| Jimbo1337 said: First sentence: "...if it was done in a legal manner" --> From that, a reader can only conclude the user is stating this is illegal. Second sentence: "seems like it's in the gray area at best and straight up illegal at worst" --> Now the user doesn't know if it is illegal or not and therefore cannot state the legal code that makes it illegal. Third sentence: "It's not just about what is happening, it's also about how it's happening." --> We now learn it's not about legality, but rather the user doesn't like HOW it's happening. People want (user included) transparency but don't like how it is being unveiled. Make it make sense. When you spell everything out, it makes it abundantly clear how the goal posts move within a given post. Gotta love it. |
Third sentence: the legality is what makes it "how" it's being done. That's not a third goal post, it's basically a restatement of what came before. The issue is the legality there.
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse there, or if you just honestly don't understand what they're saying.
As for the first two sentences. Some of these things are not explicitly written out in the Constitution. There's no line that says "The president can do X and Y, but not Z" in regards to spending.
But, historically the Supreme Court has pushed against the Executive Branch in terms of how much power they have over spending; saying that Congress is the one that has the power to control spending; and that the president can't decide to underfund programs he doesn't like.
Historically some of these decisions would be considered illegal. A lot of these things are not going through the Legal process of how they're supposed to be done.
Essay Pro