kallend 2,184 #26 June 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteI never agreed to spending $Trillion on a war in Iraq. But we know where that authority comes from: the War Powers Act gives the President the power to use the military temporarily without a declaration of war, but funding of wars is still the purview of Congress. So we as citizens DO have representation for that. You may not like the decisions of Congress, but they ARE our representatives. And as you like to say so much; "you elected them, so quit complaining." What I'm asking is, what gives Barry the power to unilaterally send aid money to foreign nations? There may well be some legal basis for this, but I'd like to know what it is. Same authority that Saint Ronald Reagan used when he sent money to Palestine in each year of his presidency.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #27 June 10, 2010 Quote What I'm asking is, what gives President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama II, former president of the Harvard Law Review and Professor of Law, the power to unilaterally send aid money to foreign nations? There may well be some legal basis for this, but I'd like to know what it is. As best as I can tell from very quick Google-based research (and I invite correction), a President cannot truly spend unilaterally; it has to have some manner of Congressional approval. One way might be under some particular category of expenditures that has already been approved by Congress under the applicable budget. Another way is via "emergency spending"; but as best as I can quickly tell, the designation of a particular expenditure as an "emergency" (example: disaster aid after Hurricane Katrina, etc.) must be made mutually by both the President and Congress. I've got to believe that if any sitting President were to try to openly undertake a major expenditure that was potentially unlawful for want of Congressional approval, that members of Congress not of that President's party would quickly howl about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #28 June 10, 2010 QuoteDoesn't make it right. Doesn't make what right? Aid to Palestine, the war in Iraq or every single voter in America not getting a veto on government spending?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #29 June 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteDoesn't make it right. Doesn't make what right? Aid to Palestine, the war in Iraq or every single voter in America not getting a veto on government spending? Yes.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #30 June 10, 2010 Quote>I would love it if any president would say that no more aid will come >from us until Arafat's widow coughs up some of her stolen money. I agree that Arafat (and several other leaders in Hamas) are basically villains. But punishing the Palestinian people because of their leader's actions isn't always justifiable. It's the same logic that says that it's OK for Hamas to attack Israeli civilians because of what the Israeli government has done, and the same logic that says that it's OK to kill Americans in terrorist attacks because of what _their_ government has done. Yes, that aid often gets diverted to weapons (or more accurately, local money that would have gone to aid now can be used for weapons.) And it might be valid to say "we will give no aid to anyone that might use that aid to help build their military." But if that's the case, we would surely be hypocrites to balk at sending a few hundred million a year to humanitarian aid for the Palestinians while sending billions a year to Israel specifically to buy weapons. I'd be OK with ending all such aid. But if only one has to continue, I'd rather feed people than buy bombs with the money - and a lot more of the money to the Israelis goes to buying bombs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #31 June 10, 2010 I'm repling to my reply...damn I missed up. Bill, I was just going to say buying bombs for Isreal is good for our economy, provides good paying jobs and puts food on the table. Bombs also help Isreal, to defend themself from their enemies. Its a Win Win. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
