The Trump administration plans to funnel a $130 million donation from an anonymous ally of President Donald Trump toward paying military service members during the government shutdown, the Defense Department confirmed on Friday.
You don’t think there would be an expectation of getting something in return? That’s pretty naive. You’re basically assuming no favors were given, despite the fact that no information about that donor has beenade public, and Congress had no involvement in accepting the money. There was literally no oversight involved. When it comes to funding the military, that is illegal.
And the separation of powers is literally one of the foundations of US law. Each branch of government has its own separate responsibilities and the authority to carry them out. The other branches do not have crossover authority to simply take charge of what another branch is responsible for.
According to the Constitution the president does not have the authority to fund the government. That authority belongs to Congress, who are ultimately responsible to their constituents. It’s set up that way, so that the government…and in particular, the military…is ultimately responsible to the public. Not the president. He is the commander in chief…but the military itself belongs to Congress, who in turn answer to us.
If Trump just bypasses Congress in order to fund the military, then they no longer serve us. They serve him alone. And that is the definition of a dictatorship.
You don’t think there would be an expectation of getting something in return? That’s pretty naive.
I didn’t say that. However, that’s not how it works legally. Unless there is a law specifically restricting deposits in that account, whatever ulterior motives might be involved are irrelevant. Proving bribery is also nearly impossible in our current system, without solid evidence that the transfer of funds was explicitly tied to the abuse of power.
And the separation of powers is literally one of the foundations of US law.
I didn’t question it’s existence, only it’s applicability in this circumstance. We’re talking about a private citizen making a donation to a public fund. The president isn’t even involved except that they happen to be a “friend”. The separation of powers is irrelevant.
However, that’s not how it works legally. Unless there is a law specifically restricting deposits in that account, whatever ulterior motives might be involved are irrelevant.
No. That’s exactly how it works, legally. It would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act. And to be clear, it isn’t about who can make a deposit…it’s about who has the authority to spend the money. That’s Congress, and only Congress. That’s why the separation of powers matters here. Without their approval, the president has no authority to use that money for any purpose, regardless of where it came from.
And by law, it has to be spent from that fund, which is under the explicit control of Congress. Using any other fund, is also illegal. There is no legal way for him to pay the troops without Congress. Period. That is the law.
So, all the way up and down, this is simply illegal.
You don’t think there would be an expectation of getting something in return? That’s pretty naive. You’re basically assuming no favors were given, despite the fact that no information about that donor has beenade public, and Congress had no involvement in accepting the money. There was literally no oversight involved. When it comes to funding the military, that is illegal.
And the separation of powers is literally one of the foundations of US law. Each branch of government has its own separate responsibilities and the authority to carry them out. The other branches do not have crossover authority to simply take charge of what another branch is responsible for.
According to the Constitution the president does not have the authority to fund the government. That authority belongs to Congress, who are ultimately responsible to their constituents. It’s set up that way, so that the government…and in particular, the military…is ultimately responsible to the public. Not the president. He is the commander in chief…but the military itself belongs to Congress, who in turn answer to us.
If Trump just bypasses Congress in order to fund the military, then they no longer serve us. They serve him alone. And that is the definition of a dictatorship.
I didn’t say that. However, that’s not how it works legally. Unless there is a law specifically restricting deposits in that account, whatever ulterior motives might be involved are irrelevant. Proving bribery is also nearly impossible in our current system, without solid evidence that the transfer of funds was explicitly tied to the abuse of power.
I didn’t question it’s existence, only it’s applicability in this circumstance. We’re talking about a private citizen making a donation to a public fund. The president isn’t even involved except that they happen to be a “friend”. The separation of powers is irrelevant.
No. That’s exactly how it works, legally. It would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act. And to be clear, it isn’t about who can make a deposit…it’s about who has the authority to spend the money. That’s Congress, and only Congress. That’s why the separation of powers matters here. Without their approval, the president has no authority to use that money for any purpose, regardless of where it came from.
And by law, it has to be spent from that fund, which is under the explicit control of Congress. Using any other fund, is also illegal. There is no legal way for him to pay the troops without Congress. Period. That is the law.
So, all the way up and down, this is simply illegal.