239
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
239 points (93.5% liked)
worldnews
4839 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That makes no sense. Congress legislates and the executive executes that legislation. The President can't put further requirements on aid.
He can veto the legislation, and (more contentiously) he can issue executive orders blocking the implementation of the legislation. Or least of all, use his human mouth to speak words against the legislation (the "bully pulpit").
So he should veto legislation he hasn't gotten, write an executive understanding order, which again can not set new conditions, or speak against aid to an ally. Doesn't seem to be cease fire material to me.
"He hasn't gotten"? He drafted the request:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-drafts-100-billion-foreign-aid-package-including/story?id=104059871
He is bound by existing conditions, e.g. the ratification of the Geneva Convention, not to facilitate genocide. He is currently being sued for this.
edit: To be sure, the reason I wrote this is contentious, the actual scope of EOs (not to be confused with a private MOU, which isn't applicable nor legally binding) is contentious. The reason we have the executive branch to begin with, in terms of checks and balances, is to ensure there can be a refusal to implement. Although it's a non-issue in this case since he's asking for it, it would only become an issue with a 2/3 majority ready to force legislation through and with him actually opposed to it. Disclaimer, not a lawyer, just know some fundamentals.
The legislation is not on the desk, you know that but are being obtuse
Has the International Criminal Court charged anyone on genocide? The President is bound by the legislation in front of them, not your feelings.
I will never understand how people have the nerve to leave comments about things they don't understand or know anything about.
Really? That's the best you can do?