Senate. That's kind of a built in protection in our system of Government to prevent a President becoming a dictator. If a President wants XYZ done and the Secretary thinks that's bad, they quit and the Senate becomes involved potentially delaying the President forever.
There's way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published, unless the President does so since the President has unilateral authority on classification markings (except for anything related to the name of spies and nuclear bomb designs, that is one of the few things that requires both the President and Congress to sign off on, there's a few other exceptions as well but I won't go into them).
But anyways, Blinken is the one who can stop aid. The President could order him, but he could also quit, which means the Senate would get involved, and I can explain why all of that would be messy if you need me to.
why can't he veto the military aid
The President only has veto power on bills that have passed both the House and the Senate. Once something becomes law, the President "has" to carry it out. There's a ton of background on "Executive Discretion" and any time the President wants to exercise discretion, Congress can sue, which then brings the matter into the other branch, the Judicial. Plenty of States that would sign on, to a Congressional suit (which that's a requirement for Congress to sue the President, at least one State has to join in).
So Biden could use Discretion to delay funding, and he's done that quite a few times, but he can't just outright NOT pay when the law requires him to do so. That discretion comes from a kind of EO called a "Reviewing Executive Order" and it requires a department to "review" ((insert whatever the topic is)). That's a delay, but it isn't a halt. The President has to follow the law as well. So if we have a law that says, "we provide $xxx to Israel's Iron Dome", we have to send that money to them at some point.
A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion. There's been recent upping of that funding that Congress has passed, but that's been on things called Continuing Resolutions (CR). Republicans in the House (who are the ones who control what the US Budget is) have been using CRs to get choice things enacted. That's because Republicans in the House have passed rules on how a budget may be formed in the House that are impossible to comply with (which that's a whole long story). So if Democrats in the House refuse to accept the CRs the Republicans offer, the Government shuts down.
Anyways, that's been a lot already. If you need me to clear anything up, let me know. But Harris likely wouldn't have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT. But I don't know, because if the election isn't kind to Democrats in the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they could block Harris' Sec. of State unless they specifically pledged to support Israel. Now they could absolutely lie about that, but then Congress could also impeach them, but that would cut off aid to Israel for some time as that's not an easy process to impeach a secretary of state.
Green party hits 5%, they get federal election funding, we are no longer a 2 party nation
Bullshit. They have been receiving public funds you numb nuts. You can verify that from the Federal Election Commission. Here is their spreadsheet they provide as summary.
Please go fuck off with this argument as it is 100% verifiably false. This is literally lies that the Green party has told you. They routinely squander the money they receive because they hire zero talent to actually use funds in a meaningful manner. They have zero ground game, they only focus on top ticket rarely if ever down ticket, and office and PR positions are absolute shit.
Holy fucking shit have you eaten their lies, whole cake worth of them. I am so sorry you think the current leadership of the Green party is actually honest. Maybe if we were talking the 1980s leadership, but holy fuck, the Green party today has been overtaken by folks who are in it for them and them alone. And they go out and play victim, "Oh this system is not fair!!!" When their own willful incompetence ruined any chance.
I won't have this bullshit of victim they play. The Green party can suck a dick, the people running it have successfully ran that fucking boat into the goddamn iceberg at full throttle. Anyone supporting Stein is so fucking clueless at this point, there's zero redemption. Jill ain't in this for any kind of morality, she's in it for money, lights, and attention. The number of people who haven't caught on to this is absolutely astounding.
But we are NOT going to pretend that the Green party hasn't been receiving federal election funds, when that is so effortlessly proven FALSE. If you've been giving her money, she using that money to eat well, cause she ain't spending it on getting elected. And I assure you, she'll be out and about playing victim when she loses this time too.
Green party hits 5%, they get federal election funding, we are no longer a 2 party nation
But BULLSHIT, BULL FUCKING SHIT. BULL ---- SHIT!! That bitch has had millions handed to her and we still a two party system. Do NOT be spouting this bullshit. Don't be a pawn in her little victim game. She's a bad person, you do NOT need to be played by her game. You want to fix the two party system? Go to your State assembly, because THAT IS WHERE IT IS FIXED.
This little path that you explained, you're being played by dumb motherfuckers who are halfwits at politics.
but since they decided to disenfranchise me and do everything they can to silence me, my went Green
No what happened was you lost your backbone and in your moment of weakness you got played by dumber idiots than Trump. The fact you think this two party system is fixed by the President election proves you have zero fucking clues. You know what, you should likely throw your vote away. I don't think you have anything to contribute to the left or the right. If you just stay 3rd party for the rest of your life, both parties can just write you off. If you vote 3rd party the rest of your life and not fix this at the State level, then you're no different than a dead voter. That's what Republicans and Democrats know about third parties, that's why they don't sweat them.
Because this whole "if we only get 5%" argument is a lie they tell you to keep sending them checks. They've been getting money, they've been getting election dollars, they aren't hurting for cash. Jill just doesn't want the job, because if she did, she would be running the party a whole lot like the 1980s and not this current "let's waste money as fast as we possibly can" mentality she currently has.
It's right there in black and white. They're being handed the tools to succeed down ticket. They just don't want it and that's why they don't go down ballot, that's why they have zero ground game, that's why they disappear for four years right after the election. They don't want to win, they just want your fucking money.
If politics is killing innocent people
It's not just politics, it's a rule of law. We have passed in the past under different administrations laws requiring funding to the Israeli state. Only via our legal process can we undo that. Now there are some laws that allow the President to suspend funding that has been legally appropriated, but those only go so far.
It's a will of Congress and the understanding that we are a nation of laws, that money keeps funneling towards Israel. But at the same time there are some bending of the laws via creative justification that allows us to setup a floating pier and deliver supplies to the Palestinians.
And Israel doesn't want aid being delivered by the United States because at the same time it allows them to begin collecting evidence against Israel's current abuse of human rights.
There has to be an understanding that there is a process by which an administration has to follow. It's dumb we have that process, I won't deny that, but until Congress gets off it's collective ass and change that, we have to follow that process. Otherwise, just doing whatever opens the door for folks to do whatever in the opposite direction as well and have zero recourse.
But killing innocent people is still so bad that I am harmed by it being politically acceptable
It's not acceptable but at the same time we can have two takes to it. We either follow our laws or we don't. Everything that has created this situation, that didn't happen overnight. The laws that provide unquestionable aid to Israel, those weren't passed in the last four years. It takes time to undo those things. Now that does provide a means for innocent people to die and you have every right to be disgusted by it. I will absolutely not tell you, that your opinion is incorrect. It's dumb that we've put ourselves into this position.
But that said, absent any system, this "I no longer care about politics", the ONLY thing that will do is ensure the complete and effective eradication of these people. The "I no longer care about politics" stance is synonymous with the "I don't care if these innocent people are wiped from this Earth."
This is a difficult conflict and it's wild that so many people toss their hands into the air and shout "I don't care anymore!!" the second the conflict actually gets into one of it's really difficult phases. If this phase of the conflict troubles you, you are not an ally for any means of protecting innocents that you think you are. Protection of people's lives is dirty ass work, if the messiness of the politics of this troubles you, you wouldn't be able to save anyone anyway. It may come as a surprise to many here, but humanitarian crisis like this are messy affairs, shit is complex, and nobody ever walks away hands clean. Who knew the world was like this?
I just don't get how people are looking at Harris' stance as being pro-genocide. Biden is the President and historically, foreign policy during the tenure of the President by the Vice President doesn't veer too far off from the President. That said, Harris has absolutely called for investigation into the suffering of civilians in the conflict.
Congress sets the budgetary amount of aid to direct to Israel and the President distributes the money via their diplomatic channels. There are very few options for the President to just suspend funding, which Biden has done twice for weapons under the rules established within 10 USC § 362 (a)(1)
Of the amounts made available to the Department of Defense, none may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.
But outside that, there's very little the President can do once Congress approves funding and that funding has been signed into law. This is why an independent channel investigation is required and is exactly what Harris has called for. This would allow the the US Government to establish their own inquiry into the human abuses. This would give the required evidence to cancel funding under Title XII authority. But none of that can happen overnight. It's not an easy path to override the will of Congress.
On the opposite side, Trump has indicated that he will absolutely turn a blind eye to the whole thing and allow Israel to determine solely the "best" course of action for their current conflict. Trump has literally stated in his rallies:
From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel's hand behind its back, demanding an immediate cease-fire, always demanding cease-fire
Trump would not see a cease-fire as a required condition for the on-going conflict.
Harris and Democrats historically have called for a two-state solution. Trump's plan which has been broadly adopted by the Republican party in general would:
- Give Palestinians only about 15% of their original territory
- Jerusalem would become Israel's undivided capitol, meaning all claims by the Palestinians to the eastern half of the city would be tossed out.
- Allow Palestinians to "achieve an independent state" via a means that is not clearly defined in the plan but indicated that Israel would have a final say in that process.
- "No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes" indicating that the territory that Israel has already colonized from their current conflict would become Israel's.
- Would put Israel and Jordan on equal footing for the administration of al-Haram al-Sharif, which will absolutely ignite a conflict.
- Any territory allocated to Palestinians would have to undergo a four year "wait" period, but there's no protections from Israel obtaining that territory if done so during conflict. So Israel could provoke someone to fight them and that would give them justification to take the land during this "four year wait period".
Trump has all but given up completely on a two-state solution. Which means, he's for a one state solution. And people are fooling themselves if they believe that Trump would seek a "peaceful" one state solution. He has told Netanyahu directly, "Just get it done quickly". Now we can play a game as what manner is used to "get it done quickly" means, but only idiots are the one's thinking that doesn't give a tacit nod to ethic cleansing.
I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don't think they are thinking at all. You have one solution that is long, stupid, and required because we are a nation of laws. And you have the other solution that is "fuck it, firebomb them all and call it done". It is difficult to imagine that there are truly people this blind and ignorant to this reality. But yet, here we are.
The notion that we might get a 3rd party into office like twenty years from now if we start today, helps nobody if the people we're trying to help are all eradicated over the next four years. Going down this "third road" only ensures an outcome where we are fifteen years too late to help.