February 1 Trump ending all federal funding to sanctuary states / cities

QP! said:
There is no concept in law that obligated cooperation and says that is obstructing if you do not.
Click to expand...
There is no concept in law that somehow reduces the amount of executive power that the President has, which is ALL of it.

QP! said:
The Executive is the enforcement arm for Congress ...
Click to expand...
The Executive is the Executive arm of the Federal Government.

QP! said:
... over appropriations ONLY if Congress requests it.
Click to expand...
Nope. The President always executes everything. Congress doesn't ever execute anything.

QP! said:
No POTUS gets to decide unilaterally to withhold funds Congress has allocated
Click to expand...
Every POTUS gets to decide unilaterally how Congressional funding is executed.

QP! said:
... because they think a State is doing something wrong.
Click to expand...
... for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. If We the People don't like it, We can vote him out of office.

QP! said:
You are just a deeply stupid person who does not understand the law or Constitution ...
Click to expand...
You are just a deeply stupid person who does not understand the law or Constitution and yet has strong ignorant opinions that are always wrong
 
QP! said:
Why do you think it would take judge shopping to stop that?

What, in the law do you think gives a POTUS power to unilaterally do that and defy Congress?
Click to expand...
Sanctuary cities are STATE/LOCAL -CREATED, NOT FEDERAL.

Trump's orders are FEDERAL; FEDERAL > STATE OR LOCAL.
 
T. A. Gardner said:

February 1 Trump ending all federal funding to sanctuary states / cities​

Click to expand...
So, once again, Congress has the power of the purse. It decides funding. trump can ask Congress to stop funding, but that requires effort. trump is allergic to effort.

And it would take time.

So the question here is what will you do when trump lets you down again? When your credit card interest rates are still 25%, but trump promised they would be 10%.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You are talking out your ass here.

When the President (or any officer or employee of the executive branch), through action or inaction, delays or withholds enacted funding, that is an impoundment.

Congress holds the power of the purse—approving a budget and appropriating funds. The President and executive branch agencies are responsible for administering those funds.

Occasionally, the President may wish to delay or avoid spending some of the funds appropriated by Congress. This may be for a variety of reasons—for cost savings, policy disagreements between the President and Congress, and changes in relevant circumstances, to name a few.


Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in response to the controversy. Title X in the act is commonly referred to as the Impoundment Control Act (or ICA), and it requires the president to report to Congress when he impounds funds as a deferment (or a temporary delay) or a recission (a permanent cancellation) of spending.

Under the ICA, spending deferrals must not extend beyond the current fiscal year, and Congress can override deferrals using an expedited process. For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending.

Can a president refuse to spend funds approved by Congress? | Constitution Center

Shortly after President Donald Trump took office, his administration briefly paused federal spending on various programs. Although that spending has been restored, the move led to questions about the separation of powers between the president and Congress.
constitutioncenter.org

Read my answer here.
Click to expand...
Again lots words that are spin and bull shit by you.

AI Summary:

The President does not have broad unilateral authority to withhold (“impound”) funds that Congress has appropriated and directed to be spent, including funds allocated to states. Any withholding is tightly constrained by statute, chiefly the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA).


Below is the clean legal framework.



Constitutional baseline​


  • Article I, Section 9: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
  • Congress controls the power of the purse.
  • The President’s constitutional duty is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Historically, presidents sometimes refused to spend funds they disliked. This culminated with Nixon’s sweeping impoundments, which Congress viewed as unconstitutional power-grabbing and responded to by passing the ICA.

Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the key statute)​


The ICA explicitly rejects unilateral presidential impoundment and replaces it with narrow, process-heavy mechanisms.


1. Rescission (permanent withholding)​


  • POTUS may propose canceling funds.
  • Must send a formal rescission message to Congress.
  • Congress must affirmatively approve within 45 legislative days.
  • If Congress does nothing → funds MUST be spent.

➡️ President cannot permanently withhold funds on his own.



2. Deferral (temporary delay)​


  • Allowed only for limited reasons, such as:
    • Cash flow management
    • Technical/programmatic delays
    • Emergencies specified by law

What the President cannot do​


❌ Withhold funds because he disagrees with Congress
❌ Use impoundment to force states to change policy (absent explicit statutory authority)
❌ Delay funds indefinitely to achieve policy outcomes
❌ Ignore statutory formulas or mandatory spending directives


Courts have been clear: the executive cannot rewrite spending laws by refusing to execute them.
 
Althea said:
No. No he isn't. The courts will strike this one down just as they have EVERY OTHER ATTEMPT.

He simply does not have the ability to do this.
Click to expand...
Terry knows that and thus why he is already saying if the courts strike it down it is only because they are activist courts. He foresees this losing and losing fast in courts as what Trump is doing is illegal and against the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top