In 2012 Obama said-------------"Im going to work with Congress where I can, but I will act on my own if Congress is deadlocked and wont act". He was commenting about immigration laws.
Just thot you needed to be reminded about how two faced democrats are being now with President Trump.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
--
U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
Your remarks above illustrate that you either (1) have a profound lack of understanding -- not misunderstanding, lack of understanding -- of appropriations and the "
power of the purse" articles of the Constitution, or (2) are an unabashedly inveterate dissembler.
If you look at any executive branch entity that receives Congressionally appropriated funding, you'll find that Congress designates funds for specific programmatic activities a given unit must perform. Obama's remark pertained to policy, undertakings and non-undertakings that required no Congressional appropriation.
What Obama sought to "work with Congress" on was Congressional enshrinement in US Code of treatment modalities -- for example DACA classification and attendant immigration qualifications -- which, frankly, are more policy (specifically one called an "administrative procedure") decisions not laws, though being effected by executive order (EO), they have the force of law without being laws. (All laws are policies, but not all policies are laws.) Congress abjured enacting such provisions, so Obama did so via EO, and, to date, the arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional, the judicial branch, have not deemed Obama's DACA order unconstitutional. Moreover, the Trump Administration, in attempting to reverse the DACA EO, has not complied with the
Administrative Procedure Act, which is a law that must be followed in order to effect or undo any procedural change. Specifically, agencies must soundly/cogently demonstrate their actions and policies are not "arbitrary or capricious."
Arbitrariness and caprice notwithstanding, the point is that what "O" did re: immigration called for no appropriated funds, so, Article 1, Congress' "power of the purse," didn't come into play. In contrast, what Trump wants to do re: immigration, build a wall, does require appropriated funds; thus Article I is the superordinate constraint with which Trump must comply.
While "O's" immigration EOs and Trump's desire to build a wall both pertain to immigration, as goes the scope of their implementation requirements are very different. Only jurisprudential myopia, a personal paucity of probity, and/or ignorance moves one to disregard the materially differing nature of those requirements. Yet one or more of those qualities is exactly what you've had the gall to exhibit by your "red" remark.
