So the legislative branch passes laws and allocates funding to those laws. The executive branch puts those laws into action. Can the executive simply just say, nah?
Because isn't that what Trump and them are doing (re: the pause in federal funding to ensure it aligns with the president's priorities, shutting down USAID)?
Is this a unique thing for this administration, or something that is always done? If it is what is always done, it makes me question the point of Congress's existence.
3. "The courts adjudicate..." In response to Reply # 0
I believe that congress's grievance can be remedied by the courts on whether the "no" is lawful. If not, then it goes through. The President must do things in a lawful way if you're following the rules. Everyone is supposed to be beholden to the constitution in theory. This is constantly being tested... and even moreso now.
**Sig** -Blackthought is the dopest emcee alive -Uncle Sam and Santa Clause are good buddies. -Be selfless and the world will be a better place.
seasoned vet Member since Jul 29th 2008 6524 posts
Fri Feb-07-25 12:14 PM
5. "you dont need a civics lesson, you need a history lesson" In response to Reply # 0
meaning, civics, standard operating procedure and proper protocol dont exist during a Trump term
remember when he told Mexico he was going to make them pay for the wall? Mexico laughed in his face Trump took money out of a defense budget to pay for the wall they said then, “you cant do that”, “thats illegal!” Trump ignored them “but, but, power of the purse!”, “do it, and we’ll sue!” they said Trump did it anyway
6 billion in funds diverted to spend on an unfinished wall Democrats spent years in court pump faking, citing the law to the lawless how much of that 6 billion do you think really went to the construction of that wall? Trump got away with it second term, people dont even remember that shit
11. "It's a gray area. Look up "impoundment"" In response to Reply # 0
I'm no expert, but as far as I understand it, presidents have the authority to spend less than an appropriated amount for some line items in the budget, and commonly use this discretion.
I *think* it has to do with the language Congress uses for the line item, e.g. "no more than X". But if they write "spend X on Y program" I am not sure the president has the discretion to spend less than X.
I don't think president can just say "I will spend 0 on X" if it's in the budget.
Everything old is new again -- I believe this came to a head during Nixon administration and went through courts, and courts upheld that presidents can't use discretionary spending power to fully defund line items fully that Congress has appropriated money for, i.e. can't just say "I'm not gonna pay for X at all".
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
