In theory, congress can remove a president. Start placing your bets! Does he get removed before he dissolves congress? :)

I’m only partial joking. The check and balances in the country won’t work if half the population wants to replace democracy with theocracy.

> In theory, congress can remove a president

In practice, the president is threatening to remove any Republican member of congress who crosses him by supporting a primary challenger.

>> the president is threatening to remove any Republican member of congress who crosses him by supporting a primary challenger

Democracy is scary stuff to some people.

Money is people too, or something?

Choosing which political candidates one supports is democracy.

Republicans are the right wing party, Democrats are the conservative. That's why their response is to uphold the status quo and existing power structures while they do ineffective, ceremonial, wonky frittering around the edges.

All their "progressive" policies they adopted after the Fortune 500 and major institutions had changed theirs. They desperately align themselves with the status-quo, regardless of where it is.

> The check and balances in the country won’t work if half the population wants to replace democracy with theocracy.

It looks like this entire nonsense is heavily going to hurt the wallets of more than half of the population. So why would they be so keen to vote for a theocracy?

Although at this stage I also wouldn't put it past the clowns in power to actively tamper with elections to get the results they want.

Congress voluntarily giving up its powers to the executive branch [0] (unfortunately not new, but worsening), isn't exactly Democracy failing, but it's certainly a breakdown of the system of checks and balances upon which our Federal government was conceived, and is most definitely not "how things are supposed to work".

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-con...

Your particular article lays out exactly how Congress is approving (ie. balancing) the Executive branch's actions. Which means yes, working as intended. You just happen to disapprove.

Majority of the other things people are freaking out about were done via Executive Order, and therefore can be undone by Executive Order.

Smart people have been warning about that for nearly two decades. Now that some people happen to not like what's being undone, it's suddenly a crisis.

News at 11...

I'm honestly not sure how you can read that article and see it as Congress balancing the executive branch. Blocking future ability to do something is not the same thing as "approving" or "balancing" executive power. The fact that Republicans are claiming that this is a good balance of power doesn't mean it is. This was a vote by congress, to restrict congress's ability to act in the future. That is not the way the system is designed to work.

> This was a vote by congress, to restrict congress's ability to act in the future. That is not the way the system is designed to work.

This has been going on for as long as I have been alive. Congress continues to delegate authorities to the executive branch. They literally voted and approved this.

Except now, you aren't happy with the outcome therefore it's suddenly a crisis of epic proportion! It was fine just a year ago, but now, totally unacceptable!

As my very first comment pointed out, no this isn't new. And it's bad every time. It's always been bad, it continues to be bad. This is just one of the more naked and egregious cases. But no, not new.

The money were NOT allocated by an Executive Order. They were properly apportioned through Congress.

You can read the article - it literally lays out how Congress has approved these actions.

The story is written with a specific slant on purpose. "House Republicans Block..." then later admits Republicans control the House which means this is working exactly as intended. Again, you just aren't happy with the results.

Vote in the midterms if you're so upset. Otherwise, business as usual.

Ok, so this comment makes it seem that you think it is not possible for Congress to undermine the system of checks and balances, since anything congress does, is, by definition, something that Congress has approved, and therefore, it's the system working as intended. That is a truly baffling view.

No he is absolutely right, you missed the emotional trick there.

Yes you being unhappy is not reason for democracy to fail.

However, you are unhappy because Democracy IS failing.

He's literally dissolving, dismantling, and undermining the systems that you're claiming are "working". And federal judges are deciding cases along strict party lines, which is a pretty clear demonstration that they're utterly ignoring the actual written words of the law. And Congress has completely given away their intended control of federal spending. So let's cut the shit. You like Trump and you want this to continue. Don't lie to me and tell me you believe one single word of the mental diarrhea that you just wrote.

It's like we're standing on the street watching a building burn down and you're saying "look the sprinklers are on, this is how it's supposed to happen". No one is stupid enough to say what you're saying and actually believe it. So clearly you're just lying.

Yeah, I thought it'd be a cold day in hell before I saw the FBI going after Habitat for Humanity and the United Way.

I hope it leads to stronger checks and balances.

A president can revert an executive order from the previous administration. But the Inflation Reduction Act is a law, not an executive order. If Trump doesn't like it, he can get Congress to repeal it. But he isn't the king. The constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". It isn't fraud when funds that were allocated by the act were distributed according to the act. If someone cheated then by all means they can bring charges if they have any evidence, which they apparently do not.

the problem is there has to be credible enforcement. Either a credible threat of impeachment, or a separate branch of Us Marshals that works directly for the judiciary or something.

>>The constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

You mean like Biden enforcing our border laws?

Most of us learn in kindergarten that "but he got to do it" is not a valid excuse for bad behavior.

(This should not be taken as accepting your premise)

Em. Deportations increased substantially under Biden.

That said, laws generally permit some leeway to the executive to set spending priorities/focus. It can be pretty limited since Congress tends to specify what department and sometimes program money must be spent on, but it still it allows for things like deciding you're going to prosecute more drug dealers even though they're long shot cases rather than easier to win fraud causes. This is done at all levels of government.

Shifting spending priorities as the law allows, though, is rather different from actively breaking the law.

Didn’t you hear from Fox News that all CBP officers were instructed to stand back and stand by while illegals waltzed into our country to commit crime?? They literally played solitaire on their phones for 4 years straight. /s

Back the Blue apparently includes demonizing their daily effort to process asylees, rescue families in danger, and arrest gang-affiliated criminals, all while forgetting that crossing the border illegally is a civil offense akin to a speeding ticket. But now that we are a physical threat to their safety, we supposedly have a secure border.

> to try and revert something from under the previous administration

More-importantly, it's nowhere close to "normal" try-to-reverts, where one President tries to replace an equally "soft" policy put in place by another President.

Here the newly-installed crooks are trying to deny a hard "money shall be spent on X" law passed by Congress, which is an unconstitutional attempt to seize the "power of the purse".

Same legal-vibes as if Trump declared people on his Friends List were exempt from taxes.

> as if Trump declared people on his Friends List were exempt from taxes

I'll pencil that in for April. After all, the president can direct who is and is not prosecuted..

I was about to say, “don't give him any ideas”, but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.

> … as if …

This hasn’t happened already?

Not precisely: Trump fired so many people that the IRS can't check whether the rich are submitting fake paperwork to cheat on their taxes.

Related outcome, but different in mechanics/constitutionality.

[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-hamstrung-irs-is-a-gift...

No he didn't. If he had, you would have posted a credible link.

I hate that I know this, but he probably half remembered this conservative brainworm[1], the reality of which is “recently founded weirdo groups claiming nonprofit status are sketchy, get audited more, and the right has more of them”

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

I searched for a while and haven't been able to figure out what you're referring to, can you explain?