What are “sensitive” records st the Department of Treasury?
And if the President can’t see these… who can?
Link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-files-motion-vacate-restraining-order-prohibiting-doge-access-treasury-payment-systems
Replies to: What are “sensitive” records st the Department of Treasury?
The controversy is over what checks need to be cut
The President wants to take over the appropriations power. Which he is forbidden by law to do. Google "impound act."
If Musk is able to exercise de facto line-item vetoes over what the Congress has appropriated - which again, is illegal, according to a law upheld by the Supreme Court 9-0 - then it is another assault on the Constitution.
Not that any MAGA morons give two shits about the constitution.
Not spending money is unconstitutional?
If Trump were to spend USAID appropriations on MAGA merchandise, would that satisfy the "Impound Act"?
Yes. Did you take civics?
The Congress appropriates money. Article 1.
The Treasury Dept writes the checks. They have no choice in the matter. That has been upheld 9-0, as I said. Presidents cannot order appropriated money to be halted.
Can the president spend it on whatever they like?
As in MAGA gear, Truth Social subscriptions or Meme-coins?
Also, we didn't cover USAID in my civics class. Which part of the constitution addresses it?
The Treasury Dept has to write the checks that Congress instructs it to. It's the law.
(no message)
Show me the bill passed that outlines subscriptions to Politico.
I'd like to see the "check" that was written, too.
The side-effect that you're interested in the Constitution suddenly is fantastic, love it.
This is the part that I'd like to see more details on.
I get the point that the Treasury is obligated to write the checks that Congress mandates. What I don't personally know enough about is where the specifics are laid out on the individual checks. What does the bill mandate, at a detailed level (recipient/amount)?
How great would it be if Congress had to vote on each and every line item?
(no message)
Change the subject all you want, simpleton.
(no message)
That's a fairly lame exit.
(no message)
Here's what I'm hoping.
They know that they can't directly "halt" these payments. But a bright, blaring light needs to be shined on these spend items. Everyone needs to see that media outlets are being funded, billions being wasted on roads that are never finished, gender ideology training in other countries, and vague projects that don't serve our country's interests in any clear way.
I'm hoping that this is the plan. The funds will be issued, but force Congress's hand on taking a public position on these ridiculous wasteful items.
Again, I'm hoping.
DOGE could do a lot of good. Theoretically.
If it had done this all in anything resembling a rational manner, it could have cut lots of crap out of the budget.
But it came with a hammer - and an ideology. This is not about saving money - it's about getting rid of things they don't like. And dismantling anything that could possibly get in Trump's way.
I'll be proven right when the next round of massive tax cuts for rich people are announced. The cuts will be used to justify it.
This party is just getting started, maybe wait and see.
(no message)
Not the issue here: this is merely about allowing access to records.
There are two more issues to be decided by the Courts:
Is the Impoundment Control Act unconstitutional in whole or in part?
Has Congress appropriated to make payments to specific parties or just generally appropriated funds for the executive to allocate at his discretion.
Regardless, what is the legal basis for prohibiting the executive from accessing Treasury records? Short Answer: THERE IS NONE!
Stephen Miller has said that he believes the Impound Act is unconstitutional.
But I would think we might all agree that he is not the arbiter of what laws are or are not constitutional.
Article 1 is going to be under a 4-year assault.
And the reason Musk wants access to Treasury databases is because he wants to control the checks. Which, again, is unconstitutional. Full stop.
And the reason the Dems oppose access to the records is that don't want the public to see them.
SCOTUS will ultimately allow access to these records.
Then Congress needs to have hearings to trace where the money ultimately ends up.
This will make Watergate look like a small claims court proceeding.
Those are the ones showing how Democrats have been illicitly funneling money. Look at who is
objecting to know who has something to hide.
It is "look only", and still they object. Wtf.
Further, the Democrat party is using sympathetic judges to try to block the removal of illegal alien criminals from our country as well. Disgusting. No wonder the slogan "MAGA" offends them so much.
.
(no message)