Posted on 01/18/2020 12:05:58 PM PST by bitt
The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.
To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.
Even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not — the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents.
If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has gotten the constitutional law exactly backwards. It said that the "faithful execution of the law" — the Impoundment Control Act—"does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law ." Yes, it does — when it comes to foreign policy. The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.
To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.
Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack
(Excerpt) Read more at gatestoneinstitute.org ...
Well, that seems to have summed it up. Too bad Dems.
Next!
Where in the Constitution are the powers enumerated to either the GAO or, in fact, the State department?
By ignoring Biden and trusting their media wing will never cover his involvement. At this point, the media runs and directs the Democrat party, so they don’t so much have to trust as to do what they’re told.
Now, Alan will probably vote for Biden but in a big blue state ... but he knows if he doesn't get Trump's charges dismissed, and in a way that shames Democrats, Biden would be impeached on Jan 3, 2022 and quite likely removed from office for Burisma/Ukraine/China/being Biden.
Makes one miss Pat Caddell. The one-year anniversary of his death is near.
Yes, he is truly one of the very few principled liberals left.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan would be proud.
GAO probably knew it was wrong about PDJT and Ukraine funds.
The deep state is doing everything it can to smear PDJT to make him a lame duck president.
Remember in November!
MAGA! Now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)
President Trump is always 99% right...his embroidery throws knee jerker’s off 100% of the time.
Somehow I get the feeling so many interests have a hold of Alan by his short hairies that it is likely uncomfortable—though possibly titillating.
As a liberal pal of Jeffries, he’s undoubtedly a corrupt Deep Stater. Why the Trump team is keeping him in their tent is open to speculation. Do they have the goods on him? Are they taken in by him? The usual questions for all the many Deep Staters in and around this admin.
I know it would violate FR protocol, but it often pays to actually read or at least scan the article. It says:
"Second, even if the GAO were non-partisan in the sense of preferring one political party over the other, it is partial to Congress over the president. The GAO is a congressional body. It is part of the legislative, not executive, branch. As such, it favors congressional prerogatives over executive power. It is not surprising therefore that it would elevate the authority of Congress to enact legislation over that of the president to conduct foreign policy."
The only point you've missed is that the democRATS are trying to use this as "additional" evidence that Trump committed some high crime. It is not.
It may rise to some violation of an administrative GAO rule or directive but not a high crime under the constitution. Obama violated the same rule more than a few times and nothing was ever done about it.
Look for the Senate impeachment trial to be similar to the chaotic circus the democRATS created in the Kavanagh confirmation hearing in the Senate. It's the main strategy in their playbook to keep the trial proceedings off kilter. Throwing stuff on the wall and hoping it sticks. Last minute revelations like this GAO issue and the Lev Parnas blabbermouth are other tactics.
Parnas is the new darling of the Left and the MSM because he claims he has the "goods" on Trump and everyone in the Ukraine mess. What's not prominently mentioned is that he is also under indictment himself already and is trying to save his own ass. Think of him as another Michael Cohen.
Expect more of this from the democRATS going forward. McConnell and Graham need to keep a short leash on the democRATS or they will turn the trial into another one of their political circuses.
And there it is in plain English, expertly explained.
CASE CLOSED!
“At this point, the media runs and directs the Democrat party,”
....my wife has contended that for years.
Biden withheld foreign aid to release is son from criminal prosecution, this is the crime here
GAO incompetence and political activism must not bet tolerated. Those responsible must be fired.
“How does the left reconcile that glaring contradiction?”
The same way the reconcile all glaring contradictions. By not seeing them, not acknowledging them, and then by calling them “debunked conspiracy theories.”
Pay no attention to the little man behind that curtain. The Great Oz has spoken.
GAO Head is an Obama appointed Democrat DC lawyer.
“Gene L. Dodaro became the eighth Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on December 22, 2010, when he was confirmed by the United States Senate. He was nominated by President Obama in September of 2010 from a list of candidates selected by a bipartisan, bicameral congressional commission. He had been serving as Acting Comptroller General since March of 2008.” GAOgov.
Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds.
If he didn't agree with the policy he shouldn't have signed the Appropriations Act into law.
Once he signs it, if circumstances or policy changes there's a process to go back to Congress and request a rescission of the funds.
He can't just change the provisions of spending bills on his own.
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.