4 ms·

By that theory, if the President can choose not to spend money budgeted and authorized by Congress, they have an effective veto power over any legislation. Don'

By that theory, if the President can choose not to spend money budgeted and authorized by Congress, they have an effective veto power over any legislation. Don't like trains? Defund Amtrak. Don't like highways? Defund DOT. Peace lover? Zero out the DoD. This is why the Supreme Court is here - to adjudicate what is legal and to reconcile different responsibilities and theories. Regardless of what is "best for the country", the law says one thing and the President is doing something else.

cryptonector 2y ago
First of all see the "impoundment power" and the Impoundment Control Act. It's not clear what the Constitution says on this matter, nor have the courts pronounced themselves on this. In the 90s the SCOTUS said that Congress could not give the President an explicit line item veto power, but impoundment is not the same thing. Second, in extremis, it has got to be the case that the President can refuse to spend allocated moneys. The President must never be able to spend unallocated funds, but Congress can't make money appear out of nowhere. In extremis the dollar could stop being the world's reserve currency, and in extremis the U.S. could end up in a situation like Argentina's. Obviously there has to be a limit. I'm not saying we're there. But I am saying that the courts should thing ten times before saying that the President cannot impound spending. Besides, consider all the constitutional provisions that we no longer adhere to. For example the Constitution says that Congress must set the value of the currency, but Congress does no such thing. For another the Constitution says that all debt issuance must be approved by Congress, but Congress merely sets a ceiling for debt issuance rather than approving each issuance. Some things -not many- the Constitution got wrong in ways that nobody even bothered to amend nor ever will.
- pchristensen 2y ago
  In extremis, if it's the President that decides which parts of Congress to implement, then they have broken the separation of powers. Either the Supreme Court should explicitly rule that the President can weigh e.g. macroeconomic impacts when choosing not to implement laws Congress passed, or Congress should act to avoid those economic consequences. Aside from today's specific issue, I'm very concerned about the decades-long trend of power being ceded by Congress to the Executive and Judicial branches. This is would be another big jerk in that direction. "Current law thus often catches the executive branch in a vise: Presidents can neither spend money without an appropriation nor refuse to spend funds once Congress has provided them. From both directions, Congress has reinforced its “power of the purse”—its authority to control the use of federal money." - https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-primer-on-the-impoundment-control-act https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-primer-on-the-impound...
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    No, the extreme example here is about DEFICIT spending. If Congress passed a balanced budget then the President could not decide not to spend some of it. Reality has a stronger vise than the ICA or the SCOTUS.
    - pchristensen 2y ago
      Aside from any given policy, the President deciding that the presidency gets a new power is a disturbing precedent.
      - cryptonector 2y ago
        FDR joins the chat
ungreased0675 2y ago
The question here seems to be whether the president can temporarily not spend money. Congress has the ultimate power of spending. When the spending is grants, does the executive have the ability to change where the money goes? In other words once the tap is open, it can’t ever close?

cryptonector 2y ago

First of all see the "impoundment power" and the Impoundment Control Act. It's not clear what the Constitution says on this matter, nor have the courts pronounced themselves on this. In the 90s the SCOTUS said that Congress could not give the President an explicit line item veto power, but impoundment is not the same thing. Second, in extremis, it has got to be the case that the President can refuse to spend allocated moneys. The President must never be able to spend unallocated funds, but Congress can't make money appear out of nowhere. In extremis the dollar could stop being the world's reserve currency, and in extremis the U.S. could end up in a situation like Argentina's. Obviously there has to be a limit. I'm not saying we're there. But I am saying that the courts should thing ten times before saying that the President cannot impound spending. Besides, consider all the constitutional provisions that we no longer adhere to. For example the Constitution says that Congress must set the value of the currency, but Congress does no such thing. For another the Constitution says that all debt issuance must be approved by Congress, but Congress merely sets a ceiling for debt issuance rather than approving each issuance. Some things -not many- the Constitution got wrong in ways that nobody even bothered to amend nor ever will.

pchristensen 2y ago
In extremis, if it's the President that decides which parts of Congress to implement, then they have broken the separation of powers. Either the Supreme Court should explicitly rule that the President can weigh e.g. macroeconomic impacts when choosing not to implement laws Congress passed, or Congress should act to avoid those economic consequences. Aside from today's specific issue, I'm very concerned about the decades-long trend of power being ceded by Congress to the Executive and Judicial branches. This is would be another big jerk in that direction. "Current law thus often catches the executive branch in a vise: Presidents can neither spend money without an appropriation nor refuse to spend funds once Congress has provided them. From both directions, Congress has reinforced its “power of the purse”—its authority to control the use of federal money." - https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-primer-on-the-impoundment-control-act https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-primer-on-the-impound...
- cryptonector 2y ago
  No, the extreme example here is about DEFICIT spending. If Congress passed a balanced budget then the President could not decide not to spend some of it. Reality has a stronger vise than the ICA or the SCOTUS.
  - pchristensen 2y ago
    Aside from any given policy, the President deciding that the presidency gets a new power is a disturbing precedent.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      FDR joins the chat

ungreased0675 2y ago

The question here seems to be whether the president can temporarily not spend money. Congress has the ultimate power of spending. When the spending is grants, does the executive have the ability to change where the money goes? In other words once the tap is open, it can’t ever close?