6 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fatwa Arbuckle: Misanthropologist
Editor

Friday…yay!

Also: Danged book-hatin’ cats.

Didn’t watch Il Douchey last night -- gaaaah! -- but skimmed a transcript of his spewings. It seems the new Congress could use their “power of the purse” to fight this not-amnesty, but based upon past performance, I don’t think they’ll have the stones. In addition, I think a lot of the folks who contribute big money to the GOP want cheap labor.

The “social compact” in our country has been broken for a long time; its erosion has been abetted by both major parties for decades and this is simply another result. Frankly, I don’t think this can be fixed unless elected officials learn there are severe consequences for not taking their oaths of office seriously. Unless and until a critical mass of Americans are willing to force them to abide by their oaths, individual liberty will continue to evaporate.

The smart money is not on the Republic.

Paddy O'Furnijur
Editor
Paddy O'Furnijur
6 years ago

Happy Friday, Gerbil Nation!
Good morning Fatwa!

From what I’ve read, the protestations from the GOP leadership that they can’t defund USCIS are just an indicator of unwillingness to defund USCIS. While USCIS does not require annual appropriation, all appropriated funds are at the discretion of Congress. According to Sean Davis at The Federalist

What these appropriators want you to believe is that “not subject to annual appropriations” and “cannot be changed via an appropriations bill” are synonymous. They’re not.
The only thing that differentiates mandatory and discretionary spending is how often each must be re-authorized. Every single dollar spent by the federal government must be first appropriated by Congress. Just because some spending is not subject to annual appropriation doesn’t mean it’s not subject to appropriation at all. Congress can’t block Obama’s executive order by shutting down the government, but it most certainly can defund it by law.

Congress adds riders and prohibitions to appropriations bills all the time. Why? Because it can. That’s kind of the whole purpose of Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law[.]

And from that power of the purse come the most powerful words in federal law: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall be appropriated or otherwise made available for ______.”

Paddy O'Furnijur
Editor
Paddy O'Furnijur
6 years ago

Och! Obama’s immigration actions dun kilt it!

Fatwa Arbuckle: Misanthropologist
Editor

Well-played, Paddy.

However, I am lodging a strongly-worded complaint because that image isn’t anywhere near offensive enough to suit me. 😉

Paddy O'Furnijur
Editor
Paddy O'Furnijur
6 years ago

< trigger warning >
I was going to use an image of a Joooo in lederhosen and keffiyeh, but his nose wouldn’t fit the browser window.
< /trigger warning >

Fatwa Arbuckle: Misanthropologist
Editor

Heeeeeeeeee!