For those complaining about cancelling USAID
- Thread starter Teflon Don
- Start date
(a) In general
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title
22 U.S. Code § 6563 - Status of AID
Nothing in that law about funding. It specifically says there is an entity in the US government called USAID.
The second section of the law allowed for the retention of officers in USAID appointed when it had only been created by EO.
(b) Retention of officers
Nothing in this section shall require the reappointment of any officer of the United States serving in the Agency for International Development of the United States International Development Cooperation Agency as of the day before the effective date of this subchapter.
You might want to read the US code moron. It doesn't establish a department of USAid. They can only FUND it. The executive can eliminate or continue it. It is an INDEPENDENT agency under the EXECUTVE branch.
You're the perfect example of why arguing with uneducated morons on the left is futile because we first have to educate you on what things mean.
Show us where it is a government agency mental case:The actual US Code passed by Congress that established USAID as an agency and is currently part of US law.
US Code Title 22 §6563
22 U.S. Code § 6563 - Status of AID
www.law.cornell.edu
(a)In general
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5.
(b)Retention of officers
Nothing in this section shall require the reappointment of any officer of the United States serving in the Agency for International Development of the United States International Development Cooperation Agency as of the day before the effective date of this subchapter.
What do you think within the Executive Branch and "an entity" means asshat? Good lord you're a stupid fucker. But that explains why you would vote for an idiot like Kamala as President.
You really can't read or comprehend what it is you are reading. It is an ENTITY within the Executive branch halfwit. It is not a part of the Government. It is an independent agency. The President has the sole authority to dismantle it and shut it down.(a) In general
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title
(The reorganization only allows for the President to have 60 days from the passage of the law to abolish USAID or it becomes a legislative created government agency.)22 U.S. Code § 6563 - Status of AID
Nothing in that law about funding. It specifically says there is an entity in the US government called USAID.
The second section of the law allowed for the retention of officers in USAID appointed when it had only been created by EO.
(b) Retention of officers
Nothing in this section shall require the reappointment of any officer of the United States serving in the Agency for International Development of the United States International Development Cooperation Agency as of the day before the effective date of this subchapter.
Congratulations. The definition of establishment means it was established. Since it was established by Congress, the President can't eliminate it by an EO anymore than he can eliminate any other Federal agency. Do you think the President is entitled to eliminate the Department of the Navy by executive action? Can he eliminate the Department of the Treasury? Both of those are established by Congress.
OMFG.. You cited 104 and clearly didn't read it.You might want to read the US code moron. It doesn't establish a department of USAid. They can only FUND it. The executive can eliminate or continue it. It is an INDEPENDENT agency under the EXECUTVE branch.
You're the perfect example of why arguing with uneducated morons on the left is futile because we first have to educate you on what things mean.
Show us where it is a government agency mental case:
(a)In general
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5.
(b)Retention of officers
Nothing in this section shall require the reappointment of any officer of the United States serving in the Agency for International Development of the United States International Development Cooperation Agency as of the day before the effective date of this subchapter.
What do you think within the Executive Branch and "an entity" means asshat? Good lord you're a stupid fucker. But that explains why you would vote for an idiot like Kamala as President.
104 is the clause that reads as follows.
Ap§104. Independent establishment For the purpose of this title, ‘‘independent establishment’’ means— (1) an establishment in the executive branch (other than the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission) which is not an Executive department, military department, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent establishment; and....
A department that exists under 104 has been established. You are a complete moron.
No. He doesn't have the power to eliminate it. The Impoundment act says he doesn't have that power. He can't rescind funding that was given to a department or agency. He is required to spend it in that department or agency. He can only not spend it under certain circumstances which require him to notify Congress in writing and it only allows deferral under certain circumstances.You really can't read or comprehend what it is you are reading. It is an ENTITY within the Executive branch halfwit. It is not a part of the Government. It is an independent agency. The President has the sole authority to dismantle it and shut it down.
2 U.S. Code § 684 - Proposed deferrals of budget authority
Yakuda
Verified User
That says absolutely nothing.
I guess you asked absolutely nothing then.
Most laws reference other parts of the law as TD stupidly forgot about when he said something that used the establishment definition in the law is not established because it only has a reference and not the word established in it.
If you really want to know why Trump can't just shut down an agency that has been funded than you could just read this part of the law.
2 U.S. Code § 684 - Proposed deferrals of budget authority
Yakuda
Verified User
I don't care. You maggots pissed all over the law for 4 years. I'm hoping Trump rubs your faces in shit for the next 4. People are so sick of your fucking whining. It's karma bitchI guess you asked absolutely nothing then.
Most laws reference other parts of the law as TD stupidly forgot about when he said something that used the establishment definition in the law is not established because it only has a reference and not the word established in it.
If you really want to know why Trump can't just shut down an agency that has been funded than you could just read this part of the law.
2 U.S. Code § 684 - Proposed deferrals of budget authority
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Show me the text specifically creating the agency
You were shown the text. Are you blind or a complete idiot? Here is the post where I linked to the law -
Here is a citation for the law
22 U.S. Code § 6563 - Status of AID
The thing about violating the law is you can go to court where you have to show the violation occurred. Your delusions don't count as evidence.
What evidence do you have that laws were violated for 4 years?
Do you really hate the US so much that you are willing to throw it away and have a dictator that will eventually turn on you?
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
I want source information from a link to the actual legislation actually creating it as an official office. Not WikipediaYou were shown the text. Are you blind or a complete idiot? Here is the post where I linked to the law -
Here is a citation for the law
22 U.S. Code § 6563 - Status of AID
Yakuda
Verified User
You cockroaches did violate laws you just raped the legal system up the ass to try and get Trump. The NY state legislature passed a law that allowed the good digging whore to file.a civil action against Trump past the stature of limitations. The law was written to last for only one year. STFU you retarded.idiot
Hmm... So you don't know the difference between something that is legal and something that is a violation of the law. Yep. Stupid is as Yakuda does.
Yakuda
Verified User
I sure do inl just won't be lectured to by an asshole who uses the legal system for revenge. You know how I know thats what you cockroaches did? You accused trump of it.
When did Trump write a law? You don't seem to understand how the law works.
While E Jean Carroll may have used the law to sue Trump, the law wasn't written to be used against Trump. That is your delusional take on it.
Jesus f Christ. That is the actual US Law. It is NOT wikipedia. You are nothing but an idiot. Cornell has probably the best searchable US Code references. I can provide the US House version of the law if you prefer.
Here it is as printed by the Government Printing Office in a PDF
Here it is in FindLaw
Here is the law from the Congressional website as introduced and passed in the House as part of the Appropriations act of 1998, H.R.4328 which became law 105-277 on 10/21/1998. It was passed 333-95 in the House and 65-29 in the Senate.
