• sudoer777@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    2 days ago

    Iā€™m trying to understand how this system works and came across this article from Al Jazeera which, if Iā€™m reading it correctly, is saying that the US did determine gross human rights violations but the Biden administration is refusing to apply the Leahy Law. Doesnā€™t this mean that Biden does have the authority to stop sending military aid but isnā€™t, or am I misunderstanding something? Also, aside from Leahy Law why canā€™t he veto the military aid?

    • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      2 days ago

      Oh man, this is a doozy. You arenā€™t wrong but Iā€™ve got to get some sleep. To explain this is A LOT.

      The thing is the Leahy Law doesnā€™t put the power directly in the Presidentā€™s hands. It grants the vetting process to the Secretary of State. Which is a member of the cabinet of the President. Which I donā€™t know how familiar you are with how the Executive Office works or not. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israelā€™s aid.

      Thereā€™s Executive Orders (EO) that the President can give but thereā€™s the whole ā€œwhat ifā€ Blinken quits given an EO and then we have to get the Senate involved which is currently 50-50 on Republicans and Democrats. Which that turns it even more complex and Senators can delay confirmation until after the election or if theyā€™re really bitter, until next year. Which means that everything that requires a Secretary of State would get put on pause.

      I get that everyone thinks the President gets to have the final say, but the President orders people around on EOs, which the various Secretaries can just quit if they donā€™t want to follow them, and then that kicks everything to the Senate. Thatā€™s kind of a built in protection in our system of Government to prevent a President becoming a dictator. If a President wants XYZ done and the Secretary thinks thatā€™s bad, they quit and the Senate becomes involved potentially delaying the President forever.

      Thereā€™s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published, unless the President does so since the President has unilateral authority on classification markings (except for anything related to the name of spies and nuclear bomb designs, that is one of the few things that requires both the President and Congress to sign off on, thereā€™s a few other exceptions as well but I wonā€™t go into them).

      But anyways, Blinken is the one who can stop aid. The President could order him, but he could also quit, which means the Senate would get involved, and I can explain why all of that would be messy if you need me to.

      why canā€™t he veto the military aid

      The President only has veto power on bills that have passed both the House and the Senate. Once something becomes law, the President ā€œhasā€ to carry it out. Thereā€™s a ton of background on ā€œExecutive Discretionā€ and any time the President wants to exercise discretion, Congress can sue, which then brings the matter into the other branch, the Judicial. Plenty of States that would sign on, to a Congressional suit (which thatā€™s a requirement for Congress to sue the President, at least one State has to join in).

      So Biden could use Discretion to delay funding, and heā€™s done that quite a few times, but he canā€™t just outright NOT pay when the law requires him to do so. That discretion comes from a kind of EO called a ā€œReviewing Executive Orderā€ and it requires a department to ā€œreviewā€ ((insert whatever the topic is)). Thatā€™s a delay, but it isnā€™t a halt. The President has to follow the law as well. So if we have a law that says, ā€œwe provide $xxx to Israelā€™s Iron Domeā€, we have to send that money to them at some point.

      A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion. Thereā€™s been recent upping of that funding that Congress has passed, but thatā€™s been on things called Continuing Resolutions (CR). Republicans in the House (who are the ones who control what the US Budget is) have been using CRs to get choice things enacted. Thatā€™s because Republicans in the House have passed rules on how a budget may be formed in the House that are impossible to comply with (which thatā€™s a whole long story). So if Democrats in the House refuse to accept the CRs the Republicans offer, the Government shuts down.

      Anyways, thatā€™s been a lot already. If you need me to clear anything up, let me know. But Harris likely wouldnā€™t have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT. But I donā€™t know, because if the election isnā€™t kind to Democrats in the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they could block Harrisā€™ Sec. of State unless they specifically pledged to support Israel. Now they could absolutely lie about that, but then Congress could also impeach them, but that would cut off aid to Israel for some time as thatā€™s not an easy process to impeach a secretary of state.

      • sudoer777@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I just donā€™t get how people are looking at Harrisā€™ stance as being pro-genocide.

        Blinken stated here:

        In speaking with him the other day after he made his decision about not seeking re-election, what heā€™s intensely focused on is the work that remains over these next six months to continue the efforts, the work that weā€™ve been doing, particularly trying to bring peace to the Middle East, ending the war in Gaza, putting that region on a better trajectory

        However, as you said earlier:

        Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israelā€™s aid.

        Regarding:

        Thereā€™s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published

        I would like to hear more on this.

        A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion.

        I did come across this where apparently Israel secured funding through a deal with the Obama administration.

        Iā€™m not sure what other reasons there may be that Blinken isnā€™t stopping the military aid which I would like to hear, but it seems to me like both the Obama and Biden administrations are the ones that pulled us into the genocide and that Blinken is playing the ā€œwe are working toward a ceasefireā€ card while not stopping the genocide, and figures like Harris are also playing the same card while pushing the same anti-protest rhetoric as Zionists. This article does suggest that Harris isnā€™t going to have Blinken as Secretary of State and that her new pick might be more critical of Israel so it seems like thereā€™s at least some chance she might deviate from what Biden is currently doing; however, the article also suggests that she will have a similar approach to foreign policy as Biden. Aside from that, with the track record of Democrats historically supporting Israel and siding with donors against the interests of people along with their recently having dropped multiple progressive issues, I donā€™t think people are convinced that Harris (and many Democrats in general) is going to stop the genocide (not saying that Trump who openly supports Israel is going to be any better).

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        Ā·
        2 days ago

        This comment needs no be posted and stickied everywhere. I mean everywhere. Thank you for your detailed response and explanation of how the executive works. Iā€™m saving this comment.

        • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          Ā·
          2 days ago

          If you want to keep up with daily events in the Executive, the Federal Register (Fed. Reg. or FR) cannot be beat. It contains all of the FOIA request, every public inspection requirement, CFR proposals, Executive Orders, Presidential Proclamations, and so forth.

          If you want something more specific to rule making, you can find that here. Rule making makes a bit more sense when you think about it. Say Congress passes a law that says ā€œbuild me a road between Texas and South Dakotaā€. The law will usually say who (department) is in charge of that and then that department will take the money and begin rule making. Rule making is basically laying out the path the road will take, what kind of materials will be used, what companies are allowed to bid, environmental guidelines, etc, etc ,etcā€¦ Once those rules have been made the who is going to do it is determined. Like Highways in this case, the Federal Government provides the money and the States are the ones who select the labor and make minor course corrections to the highway (like if itā€™s about to pass through a cemetery or something).

          Rule making is also sometimes called regulation. Because the agency put in charge is regulating the action being done to ensure compliance with what they think the law is asking for, because Congress is very NOT detail oriented until they really want to be. Also with rule making, Congress can ā€œaskā€ a department to come in and meet with them if Congress thinks some of the rules donā€™t mesh with what they were thinking.

          Thereā€™s also override laws, which Congress passes like a normal law. These laws, remember the Constitution requires laws to be applied equally if they involve the public so these override laws are written as such so that they only apply to a executive department, specifically smack the department over the head and ā€œcorrectsā€ where the rule making went wrong. These donā€™t happen often, but we did have one back in Trump days over the FCC. The FCC had made a new rule that required ISPs to get permission to sell customer data, and Congress plus then President Trump overrode the FCC, explicitly banning them from ever creating such a rule. Itā€™s still open if the FTC could make such a rule. But thatā€™s an example of an override of regulation.

          Oh also my whole comment didnā€™t even touch on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which is what would happen if a Secretary quits. Very, very, very long story short. The Deputy Secretary automatically gets to become the ā€œactingā€ Secretary BUT they cannot do any ā€œexclusive actionsā€, which that Leahy rule is indeed an exclusive action. The ā€œactingā€ Secretary can only maintain ā€œstatus quoā€ until the Senate Confirms that the acting secretary is indeed the actual secretary. But an ā€œactingā€ position can only last for 210 days, after which the office is then considered ā€œvacantā€, but none of that matters anymore because Congress uses ā€œpro formaā€ sessions to prevent recessed appointments. But typically, if a position is ā€œvacantā€ and Congress is not in Session, the President can make a recess appointment.

          If you ask me, what we really need is an Amendment to the Constitution that provides the President a way to declare Congress as absent and if some threshold of Congress doesnā€™t become present, then the President can then call Congress not in Session. The whole ā€œpro formaā€ sessions of Congress really needs to stop, like in a really bad way. Sort of like how Filibuster should return to requiring a person physically speak for the entire duration of the filibuster and must remain on topic.

          Congress has gotten really soft on everything and thatā€™s allowed them to permit a lot of bad faith actions in Congress to happen. It used to be that it was ā€œgentlemanā€™s agreementā€ that Congress would behave and act in good faith, but boy have we really fallen down on that since the 1980s.

          Anyway, Iā€™m rambling.

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            Ā·
            2 days ago

            Dude. This is awesome. We need to make this into YouTube shorts or tik tok. Anything to get civic education out. We are extremely in needā€¦

      • Ember@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        Ā·
        2 days ago

        Not the person you replied to, but just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to write up such an informative answer. I learned quite a few things from it.

      • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        Ā·
        2 days ago

        Hey, professor, where do I sign up for the next civics lecture?

        Iā€™ve been needing some better govā€™t education since long before high school.

      • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        lol. entire wall of text predicated on a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed. someone didnā€™t pay attention to trumps presidency at all.

        but lets hit on the misconceptions youā€™re spouting.

        Once something becomes law, the President ā€œhasā€ to carry it out

        incorrect. Presidents have refused to enforce/carry out laws repeatedly throughout history. thatā€™s one of the powers of the executive branch. its not explicit but there is no enforcement mechanism. Your assertion that congress can sue is 100% true. what youā€™re missing is that during that time the president can just not due what the law says and these things can take years. Secondly even if a judge blocks an EO the president can still do it the judge has no enforcement mechanism. You may have learned about this little system in grade school: The honor system. which is entirely useless. There are historical instance of this such as worcester v georgia. abraham lincoln did it w/ habeus corpus and more recently Franklin D. Roosevelt.

        But Harris likely wouldnā€™t have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT.

        biden can easily deal with blinken, its called firing and assigning a temporary individual to the role. not like he has a lot of time left thereā€™d be no time to confirm a new individual anyways. Blinken simply isnā€™t the issue, biden was until we got rid of him by not supporting him. Now Harris is, sheā€™s the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken.

        Youā€™re entire ā€˜civicsā€™ lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs. especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers which expanded this ability by conferring it judicial backing.

        • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          15 hours ago

          Ugh. This is why I hate summary because thereā€™s always someone who is like ā€œyou didnā€™t explain EvErYtHiNg so youā€™re wrong!ā€ While youā€™re trying to flesh things out you always miss a ton of things too that neither one of us touched on, and I didnā€™t because it increases what needs to be talked about when what I originally said was correct.

          entire wall of text

          I hate this term because it shows that people are trying to oversimplify something that is in itself complex. Additionally, youā€™re trying to point out things but you didnā€™t cover everything either. Which is why especially here, this annoying. Youā€™re basically trying to make an argument of ā€œyou explain too muchā€ and ā€œyou didnā€™t explain enoughā€. Itā€™s a damned if you do and damned if you donā€™t argument that youā€™re trying to make. Iā€™m calling you out on it because you are attempting a no correct way to answer line of questioning. Iā€™ll give you this reply, but you keep going on this thread like this, Iā€™ll just block you. I donā€™t have the time for childish game. If you have a point make it, if you donā€™t stop beating around the bush. Thatā€™s all there is to it.

          a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed

          Thatā€™s not correct. Iā€™ll point to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 5 USC Ā§ 3345. You seem smart enough, you can figure out why Sec. of State quitting and the deputy becoming acting would trigger such a response.

          someone didnā€™t pay attention to trumps presidency at all

          Again, Iā€™ll point to the many failures on exclusive authority during that term. Namely you can see the multiple failures along the regulation of coal that failed exclusive authority. Acting has only nonexclusive duties for the 210 day period and the extended period of 300 days on inauguration. Hence the failures on rule making.

          what youā€™re missing is that during that time the president can just not due what the law says and these things can take years.

          Yes, this is why enjoining an EO exists as a measure for the courts. Immediate relief is something the claimants can seek when bringing the issue up to the courts. Thatā€™s why you hear emergency relief often with controversial orders.

          Secondly even if a judge blocks an EO the president can still do it the judge has no enforcement mechanism.

          The enforcement is via Congress at that point. If a just rules something as violation of the Court order, thatā€™s easily handled by Congress.

          worcester v georgia

          Just so weā€™re clear the Nullification scandal, Jackson indicated he was ready to march troops into South Carolina and shooting the government if need be. That was with eye to Georgia daring them the exact same thing. Weā€™d revisit that willingness to march troops into the State and start shooting State Government members about thirty years later.

          So just, so weā€™re clear the Worcester you cite, we got ready to have a preemptive war over the matter. Iā€™m not sure the argument youā€™re providing holds a lot of water here in that ā€œthey can do what they want to do with no ramificationsā€. Clearly getting shot at by the Army is a ramification that at the time neither party wanted to try out. But we did give it a go a bit later.

          abraham lincoln did it w/ habeus corpus

          Yeah. Thing called the Civil War.

          Franklin D. Roosevelt

          Was kicked to Congress, like I said it would be. Was mulled and Congress decided to take a pass. But thatā€™s not free from consequences. Additionally, Congress had indicated to FDR to wrap that shit up with the alphabet groups. Youā€™ll note how many of them didnā€™t last. CCC still a thing?

          biden can easily deal with blinken, its called firing and assigning a temporary individual to the role

          Again see FVRA.

          not like he has a lot of time left thereā€™d be no time to confirm a new individual anyways

          Again see FVRA, carry over has a lot more impact in the first 300 day period than having an acting position.

          Now Harris is, sheā€™s the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken

          That is just plainly incorrect.

          Youā€™re entire ā€˜civicsā€™ lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs

          And you covered zero of them either. Iā€™ve provided more context to the examples that you gave. But the reality is that ā€œthe historical realities of EOsā€ is a complex issue. But apparently you donā€™t like walls of text.

          especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers which expanded this ability by conferring it judicial backing

          I take it that you are referring to Trump v US. None of that has any bearing on the matter of what Bliken does or doesnā€™t do. If Biden simply just withheld funds and gave everyone the finger, heā€™d still be subject to Congressional review of his actions and possible impeachment. That is not being free of ramifications.