(I don't know if the courts would rule that constitutional. But the attempt is there.)
It's why I view contemporary libertarians as a farce. They were all up in arms, screaming at about having to wear a mask to keep others alive, but here we have people building an administrative state placing itself itself to be fully above the law able to impose any rule or action desired without consequence -- and not peep.
Maybe I'm just not understanding the distinction (and am open to being corrected) but the level of hypocrisy is just incredible to me.
Disenfranchised and marginalized since the 80s.
> SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION OF FUNDS.
> No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.
The current administration seems hellbent on destroying ideas which go all the way back to the Magna Carta...
https://www.justsecurity.org/113529/terrible-idea-contempt-c...
> The provision in the proposed budget reconciliation bill states: “No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”
> By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”
...
> But the provision in the House bill would make the court orders in these cases completely unenforceable. Indeed, the bill is stunning in its scope. It would apply to all temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and even permanent injunctions ever issued. By its terms, it applies to court orders “issued prior to, on, or subsequent” to its adoption.