President Trump signed the Russia sanctions bill this morning, providing a signing statement which angrily condemned the bill as “clearly unconstitutional,” and saying he wants to renegotiate the bill with Congress to make it “better.”
Since signing statements have in the past been used by presidents to claim that they aren’t going to comply with parts of the bill they don’t like, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D – CA) is already concerned that Trump’s statement suggests he’s going to try to wriggle his way out of the bill.
Pelosi said the very act of Trump objecting to the bill was a sign he was going to “reward Vladimir Putin’s aggression.” Of course, hostility within Congress toward Russia has been a main driver of this sanctions bill in the first place.
Trump’s ability to “wriggle out” in this case is unclear, however, as a lot of the bill is just the imposition of new sanctions, and the one part he seems to really object to is the limits on easing sanctions, which he’s shown no inclination to do at any rate.
I hope he can find a little wiggle room. He needs the ability to work with Putin on issues important to both countries.
Congress did not leave any wiggle room for Trump .His only chance for working with Russia is to go to the American people , He has to do this tf he wants his get his health care bill passed too I just have no idea where Trump is anymore Is he the man that run for office ? or is he the man now making the decisions . There sometimes seems to be considerable difference
Well, there is some wiggle room for Trump .. He’s the POTUS, not the idiots in both Houses of Congress, and it’s the Executive Branch who was granted the power of running foreign policy. There are two options from which to choose – either issue an Executive Order nullifying the latest sanctions on Russia, or refuse to enforce that law.
Certainly Obama and his first AG, Eric Holder, refused to enforce laws Congress had passed and overridden his vetoes. Trump can do the same .. However, his better choice is just to issue the EO nullifying that unconstitutional “law”.
Congress only overrode one of Obama’s 12 vetoes. That was the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. There was nothing in it for Obama or Holder to enforce or refuse to enforce.
The bill is clearly unconstitutional. I am 90% sure it will be challenged om those grounds. Congress cannot run foreign policy, it can affect funding. The very fact that such large majorities of both parties voted indicates the level of desparation in neocon money bags universe. The ptoblem is, Tillerson has quietly shaken up, restructured and redwfined State Department to an extent that in some areas all neocon influence and reliable hands are gone. So, leaning on Congress is more effective way to line up support. But also riskiest. Constitutional issues will arise, with significant consequences.
They just did. All 530 idiots and the President himself. Only 5 voted against it. The jingoistic Americans love war. Dumb fucks don’t care about starting WW3.
The Constitution clearly and unambiguously gives Congress control over commerce with foreign nations, so the constitutionality of the act isn’t in question. It’s dumb and it’s evil, but there’s no doubt whatsoever that it’s constitutional.
What is it with the Americans’ fascination with that document?
Nope (I’m an anarchist). But the argument is over whether or not something is constitutional.
Well, is it really commerce that is being
regulated by this bill? It does not pass the straight face test to describe the legislation as regulating the commerce of US. Sanctions are instruments of coercion in retaliation for political/ geopolitical positions of another country. Be that Russia’s position on Ukraine , Syria or US elections, Iranian adherence to nuclear deal, or North Korea issue of regional security — these are not for Congress to regulate. These given reasons for legislations disqualify it as regulating commerce. Not a single COMMERCE RELATED argument is given. This makes me believe that it is not Constitutional — not even technically.
The Constitution does not limit Congress’s power to regulate foreign commerce to “commerce related” arguments or reasons. It simply gives Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce, and the sanctions in question ARE regulations on foreign commerce.
I don’t LIKE the sanctions, mind you, nor am I myself a constitutionalist. But Congress does have the power, under the US Constitution, to do the things it is doing.
Also, generally speaking, the malignance of US foreign policy has historically been powered by the executive branch, especially since the end of World War II. While Trump has mouthed a few pledges (usually reversed within minutes) to be less warlike than previous presidents, and while Congress has been even more warlike lately than usual, on the whole I’d rather see Congress restraining the president than the president accruing and wielding additional power.
I agree with your historical review, perhaps with the proviso that the either the President or Congress step in the moment they feel the danger that Americans are getting “soft”, that is, fed up financing the well connected to profit from the military golden goose. Obama was about to be challenged by Hillary in the Convention, and days of DNC wrangling resulted in Obama becoming lame duck even before Convention, ceding to Hillary full and unrestained control of foreign policy. This time, our one party elite could not get a maleable candidate, so it is on! In full view of Americans, two parties became one to protect the direction of their globalist agenda.
Trump did more then few noises. Sure — those that took no interest in his campaign, are dependent on media’s utterly warped reality. Those that know Trump foreign policy strategy — and do not like at all its full meaning, are playing ignorant. Nothing new here. Trump
has been attacked ftom all sides of globalist ststus quo. He is the realist, knowing that the current course is unsustainable. The status quo has lost already its battle globally, but is determined to squeeze every penny while the illusion hold. We will pay. I see that most people STILL identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans – and defend, even by self deception, professed partisan virtues snd values. Hope this will not last long. Awakening among Democrats is long overdue. Trump voters have no illusions about Republican Party. They watched them brag about repealing Obamacare, and boast about having better solution. It turns out — asvwe suspected — that nobody was ever going to call their bluff. Trump did. They were challenged to rise above partisanship and act gtown up in the circus called Russian influence. Fifth graders would have done better.
I am no constitutional expert, but I an sure that the constitutionality of laws is tested on the basis of the letter of the Constitution and precedents. As far as the litteral meaning of Constitutional mandate goes, Congress regulates trade, and for the purpose of advancing trade interests of US. Sanctions are instruments of war in foreign policy.
I hope somebody knows of a precedent where Congress imposed trade sanctions as a part of political pressure — not economic benefit — if the Executive branch, that is the President, OPPOSED THEM. I cannot recall a precedent.
Perhaps one of us can turn up a precedent — or perhaps we’ll get one in this case.
For me, the real question is when (if) Trump supporters will wake up to the fact that they got conned and elected the ultimate empty suit. He’s a standard issue “born on third base and thinks he hit a triple” non-entity, albeit one with an entertaining temperament. Trying to discern logic in anything he does is a mug’s game.
Since when has the puppet masters given a damn about the Constitution?
Joan of Arc – the scrawny screech owl, is not!
Pelosi has reached John McCain status in wretchedness.
Maybe we’ll be fortunate enough to learn that we are getting rid of her in the same way we’re getting rid of McIdiot. But is it possible for a tumor (Pelosi) to host a tumor?
The current Cold War hysteria infects all politicians equally. It is insane, but they are all equally nuts. The US national interests once again take a back seat to political posturing. It is the same priority that keeps the US in Afghanistan, and kept the US in Vietnam.
The U.S. sanctions on Russia pretty much shows the position our U.S governments is in . It is our country that is stirring up most of the trouble all over the world .not Russia . Russia is trying to be the sensible peace maker in most every instance . I thought Trump knew this when he first suggested NATO be terminated . Trump said would not it be great if we could work with Russia . This is something our NWO government does not seem very likely to do . It does not fit in with their NWO plan to partner with Islam in their world government .
Here we go, all the Trump apologists will say it’s one of his master strokes, signing the bill then working to undermine it. Although assessing how much enforcement occurs will be near impossible to ascertain, Trump may lift sanctions despite the bill, forcing it to go to the Supreme Court for a ruling.
All because he was afraid to pay “the political price” of a simple veto.
What happened to my post?
It got caught in a spam filter and was rescued as soon as I came by to check on comments.
Thank you Thomas!
No problem — sorry about the wait. Moderating is a part-time gig for me and that means it’s sometimes several hours between times that I get in there to have a look.
Fag hag is pandering to AIPAC and trying to get even for her friend, Hillary.
If, for reasons, unclear to me, you have not previously figured out that the global capitalist war duopoly is stone cold evil and bad for the entire world the events and internal fighting over power during the past year should be the last and only wake up call you need in order to know that you should never vote for or support, in any way shape or form, for any office anywhere ever, no matter how insignificant the office might be any demican, republocrat, incumbent, or late coming jive talker trying to scam you into believing he/she is not one of them.