4 ms·

> there is a strong legal argument that overruling congress via impoundment and/or the actions discussed here violate the constitutions most basic precepts No

> there is a strong legal argument that overruling congress via impoundment and/or the actions discussed here violate the constitutions most basic precepts No there isn't. The text of the Constitution says the opposite: it makes appropriation a necessary condition for expenditures, but omits any clause making it a sufficient one. And the only case law on this issue is Train v. New York, which assiduously avoids ruling on the separation of powers issue. So there is neither any basis in the Constitution itself nor any basis in case law for your contention.

bbor 2y ago
What is the role of congress, if its enumerated powers do not imply that any of those things should actually happen...? Honest question. Are you honestly saying that there's an implied 100% veto available to the executive for anything done by congress?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 2y ago
  Congress has many enumerated powers. Spending money is not one of them. The Founders had just fought a war over unjust taxation to support the head of state's pet projects. Thus they required all funds to be appropriated by Congress. But it is still the head of state that actually spends them. The Treasury has always been part of the Executive branch, ever since Alexander Hamilton led the Treasury under George Washington. Our country is built on checks and balances. The Executive controls the Treasury and spends money out of it, but is checked by the Congress, because the Executive cannot spend money without it first being appropriated.
sterlind 2y ago
the Take Care clause of Article II would like to have a word with you. The President has a positive duty to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. if Congress passes a law funding something, the President must faithfully make it so.
- torstenvl 2y ago
  That's certainly a popular theory lately, but it obviously doesn't hold water, and there's no case law supporting it.

bbor 2y ago

What is the role of congress, if its enumerated powers do not imply that any of those things should actually happen...? Honest question. Are you honestly saying that there's an implied 100% veto available to the executive for anything done by congress?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 2y ago
Congress has many enumerated powers. Spending money is not one of them. The Founders had just fought a war over unjust taxation to support the head of state's pet projects. Thus they required all funds to be appropriated by Congress. But it is still the head of state that actually spends them. The Treasury has always been part of the Executive branch, ever since Alexander Hamilton led the Treasury under George Washington. Our country is built on checks and balances. The Executive controls the Treasury and spends money out of it, but is checked by the Congress, because the Executive cannot spend money without it first being appropriated.

sterlind 2y ago

the Take Care clause of Article II would like to have a word with you. The President has a positive duty to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. if Congress passes a law funding something, the President must faithfully make it so.

torstenvl 2y ago
That's certainly a popular theory lately, but it obviously doesn't hold water, and there's no case law supporting it.