4 ms·

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 wan

by 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.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      The president has an oath to uphold the constitution. The Constitution says the president has a duty to execute the laws. Where does it say he doesn't have to if it violates the Constitution?
      - mothballed 1y ago
        10th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people POTUS has no power to execute an unconstitutional law
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        How does what you pasted imply that? It doesn't mention the president
        mothballed 1y ago
        If the "United States [government]" doesn't have the power, POTUS in his official capacity doesn't.
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        1. I said "Where does it say he doesn't have to [enforce a law] if it violates the Constitution?" 2. You pasted the 10th amendment - This says the federal government has the powers specified by the constitution and any power not mentioned are for the states unless prohibited 3. Then I asked you how this related to the president not enforcing laws he believes are unconstitutional and you said "If the "United States [government]" doesn't have the power, POTUS in his official capacity doesn't." What power?

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.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    The president has an oath to uphold the constitution. The Constitution says the president has a duty to execute the laws. Where does it say he doesn't have to if it violates the Constitution?
    - mothballed 1y ago
      10th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people POTUS has no power to execute an unconstitutional law
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        How does what you pasted imply that? It doesn't mention the president
        mothballed 1y ago
        If the "United States [government]" doesn't have the power, POTUS in his official capacity doesn't.
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        1. I said "Where does it say he doesn't have to [enforce a law] if it violates the Constitution?" 2. You pasted the 10th amendment - This says the federal government has the powers specified by the constitution and any power not mentioned are for the states unless prohibited 3. Then I asked you how this related to the president not enforcing laws he believes are unconstitutional and you said "If the "United States [government]" doesn't have the power, POTUS in his official capacity doesn't." What power?