Not impeachment, this time, but this. And if Trump prevails, just wait until President AOC redirects money in the name of a National Emergency.
Judge stymies Trump's border wall by invoking GOP law targeting Obama
President Donald Trump’s border wall is facing a surprising new legal hurdle down in Texas: an obscure legislative provision crafted by House Republicans in 2014 when the GOP was targeting then-President Barack Obama’s budget powers.
...
As if adding an exclamation point, the judge emphasized that the CAA constitutes a fully-grounded appropriations bill under the Constitution and therefore he attaches greater weight to the words of Section 739.
The same tone was repeated this past week when Briones ordered an injunction against the administration using any of the disputed $3.6 billion in military construction funds for the wall.
He was careful to apply his order only to top officials in federal agencies, not Trump himself. In the same vein, he steered clear of the U.S. Supreme Court and made no attempt to hinder the administration from tapping into a second pot of Pentagon funds: $2.5 billion that has been shifted to wall construction as a “counterdrug activity.”
But when it came to the $3.6 billion taken from military construction projects, the judge was blunt.
“Far from enjoining a unique or sole source of funding … this injunction merely stops the unlawful augment of the funds that were already appropriated for border wall funding,” the judge wrote. "Granting a preliminary injunction would not 'disservice the public interest.' … To the contrary, because Defendants’ actions are unlawful and the people’s representatives — Congress — declined to augment the border wall budget as Defendants attempt, the public interest would be served by halting them.”
Judge stymies Trump's border wall by invoking GOP law targeting Obama
President Donald Trump’s border wall is facing a surprising new legal hurdle down in Texas: an obscure legislative provision crafted by House Republicans in 2014 when the GOP was targeting then-President Barack Obama’s budget powers.
...
As if adding an exclamation point, the judge emphasized that the CAA constitutes a fully-grounded appropriations bill under the Constitution and therefore he attaches greater weight to the words of Section 739.
The same tone was repeated this past week when Briones ordered an injunction against the administration using any of the disputed $3.6 billion in military construction funds for the wall.
He was careful to apply his order only to top officials in federal agencies, not Trump himself. In the same vein, he steered clear of the U.S. Supreme Court and made no attempt to hinder the administration from tapping into a second pot of Pentagon funds: $2.5 billion that has been shifted to wall construction as a “counterdrug activity.”
But when it came to the $3.6 billion taken from military construction projects, the judge was blunt.
“Far from enjoining a unique or sole source of funding … this injunction merely stops the unlawful augment of the funds that were already appropriated for border wall funding,” the judge wrote. "Granting a preliminary injunction would not 'disservice the public interest.' … To the contrary, because Defendants’ actions are unlawful and the people’s representatives — Congress — declined to augment the border wall budget as Defendants attempt, the public interest would be served by halting them.”