POL The President Responds - 77 instances in which he asserts Presidential authority

Magdalen

Veteran Member
The President enumerates the instances in which the bill interferes with his constitutionally granted authority and that he will assert that authority appropriately. This is the Executive Branch acting like the executive, not a legislative lackey. Supreme Court, here we come.


From the White House:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-28/


Statement by the President
IMMIGRATION

Issued on: February 15, 2019

Today, I have signed into law H.J. Res. 31, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019” (the “Act”), which authorizes appropriations to fund the operation of a number of agencies in the Federal Government through September 30, 2019.

Certain provisions of the Act (such as Division F, under the heading “Contribution for International Peacekeeping Activities”) would require advance notice to the Congress before the President may direct certain military actions or provide certain forms of military assistance. In signing the Act, I reiterate the well-established understanding of the executive branch that these types of provisions encompass only military actions for which providing advance notice is feasible and consistent with the President’s constitutional authority and duty as Commander in Chief to ensure national security. In addition, Division C, section 527, and Division A, section 516, both restrict the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. I will treat these, and similar provisions, consistent with the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

Numerous provisions could, in certain circumstances, interfere with the exercise of the President’s constitutional authorities to negotiate international agreements (such as Division C, sections 509, 518, and 530; and Division F, sections 7010(c) and 7013(a)), to articulate the position of the United States in international fora (such as Division F, sections 7025(c), 7029(a), (b)(1), 7031(d)(2), 7042(h)(1), 7043(g)(1), 7047(b)(3), 7054(b), and 7060(c)(2)(D), (3)), to receive ambassadors (such as Division F, section 7031(c)), and to recognize foreign governments (such as Division F, section 7047(b)(2)(A)). My Administration will treat each of these provisions consistent with the President’s constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations.

Division C, section 537, provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories. I will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

Certain provisions within Division D, title II, under the heading “Office of Management and Budget — Salaries and Expenses” impose restrictions on supervision by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of work performed by executive departments and agencies, including provisos that no funds made available to OMB “may be expended for the altering of the annual work plan developed by the Corps of Engineers for submission to the Committees on Appropriations”; that “none of the funds provided in this or prior Acts shall be used, directly or indirectly, by the Office of Management and Budget, for evaluating or determining if water resource project or study reports submitted by the Chief of Engineers acting through the Secretary of the Army are in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and requirements relevant to the Civil Works water resource planning process”; and that “none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose of reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any activities or regulations under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).” The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch and to rely on subordinates, including aides within the Executive Office of the President, to assist in supervising the executive branch. Legislation that significantly impedes the President’s ability to supervise the executive branch or obtain the assistance of aides in this function violates the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities, including the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. [/B]My Administration will, therefore, construe these restrictions in Division C, title II consistent with these Presidential duties.

Several provisions (such as Division F, section 7041(b)(3)) mandate or regulate the submission of certain executive branch information to the Congress. I will treat these provisions in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to withhold information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the executive branch, or the performance of the President’s constitutional duties. In particular, Division D, section 713, prohibits the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain official communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress or of any Federal officer or employee who takes adverse action against an officer or employee because of such communications. I will construe these provisions not to apply to circumstances that would detract from my authority to supervise, control, and correct communications by Federal officers and employees with the Congress related to their official duties, including in cases where such communications would be unlawful or could reveal confidential information protected by executive privilege.

Certain provisions (such as Division F, section 7064; and Division G, section 418) prohibit the use of funds to deny an Inspector General access to agency records or documents. I will construe these, and similar provisions, consistent with my authority to control the dissemination of information protected by executive privilege.

Certain provisions prohibit the use of funds to recommend certain legislation to the Congress (Division B, section 715), or require recommendations of certain legislation to the Congress (Division A, section 537). Because the Constitution gives the President the authority to recommend “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”, my Administration will continue the practice of treating provisions like these as advisory and non-binding.

Numerous provisions purport, in certain circumstances, to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees (Division B, sections 702, 706, and 716(a), (b); Division E, sections 403 and 409; Division G, sections 188, 405, and 406). These are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by the enactment of statutes. My Administration will make appropriate efforts to notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.
 

Squib

Veteran Member
Question:

So, can we extrapolate or guess at what DJat means? Could it mean that he has the executive power to kill certain projects funded in this crappy bill?

Could he end any of the pro illegal alien perks before they even get started? Such as the rescue beacons, rest stops etc?
 

SmithJ

Veteran Member
It means he signed the bill and it is law.

Signing statements have no effect on that. Nothing. Useless statements.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statements.php

“Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement. In 1972, after President Nixon in a signing statement indicated that a provision in a bill submitted to him did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect," a federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a President, "denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity or effect." DaCosta v. Nixon, 55 F.R.D. 145, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).”
 

Magdalen

Veteran Member
It means he signed the bill and it is law.

Signing statements have no effect on that.

Correct. But, his statement tells us exactly what he intends to do.

He is the Chief Executive. It is his job to execute the law of the land or not if it is unconstitutional. The National Emergency gives him the power to act extra-legislatively, even in the face of legal challenge. And any legal challenge ought to fail as the Judiciary is a co-equal branch of the government without the authority to override the Executive when they are acting within their authority. That is if the Judiciary acts as intended. Hence the need for realigning the Judiciary with constitutionalists.

Aside from the threat from the South, this is actually a grave fight to make each of the branches of government do the job they were intended to do, no more and no less. It's an attempt to revive the Republic instead of letting it slip farther into becoming a democracy (the most evil of all forms of government according to Aristotle.)

magdalen
 

blueinterceptor

Veteran Member
Seems that a lot of laws were ignored by previous administrations

Further it seems that many current local and state officials ignore federal laws
 

NC Susan

Deceased
Seems that a lot of laws were ignored by previous administrations
Further it seems that many current local and state officials ignore federal laws


Your reference to Those who swear an oath to God to uphold the Constitution
And then don’t

I do not understand how McCabe and Comey and Holder and Susan Rice and hundreds more are not facing a firing squad
 

bluelady

Veteran Member
Well, I haven't read the bill (and I can't say I even get most of the points above as tired as I am right now) but it sure looks like Trump (and/or his team) has, unlike many here accused earlier today, read it thoroughly and addressed each part carefully. Where this goes is anybody's guess, but I'm relieved and comforted to know that at least he didn't just sign the thing without reading it, didn't just cave to pressure or give up, that he does have a plan. Whether or not it works, at least he's still on "our" side and still surprising the heck out of everybody! By signing the bill, and then saying, "Of course I signed it so our country can move on, but of course I "can't" obey the unconstitutional elements.", and then listing those out, he's shining a light on all the crazy stuff they stuck in there, while getting credit for stopping the shutdown. We can't stop praying, but at least I'm going to bed more encouraged than I was this morning.
 

Sammy55

Veteran Member
Well, I haven't read the bill (and I can't say I even get most of the points above as tired as I am right now) but it sure looks like Trump (and/or his team) has, unlike many here accused earlier today, read it thoroughly and addressed each part carefully. Where this goes is anybody's guess, but I'm relieved and comforted to know that at least he didn't just sign the thing without reading it, didn't just cave to pressure or give up, that he does have a plan. Whether or not it works, at least he's still on "our" side and still surprising the heck out of everybody! By signing the bill, and then saying, "Of course I signed it so our country can move on, but of course I "can't" obey the unconstitutional elements.", and then listing those out, he's shining a light on all the crazy stuff they stuck in there, while getting credit for stopping the shutdown. We can't stop praying, but at least I'm going to bed more encouraged than I was this morning.

This!!!!!

Thank you for putting it so simply and understandably!!
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Well, I haven't read the bill (and I can't say I even get most of the points above as tired as I am right now) but it sure looks like Trump (and/or his team) has, unlike many here accused earlier today, read it thoroughly and addressed each part carefully. Where this goes is anybody's guess, but I'm relieved and comforted to know that at least he didn't just sign the thing without reading it, didn't just cave to pressure or give up, that he does have a plan. Whether or not it works, at least he's still on "our" side and still surprising the heck out of everybody! By signing the bill, and then saying, "Of course I signed it so our country can move on, but of course I "can't" obey the unconstitutional elements.", and then listing those out, he's shining a light on all the crazy stuff they stuck in there, while getting credit for stopping the shutdown. We can't stop praying, but at least I'm going to bed more encouraged than I was this morning.

Reading this thread, this looks very much like what I hoped might happen. The President basically is saying: "So, here's the bill. I'll sign it to keep the government running, but I'm going to EO the f*ck out of it to make it Constitutional. Thanks for admitting that we need the Wall, though, and for funding a good start on construction for this year."


If things work out, the wall will get built over the next six years, which will make the provisions of the law moot. In six years, the House may change hands again, and the law may even get nullified. We'll see.
 

sunny225

Membership Revoked
Reading this thread, this looks very much like what I hoped might happen. The President basically is saying: "So, here's the bill. I'll sign it to keep the government running, but I'm going to EO the f*ck out of it to make it Constitutional. Thanks for admitting that we need the Wall, though, and for funding a good start on construction for this year."


If things work out, the wall will get built over the next six years, which will make the provisions of the law moot. In six years, the House may change hands again, and the law may even get nullified. We'll see.

Y'all do understand that what he says he is going to do with a bill that has passed both houses of congress AND been signed by the president - making it LAW - is unconstitutional in and of itself?
He is the executive branch. He is to execute the laws of the land. He has no authority to change them.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Y'all do understand that what he says he is going to do with a bill that has passed both houses of congress AND been signed by the president - making it LAW - is unconstitutional in and of itself?
He is the executive branch. He is to execute the laws of the land. He has no authority to change them.

UNLESS, said law infringes on HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED duties.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Y'all do understand that what he says he is going to do with a bill that has passed both houses of congress AND been signed by the president - making it LAW - is unconstitutional in and of itself?
He is the executive branch. He is to execute the laws of the land. He has no authority to change them.

I know you hope otherwise, but the President is not required to execute unconstitutional law, whether he or she signed the law itself.

You've worked very, very hard to capitalize on some genuine outrage over yesterday's events. It seems that you desire a bloodletting, hoping it is inevitable. What President Trump has done is what may be one of the last things he can do to avoid that, though there are those who'd rather just have it happen for whatever reason. BTW, I'm not defending what he did yesterday, I was as ready as anyone to see the government shut down again and see what happened next. He took a different path, and no one here really knows where it leads. Not you, not me. Not the President or Nazi Peelousi, either. We'll sure as hell find out, though.

I *HOPE* his gambit works. If it doesn't, well, you'll probably get what your looking for.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
the wall will get built over the next six years

In six years, The Wall won't matter. It will all be over because the flood of immivaders will continue apace - THANKS TO THE LAW TRUMP SIGNED.

That must be some good hopium….
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
the wall will get built over the next six years

In six years, The Wall won't matter. It will all be over because the flood of immivaders will continue apace - THANKS TO THE LAW TRUMP SIGNED.

That must be some good hopium….

The flood only continues if the President DOESN'T execute the law with EO activity he's describing in the OP. Funny, he and his team seemed to have actually read the law and parsed it for such a set of executive actions. He is legally in the right to do this, and my hope rests on whether or not the enemies are successful in using extralegal means to stop this. There is no guarantee that the communists won't go full Bolshevik, I admit. Then again, as I already said, that's not a new possibility, whether he signed the law yesterday or not.
 

sunny225

Membership Revoked
I know you hope otherwise, but the President is not required to execute unconstitutional law, whether he or she signed the law itself.

You've worked very, very hard to capitalize on some genuine outrage over yesterday's events. It seems that you desire a bloodletting, hoping it is inevitable. What President Trump has done is what may be one of the last things he can do to avoid that, though there are those who'd rather just have it happen for whatever reason. BTW, I'm not defending what he did yesterday, I was as ready as anyone to see the government shut down again and see what happened next. He took a different path, and no one here really knows where it leads. Not you, not me. Not the President or Nazi Peelousi, either. We'll sure as hell find out, though.

I *HOPE* his gambit works. If it doesn't, well, you'll probably get what your looking for.

I am not walking around with blinders on and smoking the hopium that lots of people seem to be smoking.

But I can see that if we want the country that we are supposed to have that bloodletting will have to be done. There is no voting our way out of this. Why people think there is - well, I don't know why. NO ONE that I know wants this. But most of them know that is what it will take.

Go read WRSA for awhile and you'll see I'm not the only one who thinks this. Heck, read some posts from Dennis and you'll see that he thinks so also.

We are not quite there yet because people still think if they just vote harder next time, things will change. But more and more people can see the writing on the wall and are getting ready. (have you read the posts by Nowski?)
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
I am not walking around with blinders on and smoking the hopium that lots of people seem to be smoking.

But I can see that if we want the country that we are supposed to have that bloodletting will have to be done. There is no voting our way out of this. Why people think there is - well, I don't know why. NO ONE that I know wants this. But most of them know that is what it will take.

Go read WRSA for awhile and you'll see I'm not the only one who thinks this. Heck, read some posts from Dennis and you'll see that he thinks so also.

We are not quite there yet because people still think if they just vote harder next time, things will change. But more and more people can see the writing on the wall and are getting ready. (have you read the posts by Nowski?)

There is a difference between being willing to engage a CW and wanting to, or seeing it as the only thing we have left. As I've said in a couple of different ways, there is a chance that we avoid it if this EO strategy works, there is also a chance it will not. The timeframe for strife to break out in earnest hasn't really even changed much, maybe just a few weeks in my estimation. The difference between you and me is that I do have some hope that it works. If it doesn't, then there's not much more to talk about.


I do read WRSA, and their viewpoints are valuable to me, I get their emails every day, in fact. The preparation of the sort they propose is not outlandish, especially in these trying times. As for Nowski, well, I respect his viewpoints in some areas, but they are too narrow at times, and almost intentionally inflammatory.
 

Hambone

Contributing Member
In the first/2nd week Trump made the statement that the Repblicans on the bill committee were wasting their time. I would imagine at that point it was decided that he would definitely be declaring an EM..
I also imagine they would be (as it is becoming evident) prepared to counter anything inthe the bill.

Time will tell...But I'm expecting a pleasant surprise when all is said and done..

Dan Bonigo explains some of this..https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QwJHoECAIQCA&usg=AOvVaw0yOnGyvDWLvJ8b_7xr3UQP
 
Last edited:

sunny225

Membership Revoked
There is a difference between being willing to engage a CW and wanting to, or seeing it as the only thing we have left. As I've said in a couple of different ways, there is a chance that we avoid it if this EO strategy works, there is also a chance it will not. The timeframe for strife to break out in earnest hasn't really even changed much, maybe just a few weeks in my estimation. The difference between you and me is that I do have some hope that it works. If it doesn't, then there's not much more to talk about.


I do read WRSA, and their viewpoints are valuable to me, I get their emails every day, in fact. The preparation of the sort they propose is not outlandish, especially in these trying times. As for Nowski, well, I respect his viewpoints in some areas, but they are too narrow at times, and almost intentionally inflammatory.

IF the wall goes up from one end of the southern border to the other and it is so good that no one can cross it - that won't put our country back to 'right'. There is so very much wrong here from the local gov to the feds that a wall won't/can't fix.

There has to be a reset. and that will take blood in the streets.

Thanks for your viewpoint. I wish I shared the optimism.
 

Ractivist

Pride comes before the fall.....Pride month ended.
It was good to see this action by the Donald and his team. He basically makes it clear he will not do the BS as described due to preexisting conditions, like the Constitution and our sovereignty.

It is reassuring, and does lend to the discussion that our side should not be jumping to conclusions on his actions so quickly......

I agree that violent revolution is at the heart of the left on some levels....as Bill Ayers stated the reality of killing off 25 million people back in the day. These days I'd say that number is likely closer to forty million.... that's a lot of conservatives. It won't be done with fema camps or disarmed citizens. Those days are behind us...unless they aren't.

This is a dangerous time, as the globalists exposure is escalating and free people are seeing that much is at stake. Nothing is off the table...as the globalists control many many military assets across the globe, and from within. They are the one's who are on record wanting the population down to 500 million.

There is no voting our way out, that's for sure...as it is fully comprimized. The vote is no longer to be trusted. It's conclusive.
 
Top