Political Discussion and Commentary

385 readers

185 users here now

A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!

The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.

Content Rules:

Self posts preferred.
Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
No spam or self promotion.
Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
Stay on topic.
Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
Provide credible sources whenever possible.
Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.

Partnered Communities:

• Politics

• Science

founded 6 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

[USA] If congress created USAID, and gave administrative power to the President, can the President dismantle USAID? (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I gather that congress required the creation of USAID and provided funds for it through the Foreign Assistance Act. Through that act the President is given power (and requirement?) to execute the mission, with a lot of rules to guide the execution. So if the USAID agency is being dismantled, is the President not still required to fulfill the mission of the Foreign Assistance Act?

Some examples from the text of the Foreign Assistance Act:

Title I — Development Loan Fund

The President shall establish a fund to be known as the "Development Loan Fund " to be used by the President to make loans pursuant to the authority contained in this title. (b) The President is authorized to make loans payable as to principal and interest in United States dollars on such terms and conditions as he may determine, in order to promote the economic development of less developed friendly countries and areas, with emphasis upon assisting long-range plans and programs designed to develop economic resources and increase productive capacities.

Title II — DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION

The President is authorized to furnish assistance on such terms and conditions as he may determine in order to promote the economic development of less developed friendly countries and areas, with emphasis upon assisting the development of human resources through such means as programs of technical cooperation and development.

I prefer thoughtful answers. And as always, lets keep things civil for the sake of the mods.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I think this sort of thing is what is being discussed when people talk about impoundment (the refusal by the President to spend money allocated by Congress). My understanding is that what Trump is doing is against the law, specifically the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but Trump claims that law is unconstitutional.

I expect that when this goes to the Supreme Court, even the conservative judges will see that giving the President such unconditional veto power is a bad idea. But then I also expected that even the conservative judges would have seen that giving the President the immunity that they gave him was a bad idea, so who knows...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Oh I wasn't aware of impoundment. I'll read up. Thank you!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

The only remedy Congress ultimately has is impeachment, and we've already seen that's not happening based on the previous attempts.

In addition to that, if Congress is fine with a law being broken by the President, they'll just let them. Pretty much every President has violated the Leahy amendment for example.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Legally, no. But quibbles about 'legality' and 'the Constitution' mean nothing any more.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Looks like the law says the President shall establish the fund and is then authorized to administer the fund. So he is not required to loan the money out. So as long as the fund exists, the letter is the law is being followed.

The rest reads to me like he could lend the money out to Putin at 0% interest for 1000 years if he wanted. Although there could be other laws and definitions elsewhere that might prevent that.