4 ms·

It is not debateable at all, the President has to ask Congress to rescind appropriated funds if the President doesn’t want to spend the money allocated by Congr

It is not debateable at all, the President has to ask Congress to rescind appropriated funds if the President doesn’t want to spend the money allocated by Congress. If Congress chooses not to rescind the allocated funds, then the president must spend the money. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 is explicitly clear about this, there is absolutely no room for debate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Imp... > Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request and has ignored most presidential requests.

skissane 2y ago
> The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 is explicitly clear about this, there is absolutely no room for debate. Yes, but is that Act constitutional? Has SCOTUS upheld its constitutionality? That’s where there absolutely is room for debate.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Has the government's right to mow down civilians with helicopter-mounted machine guns been tested in the Supreme Court lately? That's where there absolutely is room for debate. This argument can apply to literally anything.
  - skissane 2y ago
    It is different though. There are law journal articles debating whether the Impoundment Control Act is constitutional. And that isn’t a new thing, here’s one from 1990: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/umkc58&div=15&id=&page= https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/... There’s a big difference between a law for which there have been longstanding serious scholarly objections to its constitutionality, and a law whose constitutionality has never been questioned in any serious forum
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Really? Because SCOTUS actually ruled the President very well might be immune from any criminal repercussions from mowing down civilians from a helicopter-mounted machine gun. Seems like there’s at least “a debate” to be had.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  It hasn’t been tested at the Supreme Court level, no. However, other presidential administrations have worked within the framework of the law and requested that Congress rescind funding instead of running roughshod over the law and unilaterally attempting to defund programs and canceling spending that was authorized by Congress. We’ll likely get a Supreme Court case testing the CBIA of 1974, we’ll soon find out what these 9 justices think about it.
jrs235 2y ago
>It is not debateable at all, the President has to ask Congress to rescind appropriated funds if the President doesn’t want to spend the money allocated by Congress. If Congress chooses not to rescind the allocated funds, then the president must spend the money. What people don't understand is that the President is essentially an Administrator (Executer of the laws passed by Congress), not a Decider. The problem now is that Congress will not impeach or convict him for breaking the law.

skissane 2y ago

> The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 is explicitly clear about this, there is absolutely no room for debate. Yes, but is that Act constitutional? Has SCOTUS upheld its constitutionality? That’s where there absolutely is room for debate.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Has the government's right to mow down civilians with helicopter-mounted machine guns been tested in the Supreme Court lately? That's where there absolutely is room for debate. This argument can apply to literally anything.
- skissane 2y ago
  It is different though. There are law journal articles debating whether the Impoundment Control Act is constitutional. And that isn’t a new thing, here’s one from 1990: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/umkc58&div=15&id=&page= https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/... There’s a big difference between a law for which there have been longstanding serious scholarly objections to its constitutionality, and a law whose constitutionality has never been questioned in any serious forum
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Really? Because SCOTUS actually ruled the President very well might be immune from any criminal repercussions from mowing down civilians from a helicopter-mounted machine gun. Seems like there’s at least “a debate” to be had.
quickthrowman 2y ago
It hasn’t been tested at the Supreme Court level, no. However, other presidential administrations have worked within the framework of the law and requested that Congress rescind funding instead of running roughshod over the law and unilaterally attempting to defund programs and canceling spending that was authorized by Congress. We’ll likely get a Supreme Court case testing the CBIA of 1974, we’ll soon find out what these 9 justices think about it.

jrs235 2y ago

>It is not debateable at all, the President has to ask Congress to rescind appropriated funds if the President doesn’t want to spend the money allocated by Congress. If Congress chooses not to rescind the allocated funds, then the president must spend the money. What people don't understand is that the President is essentially an Administrator (Executer of the laws passed by Congress), not a Decider. The problem now is that Congress will not impeach or convict him for breaking the law.