Evidence? There is no evidence of that. Broad allegations that it is illegal doesn't cut it. Even Schumer is not making that claim. All he is doing is complaining. The executive branch has the power to police themselves it's not that difficult to understand that you can audit your own agency. There's nothing illegal going on.
The actual US constitution which gives Congress and ONLY congress the power to spend tax money. Musk has absolutely no legal authority to unilaterally stop payments approved by congress. What Musk is doing is a very intentional effort to usurp this authority illegally. Musk should really end up in prison or deported for what he is doing right now.
In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).
The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power.
Not confident Trump will prevail: Scholar on his attempts to take Congress' power of the purse
Professor Deborah Pearlstein joins Morning Joe to discuss her column for the NYT outlining some of Trump’s actions implemented in his first few days in office and why she says Trump is hardly the first president to claim broad executive power, but the difference is not just the enormity of his claims, it's that the administration mostly doesn't try to craft legal justifications for its actions.
Which is a direct violation of the constitution. Only congress the authority to control spending and Musk has absolutely zero authority to stop any payments congress has authorized. It is a naked power grab and musk should spend the rest of his life in prison for it.
You changed your wording to fit your argument. "To spend" became "to control spending", implicitly acknowledging that the two phrases have different meanings.
The executive branch does not have the authority to cut off congressionally appropriated spending. Congress specifically passed a law (Impoundment Control Act) to make that as explicit as could be
First, I was showing that the specific claim being made (that Chuck Schumer has not said any illegal activities have taken place) was false. Nothing more.
Second, as I’m sure you know, and are being deliberately obtuse about, the separation of powers doctrine, which has been upheld by SCOTUS; one example [0] is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. USAID is codified by law, regardless of its genesis, and as such, only Congress is able to revoke the law.
You must realize attacks made by political opponents are always exaggerated and many times false. First of all doge can’t close USAID. What “they” aka Trump did was pause payments for review.
If you are finding the government is sending money to terrorists as they have indicated and need to stop it there are quite a few emergency powers. Pausing is the first step.
I can’t speak to the second half of your comment, but it’s worth pointing out that 31 corresponds with a software engineer who received a BA/BS in four years after high school, started working and hit senior at 3-5 years (a lot of us). That gives a couple years of wiggle room to lead projects after that too.
many senior scientists are around 30-35 years old (by that time they have completed grad school and postdoc and are starting to get their first grants). And in nuclear physics most of these folks were young but had worked in key labs and their bosses were advisors on the project.
'senior' is only a 6 character prefix that can be attached to any name/position as an accolade. It means nothing out-of-context.
Oppenheimer was smart, no doubt, but did he have the life experience to warrant 'senior'-level decision making? I feel like the history books show it's emphatically indecisive.
> Oppenheimer was smart, no doubt, but did he have the life experience to warrant 'senior'-level decision making?
You're questioning whether the person chosen to be the director of weapons development could be called "senior" or not? What? Or are you hindsight-second-guessing the decision to make him director? It's wild to me that you would choose the director of one of the most important and ambitious (not to mention successful) programs in world history to make the point "senior is just a title".
Here are the ages of the senior scientists: Oppenheimer: 38 Teller: 34 Lawrence: 41 Rabi: 44 Szilard: 44 Ulam: 33 Bethe: 36 Fuchs: 31 von Neumann: 39
So the younger people would have had plenty of supervision.