Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shares his message to voters in the Uncommitted Movement who are considering not voting in the presidential race over the Biden administration's handling of Israel.
Oh man, this is a doozy. You arenāt wrong but Iāve got to get some sleep. To explain this is A LOT.
The thing is the Leahy Law doesnāt put the power directly in the Presidentās hands. It grants the vetting process to the Secretary of State. Which is a member of the cabinet of the President. Which I donāt 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 Israelās aid.
Thereās Executive Orders (EO) that the President can give but thereās the whole āwhat 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 theyāre 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 donāt want to follow them, and then that kicks everything to the Senate. Thatās 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 thatās bad, they quit and the Senate becomes involved potentially delaying the President forever.
Thereās 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, thereās a few other exceptions as well but I wonāt 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 canāt 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 āhasā to carry it out. Thereās a ton of background on āExecutive 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 thatās 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 heās done that quite a few times, but he canāt just outright NOT pay when the law requires him to do so. That discretion comes from a kind of EO called a āReviewing Executive Orderā and it requires a department to āreviewā ((insert whatever the topic is)). Thatās a delay, but it isnāt a halt. The President has to follow the law as well. So if we have a law that says, āwe provide $xxx to Israelās 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. Thereās been recent upping of that funding that Congress has passed, but thatās 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. Thatās 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 thatās a whole long story). So if Democrats in the House refuse to accept the CRs the Republicans offer, the Government shuts down.
Anyways, thatās been a lot already. If you need me to clear anything up, let me know. But Harris likely wouldnāt have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT. But I donāt know, because if the election isnāt 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 thatās not an easy process to impeach a secretary of state.
In speaking with him the other day after he made his decision about not seeking re-election, what heās intensely focused on is the work that remains over these next six months to continue the efforts, the work that weāve 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 Israelās aid.
Regarding:
Thereās 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.
Iām not sure what other reasons there may be that Blinken isnāt 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 āwe 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 isnāt going to have Blinken as Secretary of State and that her new pick might be more critical of Israel so it seems like thereās 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 donāt 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).
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. Iām saving this comment.
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 ābuild 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 itās 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 āaskā a department to come in and meet with them if Congress thinks some of the rules donāt mesh with what they were thinking.
Thereās 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 ācorrectsā where the rule making went wrong. These donāt 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. Itās still open if the FTC could make such a rule. But thatās an example of an override of regulation.
Oh also my whole comment didnāt 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 āactingā Secretary BUT they cannot do any āexclusive actionsā, which that Leahy rule is indeed an exclusive action. The āactingā Secretary can only maintain āstatus quoā until the Senate Confirms that the acting secretary is indeed the actual secretary. But an āactingā position can only last for 210 days, after which the office is then considered āvacantā, but none of that matters anymore because Congress uses āpro formaā sessions to prevent recessed appointments. But typically, if a position is āvacantā 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 doesnāt become present, then the President can then call Congress not in Session. The whole āpro 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 thatās allowed them to permit a lot of bad faith actions in Congress to happen. It used to be that it was āgentlemanās agreementā that Congress would behave and act in good faith, but boy have we really fallen down on that since the 1980s.
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.
lol. entire wall of text predicated on a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed. someone didnāt pay attention to trumps presidency at all.
but lets hit on the misconceptions youāre spouting.
Once something becomes law, the President āhasā to carry it out
incorrect. Presidents have refused to enforce/carry out laws repeatedly throughout history. thatās 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 youāre 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 wouldnāt 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 thereād be no time to confirm a new individual anyways. Blinken simply isnāt the issue, biden was until we got rid of him by not supporting him. Now Harris is, sheās the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken.
Youāre entire ācivicsā 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.
Ugh. This is why I hate summary because thereās always someone who is like āyou didnāt explain EvErYtHiNg so youāre wrong!ā While youāre trying to flesh things out you always miss a ton of things too that neither one of us touched on, and I didnāt 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, youāre trying to point out things but you didnāt cover everything either. Which is why especially here, this annoying. Youāre basically trying to make an argument of āyou explain too muchā and āyou didnāt explain enoughā. Itās a damned if you do and damned if you donāt argument that youāre trying to make. Iām calling you out on it because you are attempting a no correct way to answer line of questioning. Iāll give you this reply, but you keep going on this thread like this, Iāll just block you. I donāt have the time for childish game. If you have a point make it, if you donāt stop beating around the bush. Thatās all there is to it.
a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed
Thatās not correct. Iāll 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 didnāt pay attention to trumps presidency at all
Again, Iāll 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 youāre 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. Thatās 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, thatās easily handled by Congress.
worcester v georgia
Just so weāre 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. Weād revisit that willingness to march troops into the State and start shooting State Government members about thirty years later.
So just, so weāre clear the Worcester you cite, we got ready to have a preemptive war over the matter. Iām not sure the argument youāre providing holds a lot of water here in that āthey 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 thatās not free from consequences. Additionally, Congress had indicated to FDR to wrap that shit up with the alphabet groups. Youāll note how many of them didnāt 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 thereād 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, sheās the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken
That is just plainly incorrect.
Youāre entire ācivicsā lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs
And you covered zero of them either. Iāve provided more context to the examples that you gave. But the reality is that āthe historical realities of EOsā is a complex issue. But apparently you donāt 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 doesnāt do. If Biden simply just withheld funds and gave everyone the finger, heād still be subject to Congressional review of his actions and possible impeachment. That is not being free of ramifications.
Oh man, this is a doozy. You arenāt wrong but Iāve got to get some sleep. To explain this is A LOT.
The thing is the Leahy Law doesnāt put the power directly in the Presidentās hands. It grants the vetting process to the Secretary of State. Which is a member of the cabinet of the President. Which I donāt 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 Israelās aid.
Thereās Executive Orders (EO) that the President can give but thereās the whole āwhat 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 theyāre 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 donāt want to follow them, and then that kicks everything to the Senate. Thatās 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 thatās bad, they quit and the Senate becomes involved potentially delaying the President forever.
Thereās 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, thereās a few other exceptions as well but I wonāt 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.
The President only has veto power on bills that have passed both the House and the Senate. Once something becomes law, the President āhasā to carry it out. Thereās a ton of background on āExecutive 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 thatās 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 heās done that quite a few times, but he canāt just outright NOT pay when the law requires him to do so. That discretion comes from a kind of EO called a āReviewing Executive Orderā and it requires a department to āreviewā ((insert whatever the topic is)). Thatās a delay, but it isnāt a halt. The President has to follow the law as well. So if we have a law that says, āwe provide $xxx to Israelās 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. Thereās been recent upping of that funding that Congress has passed, but thatās 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. Thatās 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 thatās a whole long story). So if Democrats in the House refuse to accept the CRs the Republicans offer, the Government shuts down.
Anyways, thatās been a lot already. If you need me to clear anything up, let me know. But Harris likely wouldnāt have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT. But I donāt know, because if the election isnāt 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 thatās not an easy process to impeach a secretary of state.
Blinken stated here:
However, as you said earlier:
Regarding:
I would like to hear more on this.
I did come across this where apparently Israel secured funding through a deal with the Obama administration.
Iām not sure what other reasons there may be that Blinken isnāt 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 āwe 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 isnāt going to have Blinken as Secretary of State and that her new pick might be more critical of Israel so it seems like thereās 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 donāt 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).
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. Iām saving this comment.
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 ābuild 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 itās 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 āaskā a department to come in and meet with them if Congress thinks some of the rules donāt mesh with what they were thinking.
Thereās 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 ācorrectsā where the rule making went wrong. These donāt 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. Itās still open if the FTC could make such a rule. But thatās an example of an override of regulation.
Oh also my whole comment didnāt 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 āactingā Secretary BUT they cannot do any āexclusive actionsā, which that Leahy rule is indeed an exclusive action. The āactingā Secretary can only maintain āstatus quoā until the Senate Confirms that the acting secretary is indeed the actual secretary. But an āactingā position can only last for 210 days, after which the office is then considered āvacantā, but none of that matters anymore because Congress uses āpro formaā sessions to prevent recessed appointments. But typically, if a position is āvacantā 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 doesnāt become present, then the President can then call Congress not in Session. The whole āpro 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 thatās allowed them to permit a lot of bad faith actions in Congress to happen. It used to be that it was āgentlemanās agreementā that Congress would behave and act in good faith, but boy have we really fallen down on that since the 1980s.
Anyway, Iām rambling.
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¦
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.
Hey, professor, where do I sign up for the next civics lecture?
Iāve been needing some better govāt education since long before high school.
itād be a poor course it empirically incorrect on a number of counts.
lol. entire wall of text predicated on a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed. someone didnāt pay attention to trumps presidency at all.
but lets hit on the misconceptions youāre spouting.
incorrect. Presidents have refused to enforce/carry out laws repeatedly throughout history. thatās 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 youāre 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.
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 thereād be no time to confirm a new individual anyways. Blinken simply isnāt the issue, biden was until we got rid of him by not supporting him. Now Harris is, sheās the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken.
Youāre entire ācivicsā 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.
Ugh. This is why I hate summary because thereās always someone who is like āyou didnāt explain EvErYtHiNg so youāre wrong!ā While youāre trying to flesh things out you always miss a ton of things too that neither one of us touched on, and I didnāt because it increases what needs to be talked about when what I originally said was correct.
I hate this term because it shows that people are trying to oversimplify something that is in itself complex. Additionally, youāre trying to point out things but you didnāt cover everything either. Which is why especially here, this annoying. Youāre basically trying to make an argument of āyou explain too muchā and āyou didnāt explain enoughā. Itās a damned if you do and damned if you donāt argument that youāre trying to make. Iām calling you out on it because you are attempting a no correct way to answer line of questioning. Iāll give you this reply, but you keep going on this thread like this, Iāll just block you. I donāt have the time for childish game. If you have a point make it, if you donāt stop beating around the bush. Thatās all there is to it.
Thatās not correct. Iāll 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.
Again, Iāll 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.
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. Thatās why you hear emergency relief often with controversial orders.
The enforcement is via Congress at that point. If a just rules something as violation of the Court order, thatās easily handled by Congress.
Just so weāre 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. Weād revisit that willingness to march troops into the State and start shooting State Government members about thirty years later.
So just, so weāre clear the Worcester you cite, we got ready to have a preemptive war over the matter. Iām not sure the argument youāre providing holds a lot of water here in that āthey 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.
Yeah. Thing called the Civil War.
Was kicked to Congress, like I said it would be. Was mulled and Congress decided to take a pass. But thatās not free from consequences. Additionally, Congress had indicated to FDR to wrap that shit up with the alphabet groups. Youāll note how many of them didnāt last. CCC still a thing?
Again see FVRA.
Again see FVRA, carry over has a lot more impact in the first 300 day period than having an acting position.
That is just plainly incorrect.
And you covered zero of them either. Iāve provided more context to the examples that you gave. But the reality is that āthe historical realities of EOsā is a complex issue. But apparently you donāt like walls of text.
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 doesnāt do. If Biden simply just withheld funds and gave everyone the finger, heād still be subject to Congressional review of his actions and possible impeachment. That is not being free of ramifications.