757
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 years ago

It is within the President's power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.

(While this could maybebe overruled by congress, it would be a huge blow to Israel in the interim)

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 34 points 2 years ago

So in May the (majority Republican) House passed H.R.8369 - Israel Security Assistance Support Act:

This bill specifies that no federal funds may be used to withhold, halt, reverse, or cancel the delivery of defense articles or defense services to Israel. Also, no funds may be used to pay the salary of any Department of Defense (DOD) or Department of State employee who acts to limit defense deliveries to Israel.

This bill attempts to force the completion of arms sales to Israel. This basically amounts to the legislative branch meddling directly with how the executive branch conducts foreign policy and defense policy, which the White House objected to (completely correctly). Biden threatened to veto the act if it were sent to him. The bill was placed on the Senate's legislative calendar on May 21, 2024, and has not been voted on. It will probably not go anywhere at this point.

The executive branch has already been actively delaying some military equipment transfers to Israel, that's why the House pushed this act.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

So if the Dems wanted to repeal this bill, they would need to control the house, correct?

[-] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago

Nah, the bill was never passed in the senate so it isn't law at all. Just unenforceable posturing.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If Democrats controlled the House the bill would likely not have passed there in the first place.

In any case it doesn't matter because the Senate will probably never vote on it, and even if they did and it passed Biden would veto it.

It's also important to understand that this bill would not add any new arms transfers to Israel, but only compel the completion of existing transfers which the executive branch had chosen to withhold.

Ultimately, the point is that Congress does not have the authority to force the transfer of US military equipment to a foreign power. The disposition of military equipment is the purview of the Department of Defense, and trade with other national governments is the purview of the Department of Foreign Affairs, both of which report to the President.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago

Thankfully it costs nothing to not send weapons.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 9 points 2 years ago

This is essentially the crux of the issue. Congress can designate funds in the budget for aid to Israel and they can specify what the funds are for (military equipment, humanitarian aid, loans, etc), but they don't have the authority to perform the actual transfer of the funds (or material paid for by the funds) to Israel, that falls under the authority of the executive branch. Congress can provide the money but they can't actually force the spending of the money.

Praise be to the system of checks and balances.

I don't know why you're getting downvotes, I think you've got it right.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago

people are panicing because harris might lose and acting like morons towards anyone who doesn't unequivocally support her atm. add to that many people don't understand how the system works on top of it. 🤷 its no matter internet points are useless to me anyway. =)

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

It is within the President’s power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.

It is, yes. But Democrats are fucking outstanding at inventing bureaucratic hurdles to stand in the way of things they ran on but don't want to do.

this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
757 points (95.7% liked)

politics

31179 readers
2486 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS