Opinion piece: why, if under our Constitution, should a President be required to spend money authorized by Congress?

[BackAgain]

Opinion piece.

(No link for am opnion).

I see that our judicial branch seems hell bent on insisting that the President has n discretion over once Congress has authorized spending. That, alone, is deemed a command to spend.

This led me to wonder: what if (for any set of reasons) Congress crafted an array of legislation (probably passed over a veto) which would require the Federal leviathan to spend so much so fast that it would undercut our ability to survive as a nation?

In complying with such laws, wouldn’t it be a violation of the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution?

Why can’t the Executive Branch serve as a check and balance on the Legislative Branch?

 

[rightwinger]

The President runs the executive branch
He executes the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

 

[TimFitz]

Opinion piece.

(No link for am opnion).

I see that our judicial branch seems hell bent on insisting that the President has n discretion over once Congress has authorized spending. That, alone, is deemed a command to spend.

This led me to wonder: what if (for any set of reasons) Congress crafted an array of legislation (probably passed over a veto) which would require the Federal leviathan to spend so much so fast that it would undercut our ability to survive as a nation?

In complying with such laws, wouldn’t it be a violation of the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution?

Why can’t the Executive Branch serve as a check and balance on the Legislative Branch?

This question was adjudicated in the 1970’s.

 

[BackAgain]

This question was adjudicated in the 1970’s.

Cite?

 

[1srelluc]

It would be sorta the same as a line-item veto.

A line-item veto is the power of an executive authority, such as the President of the United States, to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, typically a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package. This allows the executive to strike down individual items, often referred to as "line-items," while allowing the rest of the bill to become law. The line-item veto has been sought by various presidents throughout history, but it has faced legal challenges and is not currently permitted under U.S. law.

 

[BackAgain]

The President runs the executive branch
He executes the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

It would be difficult for you to be more obtuse or shallow.

We know the President is the executive branch. So, thanks for sharing nothing new.

The question, however, is what is the President supposed to do when his job is to execute a law but that law transgresses the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

It would be difficult for you to be more obtuse or shallow.

We know the President is the executive branch. So, thanks for sharing nothing new.

The question, however, is what is the President supposed to do when his job is to execute a law but that law transgresses the Constitution.

You are the one who started a thread showing you have no concept of how our government works

A President is not a King
We have a Court System to rule on Constitutionality

 

[Zincwarrior]

Cite?

Budget Impoundment 101 | Bipartisan Policy Center

BPC answers commonly asked questions on the impoundment process and the relative authorities granted to the legislative and executive branches ahead of 2025 budget…

bipartisanpolicy.org

What is the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, and why was it created?​

Enacted in 1974, the landmark ICA reasserted Congress’s “power of the purse” by creating the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office, along with procedures the president must follow when implementing congressionally appropriated funds. On this latter point, the law established the modern congressional budget process, guidelines for developing a legislative branch budget blueprint (i.e., budget resolution), and presidential impoundments—creating a formal mechanism by which the executive branch can withhold spending with the explicit request of and approval from Congress.

 

[BackAgain]

It would be sorta the same as a line-item veto.

A line-item veto is the power of an executive authority, such as the President of the United States, to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, typically a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package. This allows the executive to strike down individual items, often referred to as "line-items," while allowing the rest of the bill to become law. The line-item veto has been sought by various presidents throughout history, but it has faced legal challenges and is not currently permitted under U.S. law.

The Court did decide the line item veto issue during the Clinton Administration.

I’m not convinced they got it right.

I maintain that it is Constitutionally a contradiction to insist that to “faithfully”execute a law passed by Congress requires that a President is compelled to violate the Constitution.

And it doesn’t suffice to say that SCOTUS can decide the issue of the Constitutionality of the law in question. For, while that may be true, judicial proceedings take time. A President isn’t so constricted in terms of time. If he or she sees that a law violates the Constitution, he or she also has a sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

You are the one who started a thread showing you have no concept of how our government works

That’s totally untrue — of course. I did draw you out however to expose your clear ignorance.

A President is not a King

Again. We all know this, you imbecile.

We have a Court System to rule on Constitutionality

Studiously missing the point ^ as you most often do.

See my preceding post.

 

[rightwinger]

That’s totally untrue — of course. I did draw you out however to expose your clear ignorance.

Again. We all know this, you imbecile.

Studiously missing the point ^ as you most often do.

See my preceding post.

Damn Liability

You are really taking a beating on this thread
You should actually know something about what you post before you embarras yourself

 

[BackAgain]

Budget Impoundment 101 | Bipartisan Policy Center

BPC answers commonly asked questions on the impoundment process and the relative authorities granted to the legislative and executive branches ahead of 2025 budget…

bipartisanpolicy.org

What is the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, and why was it created?​

Enacted in 1974, the landmark ICA reasserted Congress’s “power of the purse” by creating the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office, along with procedures the president must follow when implementing congressionally appropriated funds. On this latter point, the law established the modern congressional budget process, guidelines for developing a legislative branch budget blueprint (i.e., budget resolution), and presidential impoundments—creating a formal mechanism by which the executive branch can withhold spending with the explicit request of and approval from Congress.

Doesn’t answer the question.

First off, that’s not a citation to any judicial decision.

Secondly, it doesn’t address the actual quandary I posed.

Think of an obvious example. Some shitbag Congress passes a law prohibiting white people from discussing issues of racial inequality. Let’s say that a President (obviously and properly) vetos that crap. But shitbag Congress overrides the veto.

Among many of its hypothetical provisions, the law directs the President to spend not less than the current yearly interest on our nation’s debt for programs to require quite people attend educational programs about racial inequality.

The President must faithfully execute that law — but simultaneously must defend uphold and protect the Constitution. However, the law itself is patently and blatantly unconstitutional.

Why should he need to waste time in court?

His higher obligation is to the Constitution itself.

 

[BackAgain]

Damn Liability

You are really taking a beating on this thread
You should actually know something about what you post before you embarras yourself

I haven’t taken any beating, of course. That’s just your bias and stupidity talking, Leftwhiner.

You shouldn’t respond at all since you are the one who doesn’t know anything about the matter.

 

[rightwinger]

I haven’t taken any beating, of course. That’s just your bias and stupidity talking, Leftwhiner.

You shouldn’t respond at all since you are the one who doesn’t know anything about the matter.

It is your stupid thread, you really wet the bed on this one.

You claim a President doesn’t have to follow laws passed by Congress and signed by the President
You claim a President doesn’t have to follow laws he considers unconstitutional.

Are you really this dumb?

 

[BackAgain]

It is your stupid thread

No stupid. It is my thread. But you have a firm grasp on the stupid part. It’s you.

You claim a President doesn’t have to follow laws passed by Congress and signed by the President

Really? That’s what you derived.

Let’s simplify it for your tragically simple mind:

1. Not only doesn’t a President have to follow any law which transgresses the Constitution, he isn’t even allowed to do so.

2. Absent a violation of the Constitution, or in a national emergency, of course the President has to enforce laws.

You claim a President doesn’t have to follow laws he considers unconstitutional.

Close. In fact, it’s safer that way.

Are you really this dumb?

You are absolutely mindless.

 

[rightwinger]

2. Absent a violation of the Constitution, or in a national emergency, of course the President has to enforce laws.

The President does not get to declare what is Constitutional …we have a Supreme Court for that

 

[rightwinger]

Think of an obvious example. Some shitbag Congress passes a law prohibiting white people from discussing issues of racial inequality. Let’s say that a President (obviously and properly) vetos that crap. But shitbag Congress overrides the veto.

President vetos a law and is overridden by Congress
It becomes a law whether you like it or not.

If it is unconstitutional, then it is up to the court to decide

 

[Zincwarrior]

but simultaneously must defend uphold and protect the Constitution. However, the law itself is patently and blatantly unconstitutional.

To be Constitutional it must violate the Constitution. The law is based on the Appropriations Clause which allocations budgetary and spending matters to Congress.

 

[rightwinger]

The President must faithfully execute that law — but simultaneously must defend uphold and protect the Constitution. However, the law itself is patently and blatantly unconstitutional.

Why should he need to waste time in court?

Because that is the functioned the court, not the President

 

[BackAgain]

The President does not get to declare what is Constitutional …we have a Supreme Court for that

Wrong again, dimwit. The entire discussion is miles over your pinhead.

One can agree that an implication in the Constitution says that SCOTUS may decide matters of constitutionality.

But nothing in the Constitution says that the President cannot.