安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
15845 
举报此帖
Frankly I think it's a case of: If anyone tries to stop him, theyd be outright traitors to the country purely to spite one man. If it's a choice between a nation functionally ceasing to exist and at least keeping basic security around, any sane person would go "fine, but only until congress comes to decide."
Congress does not pay the retired military anymore. Been that way since Reagan created the Trust Funds.
The annual reports on that Trust Fund are public.
https://comptroller.war.gov/Portals/45/Documents/afr/fy2024/DoD_Components/2024_AFR_MRF.pdf
Blocked.
Leftists: "Why would Trump do this?"
https://www.military.com/feature/2025/10/15/research-money-military-pay-pentagons-shutdown-workaround.html
Can't speak for the retirees. I would assume being they paid in they're not affected. Active duty are.
I think i disagree with that. Being "Commander in Chief" soley means he's the highest ranking member of the military. That does not give him the power to fund the military, which soley comes from Congress.
The latest workaround was not challenged, being they didn't want to challenge it.
But being there is no Line Item Veto, the President does not have the authority to thwart Congress in monies already allocated to other programs.
Same with ICE or Border Patrol. He can make them work for a certain period without pay, but beyond that period he would have to lay them off.
Well thats why you don't shut down government sir. Shutdowns can literally be deadly. We don't think of it that way, because they never last long enough. But if they do, yes, the military will not be paid.
The President is not a King. And i'm not saying that for the sake of saying it. Only the Congress has the power of the purse. Not the President.
Congress is a co equal branch, and if Congress does not want to fund certain matters including the military, it can be a crisis, but it can happen.
That's why we elect congress to make those decisions as to what we fund, and what we don't.
And that is why you don't shut down government.
Moreover, by the time the shutdown is over, the military is supposed to receive back-pay anyway, so there isn't really anything that can be done to challenge the action, because the money would already be in the hands of whom to which it is owed. No legal remedy would be possible.
Maybe if the shutdown continued on into 2026 it would cause a problem.
First, it doesn't quite work like that. The military is expected to show up to work regardless, and then they get backpay when the shutdown is over.
Second, I am not saying this is how the court would rule, because as an institution of the federal government it has its own biases in favor of it., but strictly speaking, there is no two ways about it: If congress does not fund the military. he technically wouldn't be allowed to do it because one of the many things the founding forefathers feared about British rule was the standing army. It made them feel as if the red coats always had their guns pointed at them.
This was a direct cause of the American Revolution. Not only did Patrick Henry give an impassioned speech upon it[avalon.law.yale.edu], from where his give me liberty or give me death quotation comes, in which he said
but it is also directly listed as one of the numerous crimes in the Declaration of Independence[www.archives.gov] "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." It is without doubt that a standing army is one of the causes of the revolutionary war, if not the main cause of the revolutionary war.
It is for this reason that in Article Ⅰ Section 8 of the constitution[www.annenbergclassroom.org], the congressional grant of power to fund the military comes with a restriction of funding the army for two years:
This provision is meant to give congress what Madison calls "The Power of the Purse" in Federalist No 58.[avalon.law.yale.edu] Congress closes up its purse-strings to taxpayer funds[/url], denying the army its allowance, effectively grounding its army like a parent grounds their naughty child, forcing the executive branch to drop the sword and surrender if it steps too far out of line with congressional will.
Hamilton is in somewhat of a concurannce, since in Federalist no 78[avalon.law.yale.edu] he claimed the court is the weakest of the three branches because it holds neither the power of the sword or the purse, meaning he recognizes the power of the purse as a concept. Any supposed 'necessity' that overrides this would throw a wrench in the whole system of checks and balances, and a rather large one at that that would allow the executive to argue the case for a forever war without congressional input.
A fair and impartial court wouldn't allow it, since the constitution is rather clear cut and dry on this point, and their job in all circumstances is to ensure the government follows the rule of law and proper procedure to the letter. This is the basis upon which statutes can be ruled unconstitutional and thus invalid: The constitution is the law of laws which grants the U.S.A. its authority in the first place. A principle the court first recognizes in Madison v. Maybury, and a principle also described in the Federalist papers. However, with that having been said, I can also imagine the court having a conflict of interest that compels them to rule otherwise, illegitimate as though it may be.)
The only reasons I think Trump might be able to get away with this in this case is because the funds may have already been given to the army, and it is possible that by the time a legal challenge may be launched, the cause for the case may have already passed, forcing the court to drop it like a bag of bricks.