5 ms·

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 pub

by 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.
        mothballed 1y ago
        Each branch can consider if law is unconstitutional. It takes all three in agreement to execute it. The legislature is bound not to create unconstitutional laws. If the law does pass, the executive is bound not to execute it. If the law is executed, the court is bound to strike it (you can argue the court is also bound to strike it even if it's not executed, but Knife Rights v Garland for example found there is at least in that case no standing to challenge a non-executed law). It's not that one branch has all the power so much as each branch has veto power to stop the unconstitutional law from actually coming into effect. The power to actually do something takes all 3 branches but the power to stop something only takes one. Even the founders understood this -- Jefferson helped block the Sedition Act and actively encouraged states to nullify and avert its enforcement. Obama and later presidents stopped the enforcement of many prohibitions on recreational intrastate commerce of marijuana, a blatantly unconstitutional federal law, which nonetheless still stands (enforcement of medical marijuana is defunded but not recreational). These increased our compliance with the constitution, without creating dictators.
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      > Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment This is plainly untrue, as the constitutionality of these appropriations can only be established by a court. Bills signed into law are presumed constitutional and valid until an Article III officer decides otherwise. The system is: Congress writes the law, funds the law. President signs the law, executes the law. Court interprets the law, invalidates the law. You can't have the POTUS sign, execute, interpret, and invalidate laws. Separation of powers is what made the government work. Right now the Article II branch is the one who usurped power, the Congress and SCOTUS abdicated power, and it's causing the government to fail at all levels. If you give the executive the power you want it to have, the entire thesis of the Constitution crumbles (as we are witnessing), so quoting it at this point is futile and meaningless until balance of power is restored. Right now, what would happen if what you said is true, is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient. That's not how to run a constitutional republic. It's certainly descriptive of another form of government, but here you were quoting the Constitution. > 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. You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        >Court interprets the law, invalidates the law. You can't have the POTUS sign, execute, interpret, and invalidate laws. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45388993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45388993 as to why it takes all three branches agreeing on the constitutionality of a law for it actually to be put in effect and why that doesn't create the kind of dictatorship you're envisioning. >is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient. POTUS is bound by constitution, even if SCOTUS thinks following the constitution is unconstitutional. This doesn't create an unchecked executive -- the legislature can also check the executive by impeaching him if he violates the constitution. >You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence. Yes exactly, it was circa the 30s when the apparatus of the state really cranked up to exceed the constitutional constraints of the federal government. The courts would create a more lasting correction to the problem, but that doesn't mean POTUS isn't also bound to stop executing all the unconstitutional laws. A lot of this stems from fraudulent portrayal of intrastate commerce as interstate commerce, which means a great deal of the actions of DEA, ATF, FDA, EPA, etc cannot legally be funded nor most of the wildly unconstitutional provisions of the cherished tyrannical civil rights act.
- 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.

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.
        mothballed 1y ago
        Each branch can consider if law is unconstitutional. It takes all three in agreement to execute it. The legislature is bound not to create unconstitutional laws. If the law does pass, the executive is bound not to execute it. If the law is executed, the court is bound to strike it (you can argue the court is also bound to strike it even if it's not executed, but Knife Rights v Garland for example found there is at least in that case no standing to challenge a non-executed law). It's not that one branch has all the power so much as each branch has veto power to stop the unconstitutional law from actually coming into effect. The power to actually do something takes all 3 branches but the power to stop something only takes one. Even the founders understood this -- Jefferson helped block the Sedition Act and actively encouraged states to nullify and avert its enforcement. Obama and later presidents stopped the enforcement of many prohibitions on recreational intrastate commerce of marijuana, a blatantly unconstitutional federal law, which nonetheless still stands (enforcement of medical marijuana is defunded but not recreational). These increased our compliance with the constitution, without creating dictators.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    > Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment This is plainly untrue, as the constitutionality of these appropriations can only be established by a court. Bills signed into law are presumed constitutional and valid until an Article III officer decides otherwise. The system is: Congress writes the law, funds the law. President signs the law, executes the law. Court interprets the law, invalidates the law. You can't have the POTUS sign, execute, interpret, and invalidate laws. Separation of powers is what made the government work. Right now the Article II branch is the one who usurped power, the Congress and SCOTUS abdicated power, and it's causing the government to fail at all levels. If you give the executive the power you want it to have, the entire thesis of the Constitution crumbles (as we are witnessing), so quoting it at this point is futile and meaningless until balance of power is restored. Right now, what would happen if what you said is true, is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient. That's not how to run a constitutional republic. It's certainly descriptive of another form of government, but here you were quoting the Constitution. > 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. You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      >Court interprets the law, invalidates the law. You can't have the POTUS sign, execute, interpret, and invalidate laws. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45388993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45388993 as to why it takes all three branches agreeing on the constitutionality of a law for it actually to be put in effect and why that doesn't create the kind of dictatorship you're envisioning. >is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient. POTUS is bound by constitution, even if SCOTUS thinks following the constitution is unconstitutional. This doesn't create an unchecked executive -- the legislature can also check the executive by impeaching him if he violates the constitution. >You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence. Yes exactly, it was circa the 30s when the apparatus of the state really cranked up to exceed the constitutional constraints of the federal government. The courts would create a more lasting correction to the problem, but that doesn't mean POTUS isn't also bound to stop executing all the unconstitutional laws. A lot of this stems from fraudulent portrayal of intrastate commerce as interstate commerce, which means a great deal of the actions of DEA, ATF, FDA, EPA, etc cannot legally be funded nor most of the wildly unconstitutional provisions of the cherished tyrannical civil rights act.
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.