Latest resources

2020 Fictional Soda Wars Carset (MENCS19) DAT Designs
Fictional re imagining of the infamous Soda Wars for the 2020 Coke Zero Sugar 400 at Daytona
0.00 star(s) 0 ratings
Downloads
4
Updated
112 2020 NXS17 cars canadienhits
112 2020 NXS17 cars 2020-07-06
112 2020 Xfinity cars for the NXS17 mod painted up by canadienhits
0.00 star(s) 0 ratings
Downloads
17
Updated
FreeCamera NascarMan32
FreeCamera 1.1.0.1
A new, working camera editor for NR2003!
0.00 star(s) 0 ratings
Downloads
15
Updated
42 - Credit One Bank Camaro - POC2 Hendrick9Fan
5.00 star(s) 1 ratings
Downloads
58
Updated
42 - Credit One Bank Camaro - POC1 Hendrick9Fan
5.00 star(s) 1 ratings
Downloads
52
Updated

Government Shutdown

RacerXero84

Obnoxious old fart
Messages
3,855
Reaction score
4,976
Didn't see a whole lot of complaining when Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, etc did it.

All the sudden it's an issue. Personally, I don't like a President bypassing Congress... and there are steps in place to avoid abuse (at least, there was, dunno where the enforcement on that was the last 16 years.... their mandate was probably lost via email....). IE, as Pelosi tried to taunt that the next President might claim "guns" for the next national emergency.... they can't. It's a Bill of Rights/Constitutional issue. So that was a lot of hyperbole out of her (as usual).

So it is what it is. He gave Congress what they asked for by reopening the government rather than butt heads for a long time, and they gave him nothing. So he took it. Out of the national defense budget (already allocated, to the tune of what? 100 Billion?).

Yeah... I'm not shedding any tears over this.
 

Darren Ingram

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,540
Reaction score
1,998
Didn't see a whole lot of complaining when Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, etc did it.
Me personally, I was either not alive or very young during these times, but I would have complained as well.

Personally, I don't like a President bypassing Congress
I agree.

as Pelosi tried to taunt that the next President might claim "guns" for the next national emergency.... they can't. It's a Bill of Rights/Constitutional issue. So that was a lot of hyperbole out of her (as usual).
This is a Constitutional issue though. He's bypassing Congress for matters involving money, which is no way to govern IMO.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states that, "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."

We also have Supreme Court precedent, Knote vs. United States, and albeit old, was ruled that, "the right to them has so far become vested in the United States that they can only be recovered by him through an act of Congress. Moneys once in the Treasury can only be withdrawn by an appropriation by law."
 

RacerXero84

Obnoxious old fart
Messages
3,855
Reaction score
4,976
Me personally, I was either not alive or very young during these times, but I would have complained as well.


I agree.



This is a Constitutional issue though. He's bypassing Congress for matters involving money, which is no way to govern IMO.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states that, "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."

We also have Supreme Court precedent, Knote vs. United States, and albeit old, was ruled that, "the right to them has so far become vested in the United States that they can only be recovered by him through an act of Congress. Moneys once in the Treasury can only be withdrawn by an appropriation by law."
Money isnt coming from the treasury.
Details are important, especially if you are trying to cite legalities.
 

Darren Ingram

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,540
Reaction score
1,998
Money isnt coming from the treasury.
Details are important, especially if you are trying to cite legalities.
Fair. I'm no expert in money when it comes to the government, but I'll be sure to ask my POLS professor about this. He's the one who said that that clause was applicable.

Regardless, I don't like the President just bypassing Congress like that.
 

nj9703

Very Stable Genius
Messages
7,728
Reaction score
12,186
Personally I feel this is just a case of checks and balances on the legislative branch. The President’s job is first and foremost to protect the citizens of the country. I’m not trying to go back to the previous argument of whether a wall will do that, I’m just stating that a wall is what this administration feels will fulfill a portion of that obligation. Congress has not completed their job of protecting the citizens according to this administration, and therefore the executive branch must utilize these previously mentioned powers of checks and balances.
 

Spike

Well-Known Member
Messages
446
Reaction score
334
Didn't see a whole lot of complaining when Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, etc did it.

All the sudden it's an issue. Personally, I don't like a President bypassing Congress... and there are steps in place to avoid abuse (at least, there was, dunno where the enforcement on that was the last 16 years.... their mandate was probably lost via email....). IE, as Pelosi tried to taunt that the next President might claim "guns" for the next national emergency.... they can't. It's a Bill of Rights/Constitutional issue. So that was a lot of hyperbole out of her (as usual).

So it is what it is. He gave Congress what they asked for by reopening the government rather than butt heads for a long time, and they gave him nothing. So he took it. Out of the national defense budget (already allocated, to the tune of what? 100 Billion?).

Yeah... I'm not shedding any tears over this.
For one thing most of the National Emergency's declared by Presidents since Jimmy Carter through Barrack Obama were nothing more than economic sanctions against foreign governments and/or dictators or Real Actual Emergency's involving Terrorist Attacks or Natural Disasters not just some money grab for a border fence. Congress can rescind any National Emergency Declaration so I wouldn't doubt trump's border fence national emergency declaration will be the first in history to be rescinded.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/presidents-national-emergencies/
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/6952...e-declared-emergencies-but-not-like-trump-has
 

RacerXero84

Obnoxious old fart
Messages
3,855
Reaction score
4,976
Congress can rescind any National Emergency Declaration so I wouldn't doubt trump's border fence national emergency declaration will be the first in history to be rescinded.
I guess people keep forgetting that the Senate is still very much conservative....? House can only do so much. Plus I would LOVE to hear the House Dems try and argue how a southern border isn't considered within the scope of national security, which would allow for the use of already allotted national defense funds.... I want to see that. Hell, I'd pay Pay-Per-View rates to see how they manage that. Because on a strictly logical level, any feasible argument they could put together against that would be as shaky as a two legged chair.

And then there's this hilarious lawsuit.... suing before the monies are even appropriated, i.e. before the act is even done. In the 9th Circuit no less (what a embarrassing farce that court system has become... what's their overturn rate....? Pretty sure it's higher than Snoop Dog) so we know it'll die on the SCOTUS floor, once again abusing the court systems with half-baked lawsuits that fail time and again. Should be a repercussion for that... as well as having an inordinately high overturn rate. Should be added to the system of Checks and Balances.

But hey.... he didn't shutdown the government, did he? Nope. Gave em what they wanted, and since they refused to give him something tangible, he signaled the Senate GOP to pass the bill, signed it, and now we are still going to get something in the way of heightened border security, as soon as they deal with this legal farce.

By and by.... has ANY of the plethora of lawsuits and injunctions the Democrats pushed via the courts actually worked? Because I don't really think any of them survived state and federal level supreme courts. Pretty sure, at best, they have about a 3-5% success rate. That's kind of telling.
 
Top