It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The President is not doing his job

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Congress would have to make TAX LAW first, NOT His Majesty's pen, or it's crap until
otherwise.




posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
But, but, but, Obama........

They ALL suck and we do not need them. Left, right, middle, snowflake, liberal, childish label bull$#!&

They do not care about US or our Health.... please...
and wake up people.

Solution? Fire them ALL!!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

That is his job. The last check and balance elected directly by the people, signing into law measures passed by both houses and vetoing those that don't measure up to the will of the people.

Like a last chance to keep rogue gubment from going to far.

Se la ve...



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


Under the Constitution, no funds may be paid out of the treasury unless they have been appropriated by Congress. It is not enough for lawmakers to authorize a government program or action. The House and Senate must follow through with a statute that directs payment for the program or action. Standing alone, authorization is just aspiration; it does not imply appropriation. Congress authorizes a lot of things, but only the things for which Congress approves the disbursal of public money are permitted to happen.


Source: www.nationalreview.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
Its time you anti-trump phobias-ass's gave it a rest and let TRUMPANTASTIC do his sh.t!

Regardless of what people say he's a dam sure improvement on the last few presidents.

GO TRUMPY GO!

I'm not anti-Trump.
I'm pro-Constitution.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Greven

Congress would have to make TAX LAW first, NOT His Majesty's pen, or it's crap until
otherwise.

Congress passed this law. President Obama signed it. It requires the HHS to reimburse funds. Congress not appropriating funds for this disbursement is where things got fuzzy, and it is the responsibility of Congress to correct this. The courts will do so if they do not.

The President arbitrarily deciding not to follow laws set forth by Congress is where he isn't doing his job.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greven


He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

That is his job. The last check and balance elected directly by the people, signing into law measures passed by both houses and vetoing those that don't measure up to the will of the people.

Like a last chance to keep rogue gubment from going to far.

Se la ve...



It's "ce la vie" and as is written, his job is to see that laws are faithfully executed.
The law says to reimburse the insurers.
He's arbitrarily decided that he isn't going to execute the law.

See the problem?



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The wording is shall, not must. The White House is not required to pay if there is no sufficient funds as deemed by the president. Also, ACA does not specify how often the payments shall be made. Could be once a day. Could be once a week. Could be once a month. Could be once a year. Could be once a decade. Could be once a century. Could be once a millennium. Trump does not violate ACA if the secretary of HHS does not make a single payment in 10000 years.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Greven


Under the Constitution, no funds may be paid out of the treasury unless they have been appropriated by Congress. It is not enough for lawmakers to authorize a government program or action. The House and Senate must follow through with a statute that directs payment for the program or action. Standing alone, authorization is just aspiration; it does not imply appropriation. Congress authorizes a lot of things, but only the things for which Congress approves the disbursal of public money are permitted to happen.


Source: www.nationalreview.com...

I'm aware. You know, if you would ever read the OP, you might see realize this.

As I said in the OP, it's a Catch-22 - Congress required payment and then did not appropriate funds for said payment.

The President's job is to see that laws issued by Congress are enforced. He doesn't get to decide not to.

That's why this is a problem Congress should fix, or the courts for them. The courts have already stepped in, here - but the ruling is stayed for now.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
ACA's flaw is it does not specify how often the payments shall be made. Could be once a million years.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: sb244
The wording is shall, not must. The White House is not required to pay if there is no sufficient funds as deemed by the president. Also, ACA does not specify how often the payments shall be made. Could be once a day. Could be once a week. Could be once a month. Could be once a year. Could be once a decade. Could be once a century. Could be once a millennium. Trump does not violate ACA if the secretary of HHS does not make a single payment in 10000 years.

Shall is frequently an imperative. In my field, it is equivalent to "must." So too is its general use in law. Sometimes, it is considered to be 'may' instead.
Take for instance Article VI of the Constitution, where 'shall' is used in multiple contexts:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The law also states that the payments must be timely; 10,000 years is most certainly not timely.
edit on 13Sat, 14 Oct 2017 13:19:32 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

That's your opinion. In my opinion once every 10,000 years is timely.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
Its time you anti-trump phobias-ass's gave it a rest and let TRUMPANTASTIC do his sh.t!

Regardless of what people say he's a dam sure improvement on the last few presidents.

GO TRUMPY GO!

I'm not anti-Trump.
I'm pro-Constitution.


How could you be pro constitution when you refuse to read it and understand it? It isn't some document that you can be pretending to have read like half our politicians and then edit and change the parts you don't like while acting in public like that's what the constitution says because Trump is in the Whitehouse. It is a binding document which governs the power and status of ALL OTHER LAWS. There are many laws written where that boss document has been ignored, and the laws that have done that in defiance of that authority, are illegal. When someone enforces laws that are in complete contradiction to the constitution, or even partially afoul of the constitution, then they are acting illegally.

Trump is making things right again because he respects the constitution. Obama and Hillary on the other hand were always looking and scheming for ways to circumvent it. Get it through your head once and for all.

If you want to hate on Trump that's fine, but forget about the "he's breaking the law" part because it doesn't fly. That bird is grounded.


edit on 14-10-2017 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
Its time you anti-trump phobias-ass's gave it a rest and let TRUMPANTASTIC do his sh.t!

Regardless of what people say he's a dam sure improvement on the last few presidents.

GO TRUMPY GO!

I'm not anti-Trump.
I'm pro-Constitution.


How could you be pro constitution when you refuse to read it and understand it? It isn't some document that you can be pretending to have read like half our politicians and then edit and change the parts you don't like while acting in public like that's what the constitution says because Trump is in the Whitehouse. It is a binding document which governs the power and status of ALL OTHER LAWS. There are many laws written where that boss document has been ignored, and the laws that have done that in defiance of that authority, are illegal. When someone enforces laws that are in complete contradiction to the constitution, or even partially afoul of the constitution, then they are acting illegally.

Trump is making things right again because he respects the constitution. Obama and Hillary on the other hand were always looking and scheming for ways to circumvent it. Get it through your head once and for all.

If you want to hate on Trump that's fine, but forget about the "he's breaking the law" part because it doesn't fly. That bird is grounded.


Just another accusation you have no proof of. This is, what, the third post you've made in this two-page thread throwing out vague accusations without evidence?

Come now, show us all where I have 'refused to read or understand it.'
What parts did I edit and change' exactly?

The job of the President includes seeing that laws are enforced.
Laws are made by Congress, as are appropriations.
The courts rule on the constitutionality of the law.

The President doesn't just get to decide to call a requirement within a law unconstitutional and not enforce it.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Tell that do Obama. What did Obama do to enforce immigration law? Nothing. He set the precedent.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reimburse -





verb (used with object), reimbursed, reimbursing.
1.
to make repayment to for expense or loss incurred:
The insurance company reimbursed him for his losses in the fire.
2.
to pay back; refund; repay.

www.dictionary.com...



trump says he will immediately stop the payments... IMMEDIATELY.

there can't be payments if the companies haven't already spent the money that the gov't is obligated to reimburse, am I right? it's like medicaid reimburses the doctors AFTER the services are given.
this is money that is owed by the gov't that trump is refusing to pay under contracts. the courts can solve this by expediting the case, or congress can by doing something like either appropriating the money or changing the law, but even then I do believe that the president will still be obligated to pay the money that is owed to the insurance companies, the best that you can hope for is that the program is officially ended on a certain future date and the companies are paid in full for the services they rendered to that date! and, I do believe that it's in the constitution, the executive branch has to pay the debts the gov't racks up!!!



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: sb244
a reply to: Greven

Tell that do Obama. What did Obama do to enforce immigration law? Nothing. He set the precedent.

Given that people were deported at higher rates under President Obama than President Trump so far, what are you talking about?

Some specifics, please. Either way, excusing this administration because past administrations sinned as well is a rather poor argument.
edit on 13Sat, 14 Oct 2017 13:49:13 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite Its time you anti-trump phobias-ass's gave it a rest and let TRUMPANTASTIC do his sh.t! Regardless of what people say he's a dam sure improvement on the last few presidents. GO TRUMPY GO!
I'm not anti-Trump. I'm pro-Constitution.
How could you be pro constitution when you refuse to read it and understand it? It isn't some document that you can be pretending to have read like half our politicians and then edit and change the parts you don't like while acting in public like that's what the constitution says because Trump is in the Whitehouse. It is a binding document which governs the power and status of ALL OTHER LAWS. There are many laws written where that boss document has been ignored, and the laws that have done that in defiance of that authority, are illegal. When someone enforces laws that are in complete contradiction to the constitution, or even partially afoul of the constitution, then they are acting illegally. Trump is making things right again because he respects the constitution. Obama and Hillary on the other hand were always looking and scheming for ways to circumvent it. Get it through your head once and for all. If you want to hate on Trump that's fine, but forget about the "he's breaking the law" part because it doesn't fly. That bird is grounded.
Just another accusation you have no proof of. This is, what, the third post you've made in this two-page thread throwing out vague accusations without evidence? Come now, show us all where I have 'refused to read or understand it.' What parts did I edit and change' exactly? The job of the President includes seeing that laws are enforced. Laws are made by Congress, as are appropriations. The courts rule on the constitutionality of the law. The President doesn't just get to decide to call a requirement within a law unconstitutional and not enforce it.


Well he's doing it.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite Its time you anti-trump phobias-ass's gave it a rest and let TRUMPANTASTIC do his sh.t! Regardless of what people say he's a dam sure improvement on the last few presidents. GO TRUMPY GO!
I'm not anti-Trump. I'm pro-Constitution.
How could you be pro constitution when you refuse to read it and understand it? It isn't some document that you can be pretending to have read like half our politicians and then edit and change the parts you don't like while acting in public like that's what the constitution says because Trump is in the Whitehouse. It is a binding document which governs the power and status of ALL OTHER LAWS. There are many laws written where that boss document has been ignored, and the laws that have done that in defiance of that authority, are illegal. When someone enforces laws that are in complete contradiction to the constitution, or even partially afoul of the constitution, then they are acting illegally. Trump is making things right again because he respects the constitution. Obama and Hillary on the other hand were always looking and scheming for ways to circumvent it. Get it through your head once and for all. If you want to hate on Trump that's fine, but forget about the "he's breaking the law" part because it doesn't fly. That bird is grounded.
Just another accusation you have no proof of. This is, what, the third post you've made in this two-page thread throwing out vague accusations without evidence? Come now, show us all where I have 'refused to read or understand it.' What parts did I edit and change' exactly? The job of the President includes seeing that laws are enforced. Laws are made by Congress, as are appropriations. The courts rule on the constitutionality of the law. The President doesn't just get to decide to call a requirement within a law unconstitutional and not enforce it.


Well he's doing it.

As long as you're admitting that he is exercising power outside his constitutional authority, we're on the same page.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

He is trying, Thats called "Drain the swamp"

Indeed forget about left or right.. open eyes!
edit on 14-10-2017 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)







 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join