3 ms·

>and that's notable because DOGE completely circumvented congress who is supposed to be the sole possessor of the power of the purse. Congress has the constitu

>and that's notable because DOGE completely circumvented congress who is supposed to be the sole possessor of the power of the purse. Congress has the constitutional power of the purse but that refers specifically to raising and appropriating money[]. The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect. Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance. [] https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...

Braxton1980 1y ago
Your own linked site says "Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government." But you said "The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money." Explain
- mothballed 1y ago
  — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1 and — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7 Says tax and appropriate. Constitution supersedes what the website says, I'm not sure why the website later misquoted it, but thanks for pointing it out.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    Article II says the president must faithfully execute the laws, which means implementing Congress' will, not his own.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment, appropriating functions of the federal government outside the scope authorized by the constitution and reserved to the people and states. This is exactly what DOGE was helping to keep in check. At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        >Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully.. If a law violates the 10th amendment then it should be challenged in court. The president doesn't decide what is constitutional the courts do.
        mothballed 1y ago
        The courts don't decide what the constitution is, the people that wrote and amended it did. The courts can only interpret it, often wrongly, as evidenced by the fact they routinely contradict themselves. The president has a duty to ignore any unconstitutional court ruling, as his oath requires.
        habinero 1y ago
        That's not how anything works. The Constitution literally says so. If you want a king, just say so.
        mothballed 1y ago
        The constitution says POTUS can violate the constitution if SCOTUS says so?
        ModernMech 1y ago
        No, but it says it’s his job to execute the law, not to use his discretion to pick and choose which laws to execute. The entire purpose of the constitution is to balance powers, not to ensure it’s never at any time violated. Any violation of the constitution is supposed to be corrected by the balancing force of other branches. You might think giving one branch all the power to make sure the constitution is not violated might lead to a situation where it’s never violated, but what actually happens is the powers become unbalanced and the executive is free to violate the constitution at will.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    It seems Congress took action on presidents withholding funds with Title X of the "Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974" If a president wants to permanently withhold funds then they must ask Congress for a "rescission"(request to cancel the funds) within 45 days~~\ This was created because Nixon withheld funds from programs he didn't support.[1] This law was challenged in a 1975 court case, Train v NYC, which the Supreme Court upheld the law and stated the full amount appropriated must be spent [1]https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48432 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48432
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Already addressed this >The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect. >Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        It's constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it was in the case Train v NYC. They are the ones who determine what laws are constitutional or not. You can disagree but their opinion is what is acted upon. >the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending The president must sign spending bills and while he may be overridden with a veto that's the check and balance.
        mothballed 1y ago
        >It's constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it was in the case Train v NYC. They are the ones who determine what laws are constitutional or not. You can disagree but their opinion is what is acted upon. We're going in circles, I already addressed this. >The president must sign spending bills and while he may be overridden with a veto that's the check and balance. That's a check and balance.
FireBeyond 1y ago
> DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance. What garbage. I can guarantee the concept or discussion of "constitutional compliance" came up exactly zero times in Trump and Elon's discussion of deploying DOGE. Because if that was their true concern, there are other ways of figuring that out. Valiant? Our heroes...

Braxton1980 1y ago

Your own linked site says "Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government." But you said "The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money." Explain

mothballed 1y ago
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1 and — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7 Says tax and appropriate. Constitution supersedes what the website says, I'm not sure why the website later misquoted it, but thanks for pointing it out.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  Article II says the president must faithfully execute the laws, which means implementing Congress' will, not his own.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment, appropriating functions of the federal government outside the scope authorized by the constitution and reserved to the people and states. This is exactly what DOGE was helping to keep in check. At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      >Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully.. If a law violates the 10th amendment then it should be challenged in court. The president doesn't decide what is constitutional the courts do.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        The courts don't decide what the constitution is, the people that wrote and amended it did. The courts can only interpret it, often wrongly, as evidenced by the fact they routinely contradict themselves. The president has a duty to ignore any unconstitutional court ruling, as his oath requires.
        habinero 1y ago
        That's not how anything works. The Constitution literally says so. If you want a king, just say so.
        mothballed 1y ago
        The constitution says POTUS can violate the constitution if SCOTUS says so?
        ModernMech 1y ago
        No, but it says it’s his job to execute the law, not to use his discretion to pick and choose which laws to execute. The entire purpose of the constitution is to balance powers, not to ensure it’s never at any time violated. Any violation of the constitution is supposed to be corrected by the balancing force of other branches. You might think giving one branch all the power to make sure the constitution is not violated might lead to a situation where it’s never violated, but what actually happens is the powers become unbalanced and the executive is free to violate the constitution at will.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  It seems Congress took action on presidents withholding funds with Title X of the "Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974" If a president wants to permanently withhold funds then they must ask Congress for a "rescission"(request to cancel the funds) within 45 days~~\ This was created because Nixon withheld funds from programs he didn't support.[1] This law was challenged in a 1975 court case, Train v NYC, which the Supreme Court upheld the law and stated the full amount appropriated must be spent [1]https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48432 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48432
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Already addressed this >The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect. >Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      It's constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it was in the case Train v NYC. They are the ones who determine what laws are constitutional or not. You can disagree but their opinion is what is acted upon. >the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending The president must sign spending bills and while he may be overridden with a veto that's the check and balance.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        >It's constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it was in the case Train v NYC. They are the ones who determine what laws are constitutional or not. You can disagree but their opinion is what is acted upon. We're going in circles, I already addressed this. >The president must sign spending bills and while he may be overridden with a veto that's the check and balance. That's a check and balance.

FireBeyond 1y ago

> DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance. What garbage. I can guarantee the concept or discussion of "constitutional compliance" came up exactly zero times in Trump and Elon's discussion of deploying DOGE. Because if that was their true concern, there are other ways of figuring that out. Valiant? Our heroes...