J’Biden to spend $36 BILLION to bail out union pensions

Publius · 2022-12-12T13:20:03.080Z

johnwk2:

There is nothing in the Constitution delegating such power to the president. And its exercise, which is condoned by the leadership of the Republican and Democrat parties, exhibits how far the separate institutions of our federal government now conspire to plunder the people’s federal treasury.

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

Does not the Constitution allow, if not compel, the President to ensure that laws such as the American Rescue Plan are faithfully executed? From the OP:

The bailout was made possible by the American Rescue Plan Act, the $1.9 trillion package passed last year in response to the pandemic.
Financially struggling multiemployer pension plans can apply to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for assistance.
Before the act passed, more than 200 pension plans were on pace to become insolvent in the near term, according to the White House. Now, those plans are projected to remain solvent through at least 2051.
The $36 billion for the Central Pension Fund is the biggest boost from the program, and the largest ever federal financial assistance for troubled pension funds, according to the White House.

johnwk2 · 2022-12-12T14:12:06.466Z

Publius:

johnwk2:

There is nothing in the Constitution delegating such power to the president. And its exercise, which is condoned by the leadership of the Republican and Democrat parties, exhibits how far the separate institutions of our federal government now conspire to plunder the people’s federal treasury.

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

Does not the Constitution allow, if not compel, the President to ensure that laws such as the American Rescue Plan are faithfully executed?

No.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858

Publius · 2022-12-12T14:26:32.455Z

johnwk2:

Publius:

johnwk2:

There is nothing in the Constitution delegating such power to the president. And its exercise, which is condoned by the leadership of the Republican and Democrat parties, exhibits how far the separate institutions of our federal government now conspire to plunder the people’s federal treasury.

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

Does not the Constitution allow, if not compel, the President to ensure that laws such as the American Rescue Plan are faithfully executed?

No.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858

Jeez, and here I thought it was right there in the job description.

Rurudyne · 2022-12-12T14:41:11.056Z

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

johnwk2 · 2022-12-12T14:48:43.613Z

And our federal Legislators, Executive and Judicial officials are all commanded by our Constitution to support and defend "this Constitution, and not one they believe ought to be the rule of law.

JWK

“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.”____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).

Rurudyne · 2022-12-12T15:00:58.319Z

Isn’t it amazing how, after over a century, progressives on the Court suddenly discovered that the Framers on down had been wrong?

johnwk2 · 2022-12-12T15:05:58.000Z

The only exception I take with your post is, they are not “progressives”. They are domestic enemies, and authoritarian revolutionaries.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

Rurudyne · 2022-12-12T15:27:41.468Z

If they had called themselves French Republic Style Arbitrary Government Wannabes they would have been honest … and not won elections.

Publius · 2022-12-12T16:57:57.737Z

Rurudyne:

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.

johnwk2 · 2022-12-12T17:11:08.407Z

You are the one suggesting our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure.

The fact is, our federal Constitution nowhere proclaims “The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.” As a matter of fact our federal Constitution is crystal clear in that it’s the Presidents duty to support and defend “this Constitution” and not laws which subjugate it.

And specifically, the President is commanded to

take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

So, my friend, what wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

Rurudyne · 2022-12-12T18:28:29.320Z

The lawless Court and the federal is in abeyance. The financial doom that lawlessness is leading to is unavoidable.

Hopefully the progressives will suffer worse than the rest of us, because they actually deserve it.

RTchoke · 2022-12-12T18:49:00.203Z

Publius:

Rurudyne:

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.

Then the savior Obama failed. He failed to ensure many laws were faithfully executed. Heck, he was the master of ignoring laws he didn’t like. Or is that little caveat only for Republican presidents?

Publius · 2022-12-12T21:14:02.995Z

RTchoke:

Publius:

Rurudyne:

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.

Then the savior Obama failed. He failed to ensure many laws were faithfully executed. Heck, he was the master of ignoring laws he didn’t like. Or is that little caveat only for Republican presidents?

Please try to focus.

johnwk2 · 2022-12-13T01:59:15.547Z

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

RTchoke · 2022-12-13T02:19:29.574Z

Publius:

RTchoke:

Publius:

Rurudyne:

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.

Then the savior Obama failed. He failed to ensure many laws were faithfully executed. Heck, he was the master of ignoring laws he didn’t like. Or is that little caveat only for Republican presidents?

Please try to focus.

I am. I am focusing on YOUR bar that doesn’t seem to apply to your own kind.

Publius · 2022-12-13T04:27:24.022Z

johnwk2:

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

There’s a place for those kinds of questions to be answered definitively, and this is not it.

Rurudyne · 2022-12-13T06:15:38.558Z

You do realize that appeals to authority are a kind of fallacy, especially when the authority itself is being questioned, right?

johnwk2 · 2022-12-13T06:21:38.837Z

Publius:

johnwk2:

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

There’s a place for those kinds of questions to be answered definitively, and this is not it.

Well, isn’t that sweet of you? Assert a power exists allowing for an expenditure but refuse to identify the wording in the Constitution to support your assertion.

Publius · 2022-12-13T06:29:37.618Z

johnwk2:

Publius:

johnwk2:

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

There’s a place for those kinds of questions to be answered definitively, and this is not it.

Well, isn’t that sweet of you? Assert a power exists allowing for an expenditure but refuse to identify the wording in the Constitution to support your assertion.

I don’t pretend to be a Constitutional scholar like some here. But I do know Congress authorizes all expenditures, and that the President is responsible for executing those expenditures under law. I also know that we have a whole system of courts where people who disagree with such expenditures can have their cases or controversies adjudicated.

johnwk2 · 2022-12-13T06:36:54.724Z

So, you still refuse or avoid identifying, the wording in the Constitution authorizing the expenditure in question.