"Screw the law, the Constitution, and you little dhimmi suckers
who will die for, and serve, us under ObamaCARE
(unlike OUR families and staff)."
Posted on 01/11/2013 5:52:33 PM PST by Windflier
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution states:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
This is the "Power of the Purse" clause, which Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 makes clear is exclusively held by the House of Representatives:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
Actually, there are two "powers of the purse" - to spend money or to deny its being spent. For the US Federal Government to spend any money, one single dime on anything, three things need to happen in this order: 1) an Appropriation must be authorized and passed by the House, 2) such Appropriation must then be passed by the Senate (any differences in the House and Senate versions must be reconciled via joint agreement and passage), and finally 3) be signed into Law by the President.
To deny the federal government the authority to spend any money, one single dime on any program or activity, only one thing needs to happen: the House does not pass an Appropriation for it. Period. Neither the Senate, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court, nor any federal agency secretary or bureaucrat, has the constitutional authority to spend one single dime by themselves, without a majority of the House giving it to them. That is the power of the purse.
There is, however, a problem - a legal problem, not just a psychological one, such as Congressistas being spendaholics or too cowardly to refuse the begging of various constituencies for handouts.
This problem is epitomized by the Senate Republicans' inability to force Harry Reid to pass an annual budget, even though there is a law requiring the Senate to do so. Thanks to Reid's blocking all attempts, the Senate hasn't passed a budget since April, 2009, which clearly violates federal law - the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
So how come Reid can't be prosecuted? Why can't the Senate Pubs take legal action against him? As Byron York explains, "the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. Lawmakers are required by law to pass a budget each year by April 15, but there's no provision to punish them, or even slightly inconvenience them, if they don't."
So we arrive at what may well be the single most important question to ask in America today.
Given that the current President of the United States seems determined to bypass the House's appropriation authority and spend gigantic sums on whatever programs he wants or enforcing whatever Executive Orders he issues, is there an enforcement mechanism for his violating the power of the purse clauses in the Constitution?
The answer is yes. There is a federal law that specifically codifies the power of the purse clauses, and provides specific punishment for their violation by any "officer or employee of the United States government."
This punishment is "suspension from duty without pay or removal from office," and up to two years in federal prison.
This Federal law is: The Antideficiency Act. The original version was enacted into law in 1884. Although revised occasionally since to make its meaning clear in terms of "modern" language, its purpose remains: to be the enforcement mechanism implementing Article I, Sections 7 & 9. It was last revised during the Reagan presidency, and is codified as Title 31 of the United States Code (31 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342, 1349, and 1350).
I guess you didn’t hear, the Constitution is a living document and it’s words have no meaning any more.
So what are you going to do about?
I am prepared. Will you fight with me. CWII
Sounds great, but who’s going to enforce it? The Magnificent Mulatto does
what he pleases and gives the finger to the law.
Interesting, but since 2008 the law has been basically ignored by both parties. Who might enforce a broken law, Eric Holder? A nation that lists for American Idol, Honey BooBoo and All My Babies Mamma’s doesn’t give a crap about Obama crapping on our Constitution. Sadly, “Our little book” just isn’t as cool as “The One.”
They are inside the Beltway and will do nothing to upset that paradigm.
On the other hand, just as King George started the American Revolution trying to take our weapons, Obama has started a new American Revolution.
Obama is a tyrant...see the tagline.
The GOP has no guts. Articles like this are simply an academic exercise. If the GOP intended to stop anything, they would already made an attempt.
Unfortunately, the reality is that no one in DC even cares.
"Screw the law, the Constitution, and you little dhimmi suckers
who will die for, and serve, us under ObamaCARE
(unlike OUR families and staff)."
Bring it Obama...bring it.
The U.S. Military doesn't support you...perhaps your homeys in the hood would like to try.
Bring it, Obama...bring it.
Unfortunately not a solution. No one with the power to do so will enforce it.
Read the excerpt again. There's a federal law which forbids any federal official (including the president) from spending monies that aren't specifically authorized in a Congressional spending bill.
I am prepared. Will you fight with me. CWII
Of course I will. I wouldn't think of shaming my forefathers, who fought to create this nation.
At this point, I want them to bring it.
It means less crime.
Less food stamps.
Less section 8 housing.
Less Medicaid.
Less daycare.
Less Obama phones.
Less wasted dollars on drop outs.
Less wasted dollars on illiterates graduating from government schools.
Less people who don't speak the American language.
Less crime.
Less socialists.
And no, I am not a racist, but 96% of Obama's people voted for him.
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT SHOULD BE REPEALED ON DAY ONE
Ed Rollins, National Campaign Director for the Reagan-Bush ‘84 campaign, insists that the AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT IS A TAX AND SHOULD HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE HOUSE.
This is a tax. The Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. All taxes have to start in the House of Representatives. So, even if you don’t repeal it, this was a Senate sponsored health care bill. This is an illegal bill.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGJHcxkUEqQ
From the article:
§1341 states:
1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not-
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;
(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law;
§1342 specifies that the "unless authorized by law" exception in 1341 (1)(B) applies only to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property," which does "not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property."
§1349 states:
"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office."
§1350 states:
"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."
(snip)
There are 30 Republican Governors now. If a number of them banded together, with their States suing Zero for violation of the Antideficiency Act, then, under the Original Jurisdiction clause of the Constitution - Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: "In all Cases... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" - the case must go directly to the Supremes, bypassing all lower courts.
So we don't even need lily-livered Congress Pubs, just Pub Governors, a number of whom do have the moxy.
Granted, since Chief Justice Roberts has become Obama's poodle, the SCOTUS may not find the president guilty. Nonetheless, prosecution of the president under the Antideficiency Act is a far easier way to remove him from office than impeachment.
Impeachment of Obama would be a high bar for the House, and verdict of guilty in a subsequent trial by the Dem-controlled Senate an impossibility. So the only possible way to remove him from office is via Antideficiency Act violations. Further, such violations can put him in jail.
In sum:
*The Constitution explicitly states that the President and the Executive Branch can only spend money first appropriated by the House.
*The enforcement mechanism for violation of this Constitutional provision is the Antideficiency Act, under which the president may be personally prosecuted as an officer of the United States government, and if found guilty, may be removed from office and imprisoned for up to two years.
*Our current president has indicated his intention to blatantly, knowingly and willfully violate the Antideficiency Act.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon Republican leaders in the House and Senate to publicly announce and repeatedly state their intention to seek the criminal prosecution of President Barack Hussein Obama should he violate the Antideficiency Act, in response to the House's refusal to 1) raise the debt ceiling, 2) pass a Continuing Resolution in lieu of a Federal Budget, or 3) provide funding for the implementation of Presidential Executive Orders, particularly those regarding gun-control.
Republican Governors and conservative legal foundations should then join in support.
We have the Constitution and the specific federal law to put an end to the Tyranny of Zero. It's time to go on offense. Mr. Obama must be given a choice: obey the Antideficiency Act or be thrown out of office and go to jail.
You are kidding, right? When did that every stop anything? Have you recently notice who is on the Supreme Court? And their recent rulings?
Yeah, it is ok to kill 3,000+ innocent babies per day since 1973.
Those are the people standing between US and the old USA.
Cowboy up, friend. No one said it was going to be easy. You might actually have to fight to preserve your liberty.
(No offense to you, the poster).....but give me one huge, honkin’ break. This so-called ‘president’ could go down on a 7 year old boy in public, on national TV, and the media and Congress and the Supremes would still ignore it.
This country is now getting EXACTLY what it deserves.
How can they use the constitution when not one of them know it?
Don't mind me. I'm just trying to share a small ray of hope. Y'all want to blot it out with darkness, go right ahead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.