Show me the precedent, the crime, the impact, the loss and the solution. The burden is on the plaintiff.

bsky.app/profile/kath...

We cannot just say it is illegal action by any party without being prepared to defend that claim. Argue it here in public as you wish to argue everything.

bsky.app/profile/kath...

Your argument bears the burden of truth, do you know?

Buddy, your initial question was answered. Will you deal with the answer?

bsky.app/profile/kath...

This is why I’d rather slather myself in bbq sauce and jump into the lion enclosure at the zoo than try to argue with you about the law.

You'd probably be ok. The people who fail are usually those who can't bother reading what she has to say because they already know they are right(even though they can't back anything up)

Oh, I’m happy to have a discussion, I normally learn a lot when I engage with her or others on legal topics. I’m just not dumb enough to argue.

but that's what argu...oh, wait, pause legal brain

And here we have the difference between lawyers and technical analysts🤣

How would you argue to the Supreme Court that this statute has been broken/defiled?

The power of the purse is granted exclusively to Congress. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 897 F.3d at 1231. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the President to unilaterally enact, amend, or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438–39 (1998).

Congress’s spending power includes the power to attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206–07 (1987). As a result, the President's duty to enforce the laws, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, includes honoring Congress's appropriations. 897 F.3d at 1234.

His failure to do so is an abdication of his Constitutional role. 2 U.S.C. §§ 681–688. Congress has not delegated the authority to attach conditions to the receipt of funds to Trump, so he's prohibited by the Constitution from doing so. City of L.A. v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1163, 1175 (9th Cir. 2019).

The Executive Order thus amounts to an end-run around the separation of powers; Trump has no authority to thwart congressional will by canceling appropriations passed by Congress or to ignore a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. 897 F.3d at 1232. Make sense?

And he was never heard from ever again

they never want to stay friends :-(

Actually, I don't normally reply to replies. That just invites vitriol. I asked a question and received an answer. Whether I agree or not doesn't matter. I'm not on the Supreme Court where this will be determined.

Was the answer helpful to you?

Jeepers, even a "thank you for your answer" would be nice. As always, thank you for your explanations.

Since it doesn't confirm their priors, I'm going to say no 😆

That's a weird way to say "I'm a cowardly reply guy'

You are the @dieworkwear.bsky.social of legal threads.