Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨 Just in: 🇺🇸 BALDWIN: What constitutional authority lets the president deploy active-duty Marines to U.S. neighborhoods? HEGSETH: “The president has constitutional authority.” BALDWIN: “Cite the provision.” HEGSETH: “I’d have to pull up the specific provision.” They’re deploying troops on U.S. soil and can’t even name the clause they’re...

120,870 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

9 Kommentare

Profilbild von Jenelle V 🇺🇸
Jenelle V 🇺🇸vor 1 Jahr

“They’re deploying troops on U.S. soil and can’t even name the clause they’re using to justify it. That’s not strength. That’s constitutional improv with live ammunition.” Brilliant!

Profilbild von Kingstone Comics
Kingstone Comicsvor 1 Jahr

“The U.S. Constitution” by U.S. Comics brings our founding document to life by describing the reasons behind each amendment and the rights those amendments protect for all Americans. Discover the 100-page graphic novel from U.S. Comics.

Profilbild von Paul Scanling
Paul Scanlingvor 1 Jahr

Okay, but now that Hegseth has succesfully avoided answering the question, what will happen? Will he be asked to pull it up and answer anytime soon?

Profilbild von Gaas-cmb.nft
Gaas-cmb.nftvor 1 Jahr

It's right next to the provision about not putting ketchup on a hot dog. Come on, man!😎

Profilbild von Otther Stratton
Otther Strattonvor 1 Jahr

Pretty hard to defend the Constitution when you haven't read it due to daily bingeing

Profilbild von Patrick Strother
Patrick Strothervor 1 Jahr

Their incompetence makes them more dangerous.

Profilbild von Frank  Klein
Frank Kleinvor 1 Jahr

I smell Nuremberg style trials in our future.

Profilbild von America Is Under Attack!
America Is Under Attack!vor 1 Jahr

She should’ve told him to pull the provision up, we’ll wait.

Profilbild von Eloise Maughan
Eloise Maughanvor 1 Jahr

Hegseth is a dangerous joke

Ähnliche Videos

NEWS ALERT: Democrat Richard Blumenthal LIED in his questioning of OMB Director nominee Russ Vought when he claimed the Supreme Court had ruled in 1975 that the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was constitutional. The Court did no such thing. In fact, the Court SPECIFICALLY wrote in Train v. New York City that “no issues as to the reach or coverage of the Impoundment Act are before us.” Why would Blumenthal lie about this and claim Russ Vought would “defy” a Supreme Court ruling that never happened?? As I have explained elsewhere, Train was confined to a specific statutory scheme at issue and did not address the President’s constitutional impoundment power—the constitutional issue was not even presented in that case. Russ Vought did a superb job in his testimony, including not backing down in his view that the President has the constitutional power to impound and that the ICA is unconstitutional. Blumenthal is flat out lying to claim that Russ’s view is in defiance of Train’s holding. The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on the constitutionality of the ICA nor on the President’s constitutional power to impound funds. And we have 170 years of Presidents regularly using his impoundment authority to rein in wasteful or constitutionally problematic spending. Appropriations is a legislative act, the power of the purse. The spending power is an executive power and is vested in the President. Would it be constitutional for Congress to mandate that the President spend $100M to investigate and prosecute certain disfavored individuals? Of course it would not be constitutional and the President has the authority to refuse to spend those funds. Likewise, if Congress appropriated $100M to provide aid to a known terror state or international organization, the President has the constitutional authority (in fact duty) to refuse to do send those funds to this terror entity. There are limits to Congress’ authority to require the President to spend funds. The Impoundment Control Act is a terrible law. It turns history on its head by requiring a President to spend every dollar of an appropriation, even if the project can be done for less. It makes an appropriation a floor rather than a ceiling. The ICA is designed to shovel money out the door regardless of whether it’s necessary to a program, and it’s wildly irresponsible for our fiscal health.

Mark Paoletta

217,757 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr