quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I wanted him to veto the fucking thing, that's what I would've liked.

Yeah, veto proof or not, you should be able to claim credit for standing up against inexcusable wasteful spending and not rubber stamping it.

Should have vetoed the bloody thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Deqlyn:

As I am understanding it the signing requires line by line for congress to go thru it.

How does that work? The bill is already signed. Why would Congress bother doing that now?

quote:

Which would you like?

I wanted him to veto the fucking thing, that's what I would've liked.

Exactly; there’s no mechanism like the one Deqlyn describes besides Congress being incentivized to act independently to approve changes. There’s zero incentives to do so and they hate our President.

@Balze/Q/Dakor. Sorry i took the quotes as it was muddying up things.

Here is from the impoundment act I will link below.

quote:

Rescissions
Put simply, if the President wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular purpose, he or she must first secure a law providing Congressional approval to rescind the funding in question. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission; the reasons for it; and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission. Upon transmission of such special message, the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If a law approving the rescission is not enacted within the 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available for obligation.

A 2018 Government Accountability Office legal opinion holds that if the President proposes a rescission, he or she must make the affected funds available to be prudently obligated before the funds expire, even if the 45-day clock is still running. This means, for example, that the President cannot strategically time a rescission request for late in the fiscal year and withhold the funding until it expires, thus achieving a rescission without Congressional approval.

https://budget.house.gov/publi...t-why-does-it-matter

To me it reads the funds are held for no more than 45 days. Trump knows his options and he wants to win. A ceremonial veto is not a win for the people. More money, section 230 gutted, and election fraud looked into is.

Perhaps instead of pointing fingers at Trump we should all be contacting our cowardice reps and senators as dakor points out who the majority of republicans voted for. You can see how they voted below.

The problem is not trump. I am really starting to believe that voting for republicans is not the answer any longer. Weve gotten NOTHING from them. #notroll. Look througg past threads and show me the excitement about what the GOP is accomplishing. Compare that to what Dems do. Would you say we are winning without Trump?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2020/h251

It’s after Christmas, time to fix this Rudy.
Nobody with a working brain cell believes it was a free and fair election.

Deqlyn,

If the funds were approved under this year’s fiscal budget, the President has only 3 days left for an effective rescission based on the second paragraph you posted (the GAO legal opinion), which means nothing because Congress isn’t in session. My earlier comment still holds - Congress needs to act independently to make changes and they won’t.

Who said we are pointing fingers at Trump, like he’s the problem? Please identify a single post of mine anywhere on SF that states such.

Perhaps I took liberties with "him throwing in the towell", I apologize for that. I have always been a big proponent of working together here and it was not my intention to get us fired up at each other.

Many of us are frustrated in the way things are unfolding, there is no more important time now to mobilize efforts together.


In regards to the bill, you are correct. Trump said news is coming today on the covid bill, so we will wait and see if we are funding pakistani gender studies.

Extortion by the democrats. Had the President vetoed the entire pork bill, Americans lose out on getting anything and the democrats will use that against his Presidency.

pelosi is getting what she's wanted all along, damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

"We wanted to give Americans more, but the President refused." (Ignore the fact that foreign countries and stupid special interests would get the larger dole).

The only thing that will work were is relentless public shaming of everyone who approved all of the pork. And the MSM won't do it.

Every single press conference, every town hall, every public question of any kind - bombard them with "why is a gender studies programs in Pakistan more important that out of work Americans?". Write letters, make them know you are unhappy. Make them know you will vote against them in the primary.

They did this to take care of the special interests that fund their campaigns, employ their relatives, and kick back money. The election is passed and they have at least 2, 4, or 6 years before the next one and they are counting on the voters forgetting. Don't forget, and make them know you won't forget.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
Deqlyn,

If the funds were approved under this year’s fiscal budget, the President has only 3 days left for an effective rescission based on the second paragraph you posted (the GAO legal opinion), which means nothing because Congress isn’t in session. My earlier comment still holds - Congress needs to act independently to make changes and they won’t.

Who said we are pointing fingers at Trump, like he’s the problem? Please identify a single post of mine anywhere on SF that states such.

Dakor, it does state fiscal year. Looking up govt fiscal year is oct 1 to sept 30. So we get the full 45. Still doesnt change much but a lot can happen in 45 days. I guess we wait.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Extortion by the democrats. Had the President vetoed the entire pork bill, Americans lose out on getting anything and the democrats will use that against his Presidency.

pelosi is getting what she's wanted all along, damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

"We wanted to give Americans more, but the President refused." (Ignore the fact that foreign countries and stupid special interests would get the larger dole).

^^Yep...

And all part of the plan...wait until the very last minute...

IIRC, in 2018, PDJT signaled he wouldn't do this a second time...but yet again, here we are...5,500 page bill just hours before the vote...'you've got to vote for it to see what's in it...'

Disgusting and shows how little many actually care for American citizens destroyed by their inept governance...


$.02 worth
Boss

Probably grasping at straws, but I just sent a brief email to Mitch McConnell asking him to stand in objection to the electors from the swing states that we know show massive voter fraud. We need his support as does the President. Here's a link to contact him: https://www.mcconnell.senate.g...ndex.cfm/contactform

Ten People Who Need to Know that America Is Watching Them

I just sent a message to all 10 even though I do not live in their state.
Their decision affects those in all states.

I'll just leave this here.

Pennsylvania Certified Results for President Are Found in Error – The Error Is Twice the Size of the Difference Between Candidates

HARRISBURG – A group of state lawmakers performing extensive analysis of election data today revealed troubling discrepancies between the numbers of total votes counted and total number of voters who voted in the 2020 General Election, and as a result are questioning how the results of the presidential election could possibly have been certified by Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar and Governor Tom Wolf. These findings are in addition to prior concerns regarding actions by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Secretary, and others impacting the conduct of the election.

A comparison of official county election results to the total number of voters who voted on November 3, 2020 as recorded by the Department of State shows that 6,962,607 total ballots were reported as being cast, while DoS/SURE system records indicate that only 6,760,230 total voters actually voted. Among the 6,962,607 total ballots cast, 6,931,060 total votes were counted in the presidential race, including all three candidates on the ballot and write-in candidates.

The difference of 202,377 more votes cast than voters voting, together with the 31,547 over- and under-votes in the presidential race, adds up to an alarming discrepancy of 170,830 votes, which is more than twice the reported statewide difference between the two major candidates for President of the United States. On November 24, 2020, Boockvar certified election results, and Wolf issued a certificate of ascertainment of presidential electors, stating that Vice President Joe Biden received 80,555 more votes than President Donald Trump.

The Guarantee Clause, The Electoral Count Act of 1887, The DNI Ratcliffe Report on Foreign Interference and VP Mike Pence

Amid our national discussion and evidence of wide-spread mail-in ballot vote fraud; and considering the January 6th role of the Senate to certify the 2020 presidential election; and considering a report from Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, is forthcoming with previous assertions of “foreign interference”; and considering five states are sending dual sets of electors; there has been some discussion about “The Guarantee Clause” within the constitution and how it might uniquely apply to 2020.

Here’s the discussion as best I can explain it:

[Article IV – Sec.4] The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

“The Guarantee Clause” – “At its core, the Guarantee Clause provides for majority rule. A republican government is one in which the people govern through elections. This is the constant refrain of the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, put it this way in The Federalist No. 57: “The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.” [citation] “The Clause requires the United States to prevent any state from imposing rule by monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, even through majority vote. Instead, governing by electoral processes is constitutionally required.”

Additionally, The Electoral Count Act or the Electoral Count Act of 1887 is a US federal law stating procedures for the counting of electoral votes by Congress following a presidential election. It was enacted in the aftermath of the disputed 1876 presidential election between Rutherford B Hayes and Samuel J Tilden. In that election, several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock. [citation]

Essentially, the Electoral Count Act (1887) requires states to complete their certification of electors to congress by a certain date. The conversation prior to the November 2020 election surrounded whether the COVID pandemic would interfere with the deadlines for state elector certification given the massive numbers of ‘mail-in’ ballots; and whether the counting of them would break through the deadlines imposed by the Act.

A combination of The Guarantee Clause (constitution) and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (law), establishes the framework for some to argue a fraudulent 2020 election result can successfully be challenged during congressional certification on January 6, 2021. Thus five state legislatures -under Republican control- have sent dual-sets of electors to congress: Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Let us be clear… There is little framework for this type of constitutional issue. This is uncharted territory, and consequently there is no body of law or case study upon which to apply a historic reference. However, that said, the issue of Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, producing a report about foreign election interference could be a fulcrum issue upon which “The Guarantee Clause” of the constitution may apply.

Here’s where it gets interesting…. The Guarantee Clause puts the jurisdiction in the hands of the political bodies, executive branch and legislative branch, to decide the merit of any state vulnerability in their election outcome. There is little, if any, place for the judicial branch to play a role.

In Luther v. Borden (1849), the Supreme Court held questions involving the Guarantee Clause nonjusticiable, meaning that any remedy for a violation would lie with Congress or the President, not the federal judiciary. Nearly one hundred years later, the Court sweepingly declared that the guarantee of a republican form of government cannot be challenged in court. Colegrove v. Green (1946). (citation)

The federal government, not the state government, ultimately holds the responsibility to protect the entire United States from foreign interference within the Guarantee Clause. This would seem to apply to foreign election interference. “[B]ecause protection against invasion or domestic violence is normally available only from Congress and the President, the structure of this section suggests that the political branches have at least the primary duty to carry out its obligations.”

If DNI Ratcliffe produces a report (prior to January 6th) that outlines foreign interference in the election; and if the argument can be made the states with the contested (dual sets) of electors were subjects/targets of that interference; then a foundation to nullify the electors from the contested states is laid in congress.

In this approach the electoral nullification argument would appear to rest on The Guarantee Clause; where the state election outcome was not valid – as it is not representative of a republican form of government, and the majority vote requirement was manipulated.

If this type of legislative challenge was to take place, there is little precedent for the judicial branch to be involved except to qualify what role The Guarantee Clause would/could play and to what extent the nullification arguments are constitutionally valid.

Again, this is all uncharted territory. However, there are people claiming this process could work to keep President Trump in office. The disqualification of the contested state electors under this argument would ultimately fall upon Vice President Mike Pence who is also President of the Senate and in charge of the January 6th electoral vote certification.

There is a lot of “if-this-then” etc within this framework, and all of it ultimately is predicated on congress challenging the election (still unknown); and VP Mike Pence then deciding which electors would be certified or nullified (long-shot); but that seems to be the argument some are making.

I wonder why DNI John Ratcliffe is taking so long to produce his report?

Last thought… I have absolutely no idea if this can work, I am just summarizing a set of theoretical arguments that appear to be surfacing. Remember, we all want the best outcome for our nation and nerves are frayed, so let us be kind to each-other in fellowship.

“One nation, under GOD“...

https://theconservativetreehou...e-pence/#more-206512

House votes in favor of $2,000 stimulus checks

Just the News Link

Will he be willing to risk his career on a gamble? I don't see it, but that's exactly what he should do. Pence, you believe in God and the Constitution? Prove it. Let God use you as the instrument to save our republic.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
Will he be willing to risk his career on a gamble? I don't see it, but that's exactly what he should do. Pence, you believe in God and the Constitution? Prove it. Let God use you as the instrument to save our republic.

I could see it go either way. He would easily secure the nomination in 2024 and an ass ton of votes if he did. I could also see him not counting any contested votes since he is on the ticket and "would be biased" thus pushing it to either delegations or SCOTUS (not sure which it goes to). I dont think we can count on SCOTUS.

Rudy Giuliani's challenge / offer. God Bless

The SCOTUS has been compromised. No sense in placing any hopes with them.