3 ms·

None of that makes a legal difference. The legal distinction is whether Congress has specifically appropriated money for something or not. Congress didn’t speci

None of that makes a legal difference. The legal distinction is whether Congress has specifically appropriated money for something or not. Congress didn’t specifically appropriate money for this refugee charity. So the President doesn’t have to spend that money.

ggm 2y ago
So there is actually a conversation about what is legal or not then? It's not stupid to ask "is this legal" it's in nuances, and your position is: it's entirely legal. Ok. thats a view. I imagine others hold a different view, and it will be put to courts. I don't want to get sidelined into how courts behave in this economy, Jurisprudence is complicated.
apical_dendrite 2y ago
What is your source for this? Congress appropriated money for a purpose and specified a mechanism for that money to be spent, namely through grants to non-profits. What about the administrative procedures act? Elon cutting off payments because Mike Flynn doesn't like Lutherans for some weird reason is the definition of arbitrary and capricious. What about the impoundment control act? What about the take care clause of the constitution? What about the terms of the grant? Here's what Brett Kavanaugh wrote: > Like the Commission here, a President sometimes has policy reasons (as distinct from constitutional reasons, cf. infra note 3) for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds. Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescission bill. See 2 U.S.C. § 683; see also Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S. Ct. 839, 43 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1975); Memorandum from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to Edward L. Morgan, Deputy Counsel to the President (Dec. 1, 1969), reprinted in Executive Impoundment of Appropriated Fun ds: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Separation of Powers of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 92d Cong. 279, 282 (1971) (“With respect to the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds, we must conclude that existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.”)
- rayiner 2y ago
  The key word is “program.” If Congress appropriates $1 billion for refugee resettlement, the President can’t refuse to spend the money on that program. That doesn’t constrain the discretion to make or not make any particular grant. Does it violate the APA? Possibly. But you can sue under the APA for basically anything. It doesn’t stop administrations—it’s like a company getting sued for breach of contract. You just put the smart lawyers on it and power through. How do you think Biden’s student loan forgiveness happened?

ggm 2y ago

So there is actually a conversation about what is legal or not then? It's not stupid to ask "is this legal" it's in nuances, and your position is: it's entirely legal. Ok. thats a view. I imagine others hold a different view, and it will be put to courts. I don't want to get sidelined into how courts behave in this economy, Jurisprudence is complicated.

apical_dendrite 2y ago

What is your source for this? Congress appropriated money for a purpose and specified a mechanism for that money to be spent, namely through grants to non-profits. What about the administrative procedures act? Elon cutting off payments because Mike Flynn doesn't like Lutherans for some weird reason is the definition of arbitrary and capricious. What about the impoundment control act? What about the take care clause of the constitution? What about the terms of the grant? Here's what Brett Kavanaugh wrote: > Like the Commission here, a President sometimes has policy reasons (as distinct from constitutional reasons, cf. infra note 3) for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds. Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescission bill. See 2 U.S.C. § 683; see also Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S. Ct. 839, 43 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1975); Memorandum from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to Edward L. Morgan, Deputy Counsel to the President (Dec. 1, 1969), reprinted in Executive Impoundment of Appropriated Fun ds: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Separation of Powers of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 92d Cong. 279, 282 (1971) (“With respect to the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds, we must conclude that existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.”)

rayiner 2y ago
The key word is “program.” If Congress appropriates $1 billion for refugee resettlement, the President can’t refuse to spend the money on that program. That doesn’t constrain the discretion to make or not make any particular grant. Does it violate the APA? Possibly. But you can sue under the APA for basically anything. It doesn’t stop administrations—it’s like a company getting sued for breach of contract. You just put the smart lawyers on it and power through. How do you think Biden’s student loan forgiveness happened?