Trump's EO's that strip funding

[TemplarKormac]

Let's be clear about something here. My interpretation of the separation of powers says that these EOs infringe on the right of Congress to dictate the nature and disbursement of funds.

But that's my interpretation. What is yours? Can you cite to me what Constitutional authority he has to do this?

Rulings? Laws? Acts? Statutes? I'm happy to listen.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Let's be clear about something here. My interpretation of the separation powers says that these EO's infringe on the right of congress to dictate the nature and disbursement of funds.

But that's my interpretation. What is yours? Can you cite to me what Constitutional authority he has to do this? I'm happy to listen.

When budgets are 50,000 pages long and no congress member has even read the damn thing let alone understands it then congress really isn’t doing their job in the first place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When budgets are 50,000 pages long and no congress member has even read the damn thing let alone understands it then congress really isn’t doing their job in the first place.

But nevertheless, the Separation of Powers still exists. Congress not doing its job is not a justification for usurping its power.

 

[BackAgain]

But nevertheless, the Separation of Powers still exists. Congress not doing its job is not a justification for usurping its power.

Your OP question is fair enough.

And i will not answer it except to suggest (again) that lots of spending bills come with provisions. Those provisions either appear buried in the rest of enormous legislation OR IN previously passed laws.

A President isn’t there to simply send out checks ok’d by Congress. A President also has to enforce the provisions. And in order to do so, he may sign an EO or his department heads may do so to condition and limit payments to those circumstances where all the provisos are met — INCLUDING the avoidance of waste.

Further, an EO is most often a declaration on the topic of HOW a President handles the details of enforcing laws or administering them. When Congress Validly delegates such matters to the Executive Branch, those many thorny details are administratively determined BY the executive branch.

So, I see your OP 1st paragraph as being imprecise.

An EO has the force of law when it administers that which was delegated to the President either by Congress or by the Constitution itself.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Maybe it'll wake Congress up

Given the ridiculous expenditures it should happen

 

[petro]

Let the courts decide.

I am just glad it's being exposed and even if the EO's on funding get reversed, Democrats are still going to come out of it with shit optics for defending the status quo of waste and abuse.

Maybe that was the plan all along.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A President isn’t there to simply send out checks ok’d by Congress. A President also has to enforce the provisions. And in order to do so, he may sign an EO or his department heads may do so to condition payments to those circumstances where all the provisos are met INCLUDING the avoidance of waste.

But can an EO make those kinds of determinations?

I would assume only the courts and Congress can set those definitions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But what gives him the authority to direct how the money is spent? I'm still not getting it.

For example, the EO on gender-affirming care will fall flat on its face because it violates Subpart B (iv) of Section 1557 of the ACA.

His order freezing funding violates the Impoundment Control Act.

His buyout order needs approval from Congress, that's why Clinton asked for Congressional approval in 1995 to conduct the federal buyouts.

 

[BackAgain]

But can an EO make those kinds of determinations?

A president can. Yes. And he makes it clear via an EO. It is clear in the law that HOW the President does the job or performing his duties is his call to make.

Congress can pass laws requiring certain things. But they don’t do micromanaging. They often (legally, constitutionally and validly) delegate the details to the Executive Branch.

I would assume only the courts and Congress can set those definitions.

Nope. That’s one of the jobs of the Executive Branch.

Congress does have the ability to set provisos. And that may make the Administration’s job more complex. But it’s still the job of the Executive Branch to perform the task in a way it sees fit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A president can. Yes. And he makes it clear via an EO. It is clear in the law that HOW the President does the job or performing his duties is his call to make.

Congress can pass laws requiring certain things. But they don’t do micromanaging. They often (legally, constitutionally and validly) delegate the details to the Executive Branch.

Nope. That’s one of the jobs of the Executive Branch.

Congress does have the ability to set provisos. And that may make the Administration’s job more complex. But it’s still the job of the Executive Branch to perform the task in a way it sees fit.

 

[BackAgain]

But what gives him the authority to direct how the money is spent? I'm still not getting it.

Well, consider. Suppose (because of shitty and unclear legislation) it is unclear whether or not Congress has directed the spending of money for the benefit of (say) Ukraine, but other laws actually prohibit giving a corrupt government one fucking penny.

A President then would find it impossible to both spend the money but not spend the money. So, at least in theory, he must then make some choices. He could determine to NOT spend the money at all in order to comply with that other law.

For example, the EO on gender-affirming care will fall flat on its face because it violates Subpart B (iv) of Section 1557 of the ACA.

Maybe not; instead, perhaps that provision will be determined to be a denial of a Constitutional right to equal protection of the law. A President isn’t allowed to administer any law which violates the Constitution.

His order freezing funding violates the Impoundment Control Act.

Not always. Again, it depends on the individual facts. Alternatively, it may be that the impoundment control act itself oversteps the bounds of what the Constitution allows Congress to do.

His buyout order needs approval from Congress, that's why Clinton asked for Congressional approval in 1995 to conduct the federal buyouts.

Again. I don’t know. But he acts as he sees it as his duty to act. That example may be a fair case for judicial review of his action. So, he acts as he sees necessary and awaits that eventual judicial scrutiny.

In that case, it’s not just a lower court issuing a pause or a stay. Ultimately, it’s likely to be a SCOTUS decision.

 

[BackAgain]

View attachment 1078456

I am unable to read that even when I try to enlarge it.

What does it say and what is the source?

 

[petro]

But what gives him the authority to direct how the money is spent? I'm still not getting it.

For example, the EO on gender-affirming care will fall flat on its face because it violates Subpart B (iv) of Section 1557 of the ACA.

His order freezing funding violates the Impoundment Control Act.

His buyout order needs approval from Congress, that's why Clinton asked for Congressional approval in 1995 to conduct the federal buyouts.

Actually a judge just ruled that the buyout can proceed...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-allows-trump-proceed-with-government-employee-buyout-2025-02-12/

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am unable to read that even when I try to enlarge it.

What does it say and what is the source?

"A president’s authority to issue an executive order typically comes, either explicitly or implicitly, from a congressional statute, but on occasion presidents have justified orders on the basis of their constitutional power to execute the nation’s laws. Whether the Constitution empowers the president only to execute policies devised by Congress or additionally vests the president with substantive policymaking powers has long been a matter of dispute. As a result, orders based on inherent presidential powers not authorized by Congress are more likely to raise separation-of-powers concerns. In these cases, courts must determine whether the president has exercised legislative power belonging only to Congress."

Judicial Review of Executive Orders | Federal Judicial Center

Includes landmark legislation, congressional committees, appropriations, administrative agencies, court officers and staff…

www.fjc.gov

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually a judge just ruled that the buyout can proceed...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-allows-trump-proceed-with-government-employee-buyout-2025-02-12/

It can only proceed because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case. The judge said he lacked subject matter jurisdiction as well. It doesn't stop this case from being relitigated and a new TRO issued.

 

[MisterBeale]

Let the courts decide.

Agreed.

His order freezing funding violates the Impoundment Control Act.

This is the crux of the issue.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4736824-trump-is-right-about-the-impoundment-control-act-its-unconstitutional/

06/24/24
". . . . But under the Impoundment Control Act, it does not matter that everyone would agree that the president should not send those funds to a foreign adversary. The act does not contemplate that the president can unilaterally impound funds without going back to Congress to have a new law enacted to rescind such funds. This is an unconstitutional limitation on the president’s Article II authority and responsibilities.

In fact, far from being norm-breaking, Trump’s impoundments proposal is in line with centuries of bipartisan, cross-branch history and tradition. For example, in his first annual message to Congress, President Thomas Jefferson announced that his administration had “suspended or slackened…expenditures” for the construction of shipyards to allow the Congress to reassess these Federalist-era appropriations. Executive impoundments continued throughout the 19th century.

By the turn of the 20th century it was well understood, in the words of Attorney General Judson Harmon, that appropriations, even when using language such as “shall,” are not mandatory “to the extent that you are bound to expend the full amount if the work can be done for less.”

What is 'impoundment' and how does it work?

The Trump administration grabbed at the 'power of the purse' in Congress, using a little-known executive action that could have massive implications for the future

theweek.com

Can Trump Cancel Government Funds Through Impoundment? What To Know As He Pauses Federal Assistance.

Legal experts argue Trump's temporary pause on all federal assistance is a "flagrant" violation of the law.

www.forbes.com

 

[JGalt]

Let's be clear about something here. My interpretation of the separation of powers says that these EOs infringe on the right of Congress to dictate the nature and disbursement of funds.

But that's my interpretation. What is yours? Can you cite to me what Constitutional authority he has to do this?

Rulings? Laws? Acts? Statutes? I'm happy to listen.

"The process in which the president withholds or delays spending on programs authorized by Congress is called impoundment. This practice dates back to the third president, Thomas Jefferson, and it has at times been controversial because the impoundment of funds can put the executive and legislative branches in conflict.

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending in the federal budget in the Appropriations Clause, which reads in part, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The Constitution then delegates to the president the task of spending approved funds in the Take Care Clause, which requires the chief executive “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

The most noted example of a conflict over impoundment took place in the 1970s, when President Richard Nixon refused to spend funds on numerous programs approved by Congress. During public hearings on the matter in 1973, Nixon’s critics said the president was using his impoundment powers to effectively veto programs by cutting off their funds. “There has never been a more appropriate time than the present to take up this crucial constitutional question of the role of the Congress and its relationship with the executive and whether or not we have co-equal branches of Government,” said Sen. Hubert Humphrey."

Can a president refuse to spend funds approved by Congress? | Constitution Center

 

[TemplarKormac]

The process in which the president withholds or delays spending on programs authorized by Congress is called impoundment. This practice dates back to the third president, Thomas Jefferson, and it has at times been controversial because the impoundment of funds can put the executive and legislative branches in conflict.

That depends on the nature of Trump's EO freezing the funding. Is he pausing the funding or discontinuing it altogether?

Is he simply auditing it?

 

[JGalt]

That depends on the nature of Trump's EO freezing the funding. Is he pausing the funding or discontinuing it altogether?

Is he simply auditing it?

Not sure. But whatever he's doing is what I voted for.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Spending cuts aren't the issue. The execution of these cuts isn't legal though, at least by my interpretation.