Trump Plan To Bypass Congress and Starve ‘The Deep State’

[mystery-ak]

Trump Plan To Bypass Congress and Starve ‘The Deep State’
By Philip Wegmann - RCP Staff

Sources close to former President Trump say he has a plan for keeping Congress from ever again forcing him into “disgraceful” and “ridiculous” spending situations. If he returns to the White House, Trump will seek to resurrect authority that Congress stripped from the presidency almost a half century ago.

What President Nixon squandered, his campaign promises, Trump will restore, namely the impoundment power. “A lot of you,” the former president told a New Hampshire crowd Thursday, “don't know what that is.” Indeed, few now remember it.

Impoundment, if restored, would allow a president, in theory, to simply refuse to spend appropriations by Congress. More than just an avenue to cut spending, Trump sees that kind of authority as key to starving, and thus crushing, the so-called “deep state.”

But such a move would fundamentally alter the balance of power, and any effort to restore the long-forgotten authority virtually guarantees a protracted legal battle over who exactly controls the power of the purse. Trump welcomes that fight. Some budget experts believe he won’t get anywhere.

more
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/06/28/trump_plan_to_bypass_congress_and_starve_the_deep_state__149417.html?callback=in&code=M2FHZGYZMDUTOWJLYI0ZZTLKLWI0MWYTMJJIZTE5M2ZJZDI5&state=6fd435fb019241a6862703486aacb7b8

[Kamaji]

So how does Trump propose to "bypass" the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 without first getting Congress to repeal it?  Magic unicorn farts and executive orders?

[Ghost Bear]

So how does Trump propose to "bypass" the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 without first getting Congress to repeal it?  Magic unicorn farts and executive orders?

Without having looked into the details, I imagine that an argument could be made that such an act would be unconstitutional, and that the proper way for Congress to limit a President's ability to administer the budget should have been a Constitutional Amendment.  But I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, and who knows what the Supreme Court would decide anyway?

[Kamaji]

Without having looked into the details, I imagine that an argument could be made that such an act would be unconstitutional, and that the proper way for Congress to limit a President's ability to administer the budget should have been a Constitutional Amendment.  But I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, and who knows what the Supreme Court would decide anyway?

Why would such an act be unconstitutional?  I guess the Court just totally missed the bus on that one when it decided Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975) (a case that predated enactment of the Impoundment Control Act).

[DB]

Funny... He didn't find his veto pen during these budget fights...

That might have been a good place to start...

[Kamaji]

Funny... He didn't find his veto pen during these budget fights...

That might have been a good place to start...

[Ghost Bear]

Why would such an act be unconstitutional?  I guess the Court just totally missed the bus on that one when it decided Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975) (a case that predated enactment of the Impoundment Control Act).

Again, I would think that an argument could be made that it breaches the separation of powers.

And in case you haven't noticed, the Supreme Court misses the bus quite a lot on their decisions.

[Kamaji]

Again, I would think that an argument could be made that it breaches the separation of powers.

And in case you haven't noticed, the Supreme Court misses the bus quite a lot on their decisions.

How would it violate the separation of powers?

The Constitution clearly gives to Congress the power to enact legislation, including legislation directing that federal funds be spent in a particular manner, and it also clearly gives the president the power to restrict those legislative actions of the Congress with which he disagrees - the veto power.

The Constitution's structure in this regard is quite clear, and balanced; it gives to each its proper sphere of power, and regulates how each branch may countermand the other.

Importing some shadowing impoundment power for the president into the Constitution is nothing more than the same sort of penumbras and shadings an earlier Court used to import a right to abortion into the Constitution.

If the latter fails, so too must the former.

[Bigun]

How would it violate the separation of powers?

The Constitution clearly gives to Congress the power to enact legislation, including legislation directing that federal funds be spent in a particular manner, and it also clearly gives the president the power to restrict those legislative actions of the Congress with which he disagrees - the veto power.

The Constitution's structure in this regard is quite clear, and balanced; it gives to each its proper sphere of power, and regulates how each branch may countermand the other.

Importing some shadowing impoundment power for the president into the Constitution is nothing more than the same sort of penumbras and shadings an earlier Court used to import a right to abortion into the Constitution.

If the latter fails, so too must the former.

The constitution does not give congress the power to strip powers from the president that are granted him by the constitution.

[Bigun]

Again, I would think that an argument could be made that it breaches the separation of powers.

And in case you haven't noticed, the Supreme Court misses the bus quite a lot on their decisions.

I've noticed! Believe me I have!

[Kamaji]

The constitution does not give congress the power to strip powers from the president that are granted him by the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't give the President the power to refuse a direct spending order in duly enacted legislation from Congress.

The Constitution is quite clear about how the President can go about avoiding a direct command from Congress:  the veto.  If the president's veto is overridden, then his power to countermand Congress is at an end and the Constitution obliges him to carry out the legislative command of Congress.

[Bigun]

The Constitution doesn't give the President the power to refuse a direct spending order in duly enacted legislation from Congress.

The Constitution is quite clear about how the President can go about avoiding a direct command from Congress:  the veto.  If the president's veto is overridden, then his power to countermand Congress is at an end and the Constitution obliges him to carry out the legislative command of Congress.

Can congress directly spend money appropriated from the public treasury?

Who controls when and how such funds are spent?

[mystery-ak]

Can congress directly spend money appropriated from the public treasury?

Who controls when and how such funds are spent?

Well an example of that is all the Covid money still unspent....where is it and who spends it?...shouldn't it go back to Treasury?

[Kamaji]

Can congress directly spend money appropriated from the public treasury?

Who controls when and how such funds are spent?

Congress can enact a law that directs the expenditure of a given amount, and then there is no discretion.

Prove otherwise.  You love to claim that you’re all about the limited nature of government under the Constitution, and yet here you are pushing a theory that is weaker than the abortion right theory.  You’re casting about for penumbras and emanations in an attempt to overcome the clear command of the Constitution that Congress makes the law, and the president executes what was written - he implements, he does not get a second bite at the apple to second guess Congress if his veto is overrriden. 

Penumbrae and emanations galore.

[Kamaji]

Well an example of that is all the Covid money still unspent....where is it and who spends it?...shouldn't it go back to Treasury?

Because Congress did not specify that those amounts must be spent.

[mystery-ak]

Because Congress did not specify that those amounts must be spent.

So what happens to it?...it's like their little piggy bank..

[Hoodat]

So how does Trump propose to "bypass" the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 without first getting Congress to repeal it?

The 1974 Act is unconstitutional.  You 'bypass' it by keeping your mouth shut and simply not spend the money.  No different than Biden not spending all that Covid money yet.  And if Congress complains?  Make them take you to court.  Good luck winning that case.

Magic unicorn farts and executive orders?

Trump has no desire to starve the Deep State.  That is why he is taking this track, bloviating about 'impoundment' and then punting to Congress to get them to change it.  It is about as weak of a move as one can do.

[Hoodat]

Well an example of that is all the Covid money still unspent....where is it and who spends it?...shouldn't it go back to Treasury?

And let's not forget all that EPA Superfund money that has been collecting dust for decades.

[Hoodat]

Congress can enact a law that directs the expenditure of a given amount, and then there is no discretion.

Prove otherwise.

Article II, Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.


The Legislature appropriates the funds.  The Executive branch spends it.  Congress does not have Executive power.

[Hoodat]

Can congress directly spend money appropriated from the public treasury?

No.

Can congress directly spend money appropriated from the public treasury?
Who controls when and how such funds are spent?

The Executive Branch.

[Bigun]

The 1974 Act is unconstitutional.

If it isn't the president no longer runs anything.

You 'bypass' it by keeping your mouth shut and simply not spend the money.  No different than Biden not spending all that Covid money yet.  And if Congress complains?  Make them take you to court.  Good luck winning that case.

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Congress can enact a law that directs the expenditure of a given amount, and then there is no discretion.

Prove otherwise.  You love to claim that you’re all about the limited nature of government under the Constitution, and yet here you are pushing a theory that is weaker than the abortion right theory.  You’re casting about for penumbras and emanations in an attempt to overcome the clear command of the Constitution that Congress makes the law, and the president executes what was written - he implements, he does not get a second bite at the apple to second guess Congress if his veto is overrriden. 

Penumbrae and emanations galore.

I'd also point to the "take care" clause -- that the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.". I think that clause precludes the idea that the President has an unstated but implicit authority to refuses to spend money Congress lawfully has appropriated.

[Kamaji]

It’s simply astounding how penumbras and emanations are invalid when it comes to an end result that certain people hate - abortion - but are constitutionally mandated when it comes to an end-result that those very same people love.

The president does not have some magical power to frustrate the enacted will of Congress when it comes to spending, any more than he has the power to frustrate it’s enacted will in any other respect. 

The very same people who are screeching that the Republic is over because Biden is choosing to not enforce Congress’ duly enacted immigration laws are now here singing hosannas to the presidents supposed ability to choose not to enforce a duly enacted law that mandates spending.

Wow. We all know that liberals are hypocrites, but apparently there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around.

The President has one, and only one, constitutionally permissible method of frustrating the enacted will of Congress, and that is through the veto.  If the President either does not veto a bill, or his veto is overriden, then the presidents independent power is at an end, and the president’s Constitutional duty thereafter is to carry out the mandates of Congress’ duly enacted will.  and that includes mandatory spending as well as mandatory immigration rules.

[kevindavis007]

Question if Trump failed to starve The Deep State the first time, what makes you think he will do it the second time?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It’s simply astounding how penumbras and emanations are invalid when it comes to an end result that certain people hate - abortion - but are constitutionally mandated when it comes to an end-result that those very same people love.

The president does not have some magical power to frustrate the enacted will of Congress when it comes to spending, any more than he has the power to frustrate it’s enacted will in any other respect. 

The very same people who are screeching that the Republic is over because Biden is choosing to not enforce Congress’ duly enacted immigration laws are now here singing hosannas to the presidents supposed ability to choose not to enforce a duly enacted law that mandates spending.

Wow. We all know that liberals are hypocrites, but apparently there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around.

The President has one, and only one, constitutionally permissible method of frustrating the enacted will of Congress, and that is through the veto.  If the President either does not veto a bill, or his veto is overriden, then the presidents independent power is at an end, and the president’s Constitutional duty thereafter is to carry out the mandates of Congress’ duly enacted will.  and that includes mandatory spending as well as mandatory immigration rules.