1) New sanctions on Russia pass Senate 98-2, House 419-3. Seeing veto-proof supermajorities, POTUS signs. 2) Executive branch doesn’t implement. 3) Everyone who’s been outspokenly critical for years about presidential fiat flips out. Wait, 1 & 2 happened, but 3 didn’t? Weird. https://twitter.com/eschor/status/958110759489294336 …
-
-
I concede there's some wiggle room when it comes to enforcement priorities. The executive has limited resources, and if those resources are not sufficient to enforce everything at once, POTUS must pick something to focus on. But that's not what's going on with Russia sanctions.
Show this thread -
The executive branch does not claim it lacks the resources to implement the legally mandated sanctions. It says it's not going to do it because the threat creates a deterrent, so implementing is unnecessary.
Show this thread -
Even if evidence showed threatening sanctions did everything implementing was supposed to do--and it doesn't--that's not what the law says
@AviWoolf,@bernybelvedere,@RadioFreeTom, anyone else, am I missing something? Or does this violate core constitutionalist principles? (END)Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Conservatives only care about the law when it benefits their agenda. Liberals only care about the law when it benefits their agenda. That's politics in America.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So it’s ok to allow cities to provide “sanctuary” to illegal immigrants, President Obama?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
but but but Obama!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.