Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House hits Russia with new sanctions, curbs Trump’s authority to ease penalties
New York Post ^ | July 25, 2017

Posted on 07/25/2017 2:36:49 PM PDT by TBP

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: xzins
Your exactly right. This is an encroachment on the Constitutional powers of the POTUS.
21 posted on 07/25/2017 3:13:27 PM PDT by MCF (If my home can't be my Castle, then it will be my Alamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WVMnteer

He can simply declare he will use his executive discretion on which elements of the sanctions will be enforced by his DOJ and other executive departments.

Since he has Foreign Policy in his purview.

It’s a precedent long set and long exercised.


22 posted on 07/25/2017 3:19:56 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WVMnteer

Pocket veto......


23 posted on 07/25/2017 3:21:54 PM PDT by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TBP

President Trump’s signature may or may not mean much, depending on the Senate vote margin.


24 posted on 07/25/2017 3:23:14 PM PDT by matthew fuller (God bless America, D.J. Trump, John Wayne, Johnny Cash, Ray Charles, and John Moses Browning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

These butthos never put the screws to Obama like they do Trump. Obama was a commie. What does that tell ya?

I am not going to vote for any of them anymore. They can pound sand.


25 posted on 07/25/2017 3:26:20 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

...new sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea...

The headline seems a little misleading.


26 posted on 07/25/2017 3:28:46 PM PDT by McGruff (MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949

“Pocket veto......”

I don’t think a pocket veto is too difficult for Congress to defeat if they really want. They can I believe go on recess but still name an agent to receive veto messages, which means that even if the President has taken no action on the bill after 10 days it becomes law.

Given the margin of votes it looks like they really want this to pass so it’s hard to see Congress not taking steps to stop the pocket veto.

I think this is one the President will sign, but maybe with a signing statement that expresses his feelings on the matter.


27 posted on 07/25/2017 3:50:24 PM PDT by The Numbers (God, Family and Country is Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Given the vote totals in the Senate and House, any veto would almost certainly fail.


28 posted on 07/25/2017 3:55:08 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WVMnteer

How about “the optics” of caving in and embracing Hillary’s neocon foreign policy, if he does sign it? Trump voters did not elect him for this. Let Congress override his veto. Then he can refer to it in their primary challenges?

Isn’t it amazing that with Trump now as Prez, all of a sudden Congress wants to control the executive branch in respect to foreign policy?

Worthless socialists and GOPe cucks. These are the same folks who won’t pass a clean health care repeal.


29 posted on 07/25/2017 4:14:14 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Trump needs to fight this with all he has even if he knows he will lose.


30 posted on 07/25/2017 4:18:57 PM PDT by Socon-Econ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Congress has had a remedy for pocket vetoes for a few decades now: Congress can adjourn and designate an agent to receive veto messages and other communications so that a pocket veto cannot happen.The Legislative Branch, backed by modern court rulings, asserts that the Executive Branch may only pocket veto legislation when Congress has adjourned “sine die” from a session. Congress usually adjourns “sine die” only once a year, in December (so, twice in any given session of Congress).
“Sine die” is Latin for “without day.” That means Congress is adjourned without a definite date to reconvene.


31 posted on 07/25/2017 4:45:21 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller

The Senate passed sanctions 98-2.


32 posted on 07/25/2017 4:46:58 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

I see you went looking. You’re a busy Germ.


33 posted on 07/25/2017 5:03:14 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau; Bon mots

[Merkel is furious]

Just please warn us first if she starts to pool dance again......


34 posted on 07/25/2017 5:23:38 PM PDT by SaveFerris (Luke 21:36 KJV Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
The final vote was 419-3. A veto would be easily overridden. The Senate version passed 98-2.

there's nothing more Congressional whores like than jumping on a band-wagon. They all want to be tough/generous/brave/compassionate when it is consequence-free.

If there were real consequences and potential for serious debate and negative publicity, many of these whores would be off the band-wagon and running for cover.

Having said that, I suspect Trump will go with the flow and save his ammo for other issues.

35 posted on 07/25/2017 5:26:03 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TBP
curbs Trump’s authority to ease penalties

Is that constitutional? Might want to see if a court will overrule Congress and strike this down.

36 posted on 07/25/2017 7:49:58 PM PDT by Trump20162020
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
The Senate passed sanctions 98-2.

The vote totals for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution were 88-2. I hope this does not lead to a similar tragic mistake.

37 posted on 07/25/2017 10:33:47 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Why didn't the FBI examine DNC servers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Why is this not the House conducting foreign affairs? I thought that was a power of the president. In my mind this needs to go to scotus for violating separation of powers.


38 posted on 07/26/2017 2:05:42 AM PDT by xzins ( Support the Freepathon! Every donation is important.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

This is some seriously stupid and greedy/evil ****. It is motivated by a desire to force Europeans to stop buying cheap Russian natural gas and start buying expensive US LNG instead. The EU will come down on us like a ton of bricks if this things goes through.


39 posted on 07/26/2017 2:49:03 AM PDT by ganeemead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WVMnteer
But his veto would be overturned easily.

If so, it is still the right thing to do - make them work even more closely with the enemy to hinder President Trump.

Wlecome to FR as a relatively new member, you may have missed the calls to keep FR FRee from strings by self-funding via members. Here's a convenient link

Donate to FR

40 posted on 07/26/2017 2:54:39 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson