As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
I am not going to make public as to why the Lame Cherry advocates that the President engage in the following, but it is necessary, and if the Trump Administration would care to have a full briefing off the record, their conduits could do more than read the blog, but contact me and I will fill in the details.
Historically the President had the authority to impound funds or not spend money which he deemed a waste of the People's funds. This was the necessary checks and balances, but was negated in the rampage of Legislative and Judicial over reach in attacking President Richard Nixon, who should have never complied with the witch hunt against him, infringing upon Executive Authority.
Impoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. Title X of the act, and its interpretation under Train v. City of New York, essentially removed the power. The president's ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending was thus removed.
In his federal departments, have control over their budgets. The Lame Cherry advocates that President Trump direct Sec. Munchkin of Treasury to withhold payment in foreign aid and the United Nations.
At this point the President directs the Justice Department to petition review of the Treasury Department's actions as is required by law by the Supreme Court, and to revisit it's interpretation of the high court's ruling, based upon dissenting opinions.
As there is absolutely not any statement in Article III of the Constitution banning this action, the court must comply, as the court can issue Centiorari for lower courts, it certainly can issue Cert for it's own former rulings.
In many instances, the Court has adopted the opinion of a dissenting Justice years later in reviewing an issue.
The court has a history of overruling itself, in hearing cases brought before the Appeals Courts, but there is not any limitation on the Executive, in fact there is a reality that the Executive can not be denied a right without redress. Meaning the Executive can not be held hostage by the Legislative in waiting for a law to be passed to uphold the Executive's rights.
In fact the Obama regime engaged in such a petition on a Court ruling on immigration.
Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court To Revisit Deadlocked Immigration Case ... my nominee to the Supreme Court," Obama said at the time. ...huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-supreme-court-immigration-reh
The Executive should not be held hostage to waiting for future cases to appear in lower courts on appeal to rectify incorrect court decisions.
However, it is more likely that the Supreme Court overrules its own decisions. The court might decide to review an earlier case in response to changing cultural views. In Pace v. Alabama, the court upheld state laws banning interracial marriage based on a view that such laws protected white marriages. Eighty years later, the Court overruled the Pace decision in Loving v. Virginia, ruling marriage discrimination laws were not legal.
Alexander Hamilton wrote of the necessity that the Legislative can not engage in it's own pleasure over the Executive, just as the court must define it's rulings by the Constitution and not by it's own will or legislating from the bench.
Hamilton continues. . .
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body
Dissenting opinions are a part of this process, and in the case of the Clinton Line Item Veto which the courts overturned, it was liberal Stephen Breyer who dissented correctly in the opinion. Liberals are not always the enemy of the people or the federal.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer contended that the objective of the Act was constitutionally proper and was consistent with powers that the President has held in the past, stating that the Act "does not violate any specific textual constitutional command, nor does it violate any implicit Separation of Powers principle." He extensively refers to many different cases which support the delegation of power by the Congress, and primarily suggests that the Act is an efficient means by which a constitutionally legitimate end may be achieved.
With this do nothing Congress, and now a High Court numbering a majority of constructionists as in Sam Alito and proven justices as in Stephen Breyer who advocate for the Executive and the People, the White House has the standing to require the Supreme Court to review it's cases on agency actions, and thereby rectify the mistakes of past courts caught up in frenzies of Watergate or courts making Constitutional mistakes which the minority opinions warned of.
There is a definitive reason the Lame Cherry is counseling the above, but will not make it public. Instead having been proven right by God's Grace in every counsel posted here, and would lay out the method to this madness in private, but it is vital for President Trump to take this action and set precedent. He must retrieve the full power of the Executive by neutralizing the over reaches of the other branches.