Trump’s war on federal bureaucracy could trigger Supreme Court battle

[mystery-ak]

Trump’s war on federal bureaucracy could trigger Supreme Court battle
By
Christian Datoc
December 1, 2024 5:00 am
.

President-elect Donald Trump and his top advisers have long cited impoundment, a little-known legal theory, as a means of shrinking the federal government. But, pursuing that path will almost assuredly bring the incoming administration before the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants Congress sole authority to appropriate a federal budget, but impoundment theory essentially claims that any president has unilateral authority to ignore Congress’s funding bills and withhold or “impound” funds meant for programs, agencies, or departments deemed unsuitable by the White House.

The only catch? Congress passed legislation during the Nixon administration that required the president to spend funds appropriated by Congress.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/3244202/trump-impoundment-federal-bureaucracy-trigger-supreme-court-battle/

[Kamaji]

"This doctrine cannot receive the sanction of this Court. It would be vesting in the President a dispensing power which has no countenance for its support in any part of the Constitution, and is asserting a principle which, if carried out in its results to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power to control the legislation of Congress and paralyze the administration of justice."

To contend that the obligations imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the Constitution, and is entirely inadmissible.

Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. 524 (1838)

[Hoodat]

The only catch? Congress passed legislation during the Nixon administration that required the president to spend funds appropriated by Congress.

Not much of a Supreme Court battle on that one.  The Executive Branch has been sitting on EPA Superfund money for decades, refusing to spend it.  And Congress hasn't done squat.

If Congress wants to take the President to court over this, good luck.  But neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can compel the Executive Branch to spend money.

[Kamaji]

Not much of a Supreme Court battle on that one.  The Executive Branch has been sitting on EPA Superfund money for decades, refusing to spend it.  And Congress hasn't done squat.

If Congress wants to take the President to court over this, good luck.  But neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can compel the Executive Branch to spend money.

Yes, actually, they can.  Kendall v. U.S. ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. 524 (1838)

[Hoodat]

Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. 524 (1838)

The Kendall case is about contract law, which is far different than Congress compelling the Executive Branch to spend money it has appropriated.  Congress simply does not have that right.

[Kamaji]

The Kendall case is about contract law, which is far different than Congress compelling the Executive Branch to spend money it has appropriated.  Congress simply does not have that right.

No, it's not.  Because Congress had passed an act requiring the Postmaster to give the contractor the credit he sought.  As a result, the act of granting the credit - the same thing as spending federal money - was a ministerial act that the executive branch could not refuse to fulfill.

In other words, under Kendall, the Supreme Court directly held that Congress can, by suitable legislation, compel the executive to spend federal funds.

As the Court expressly stated, to hold otherwise would be to give the President the power of dispensation, to become a law unto himself regardless of what Congress may have lawfully enacted.

If Congress gives the president discretion, then yes, the president has the authority to withhold funds within the parameters of the discretion, but if Congress passes a law that says "The President shall spend $X on Activity Y", then then president has absolutely no discretion in the matter and must spend that money as directed by Congress.

To hold otherwise would be to give the President the power to do indirectly what the President cannot do directly.

The President's power over what is, and what is not, law is through the veto power - if the President does not want something to become law, then he can veto the act - however, the Constitution expressly provides that the president's veto can be overridden by Congress.  Thus, to then find some power to impound - just another emanation from auras and penumbrae - is to allow the president to nonetheless frustrate the enacted will of Congress through the simple expedient of refusing to spend money to carry out the commands of Congress as set out in duly enacted legislation.

To be perfectly honest, if one really believes that the emanations and penumbrae of the Constitution give the president a free-floating power of impoundment, then one is committed to the position that Biden was perfectly within his rights to refuse to enforce Congressionally enacted immigration law - after all, he was simply refusing to spend money to carry out that legislation, and this free-floating view of impoundment means that Biden was acting within his Constitutional authority.

[Hoodat]

Let's say the DoD signs a contract with Lockheed to supply it with 100 F-35s over the next ten years.  In that event, the contract must be honored.  It cannot be arbitrarily cancelled by the Executive Branch (unless there is specific language that allows suspension of the contract).  This was the basis of Kendall v. US.  But that contract issue is completely disconnected with the unconstitutionality of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.  This act is complete BS and has been roundly ignored for five decades now.  Remember all that border wall money Biden inherited?  Funny how the CBICA didn't apply to that.  Or that sexual harassment slush fund that Congress set up?  Money just sits there year after year from Congress to Congress without getting spent.  Go figure.  Or what about all those tens of billions set aside from the Inflation Reduction Act [sic]?  It's been two years, yet the Executive Branch is still sitting on that money.  So no, Congress cannot compel the Executive Branch to spend it.  All they can do is to appropriate (or un-appropriate) it.  They do not control the Treasury.  They can only fill it.

[Kamaji]

Let's say the DoD signs a contract with Lockheed to supply it with 100 F-35s over the next ten years.  In that event, the contract must be honored.  It cannot be arbitrarily cancelled by the Executive Branch (unless there is specific language that allows suspension of the contract).  This was the basis of Kendall v. US.  But that contract issue is completely disconnected with the unconstitutionality of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.  This act is complete BS and has been roundly ignored for five decades now.  Remember all that border wall money Biden inherited?  Funny how the CBICA didn't apply to that.  Or that sexual harassment slush fund that Congress set up?  Money just sits there year after year from Congress to Congress without getting spent.  Go figure.  Or what about all those tens of billions set aside from the Inflation Reduction Act [sic]?  It's been two years, yet the Executive Branch is still sitting on that money.  So no, Congress cannot compel the Executive Branch to spend it.  All they can do is to appropriate (or un-appropriate) it.  They do not control the Treasury.  They can only fill it.

You can put as much lipstick as you want on that pig, but it won't change the fact that if Congress mandates an expenditure, the president cannot refuse to comply - to refuse to comply would be to violate his oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

Impoundment is not a Constitutional power of the president.  Discretion to spend under Congressional enactments that grant such discretion does exist, but again, that is a creature of Congressional intent.

To believe otherwise is to grant the President the power to override a Congressional override of the president's veto through the simple expedient of refusing to spend money to conduct the activity the president disagrees with.

As a result, exponents of the impoundment power are necessarily committed to the position that Biden was acting lawfully when he refused to enforce Congressionally enacted immigration law, because that entailed a refusal to spend money on an action - enforcement of immigration law - that Biden disagreed with.

That is not constitutional.  The president cannot end-run the will of Congress by selectively choosing not to spend money here and there simply to frustrate the duly enacted will of Congress.

[Hoodat]

No, it's not.  Because Congress had passed an act requiring the Postmaster to give the contractor the credit he sought.

Per the contract.

As a result, the act of granting the credit - the same thing as spending federal money - was a ministerial act that the executive branch could not refuse to fulfill.

Because they had a contractual obligation.  Per Justice Thompson:

This case was brought before the Court below by petition setting out certain contracts made between the relators and the late Postmaster General upon which they claimed certain credits and allowances upon their contracts for the transportation of the mail.

In other words, under Kendall, the Supreme Court directly held that Congress can, by suitable legislation, compel the executive to spend federal funds.

No, it was the contract that compelled them to spend the funds.

As the Court expressly stated, to hold otherwise would be to give the President the power of dispensation, to become a law unto himself regardless of what Congress may have lawfully enacted.

In regards to contract law.

If Congress gives the president discretion, then yes, the president has the authority to withhold funds within the parameters of the discretion

Uh, no.  Congress does not get to decide what powers a President may have.  The President alone is in charge of the Executive Branch.  The legislature cannot hold the executive branch criminally liable for not enforcing the law.  Remember all those times you passed a police car with radar out and you notice you were going about 10 mph over the speed limit, yet the cop chose not to enforce the speed limit law enacted by the state legislature?  It's a good thing that the legislature cannot compel the executive branch to enforce the law.

The President's power over what is, and what is not, law is through the veto power -

Article II, Section 1 - The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Key phrase - Executive Power.  It doesn't say it shall be vested in Congress, does it?  The President has executive power.  The President runs the Executive Branch.  Not Congress.

[Hoodat]

You can put as much lipstick as you want on that pig, but it won't change the fact that if Congress mandates an expenditure, the president cannot refuse to comply - to refuse to comply would be to violate his oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

The law to be faithfully executed in this case was contract law.

Impoundment is not a Constitutional power of the president.

Who said anything about impoundment?  This is simply a matter of having money left over in the Treasury at the end of the year.  It happens all the time.  Let's say the Agriculture Department sets aside X amount of food stamps for 1 million people.  Yet at the end of the year, only 800,000 people collected food stamps.  Does this mean we should lock up the President because his Ag secretary didn't spend all the money that Congress appropriated?  Don't be ridiculous.

Discretion to spend under Congressional enactments that grant such discretion does exist, but again, that is a creature of Congressional intent.

Again, Presidential power does not come from Congress.

To believe otherwise is to grant the President the power to override a Congressional override of the president's veto through the simple expedient of refusing to spend money to conduct the activity the president disagrees with.

This has nothing to do with veto power.  Stop confusing the two.

That is not constitutional.  The president cannot end-run the will of Congress by selectively choosing not to spend money here and there simply to frustrate the duly enacted will of Congress.

Show me the wording in the Constitution where it says Executive power comes from Congress.

[Bigun]

Let's say the DoD signs a contract with Lockheed to supply it with 100 F-35s over the next ten years.  In that event, the contract must be honored.  It cannot be arbitrarily cancelled by the Executive Branch (unless there is specific language that allows suspension of the contract).  This was the basis of Kendall v. US.  But that contract issue is completely disconnected with the unconstitutionality of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.  This act is complete BS and has been roundly ignored for five decades now.  Remember all that border wall money Biden inherited?  Funny how the CBICA didn't apply to that.  Or that sexual harassment slush fund that Congress set up?  Money just sits there year after year from Congress to Congress without getting spent.  Go figure.  Or what about all those tens of billions set aside from the Inflation Reduction Act [sic]?  It's been two years, yet the Executive Branch is still sitting on that money.  So no, Congress cannot compel the Executive Branch to spend it.  All they can do is to appropriate (or un-appropriate) it.  They do not control the Treasury.  They can only fill it.

Getting down to brass tacks,  NO congress can bind a new congress to anything so ten year contracts should not ever be  in play.

[bilo]

Not much of a Supreme Court battle on that one.  The Executive Branch has been sitting on EPA Superfund money for decades, refusing to spend it.  And Congress hasn't done squat.

If Congress wants to take the President to court over this, good luck.  But neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can compel the Executive Branch to spend money.

It seems to me that the SCOTUS would look at this and say in effect, "Congress has the power to impeach" if you're not happy do that.

[Bigun]

It seems to me that the SCOTUS would look at this and say in effect, "Congress has the power to impeach" if you're not happy do that.

Our constitution empowers the federal government to do exactly seventeen things and no more. If congress appropriates money to be used for things not authorized he has a duty to veto that appropriation until the thing(s) not authorized are removed.

[Fishrrman]

Kamaji wrote above:
"In other words, under Kendall, the Supreme Court directly held that Congress can, by suitable legislation, compel the executive to spend federal funds."

Might be time for an expedited push into the Supreme Court once again.

If they could overturn Roe and overturn Chevron... ?

[Smokin Joe]

No, it's not.  Because Congress had passed an act requiring the Postmaster to give the contractor the credit he sought.  As a result, the act of granting the credit - the same thing as spending federal money - was a ministerial act that the executive branch could not refuse to fulfill.

In other words, under Kendall, the Supreme Court directly held that Congress can, by suitable legislation, compel the executive to spend federal funds.

As the Court expressly stated, to hold otherwise would be to give the President the power of dispensation, to become a law unto himself regardless of what Congress may have lawfully enacted.

If Congress gives the president discretion, then yes, the president has the authority to withhold funds within the parameters of the discretion, but if Congress passes a law that says "The President shall spend $X on Activity Y", then then president has absolutely no discretion in the matter and must spend that money as directed by Congress.

To hold otherwise would be to give the President the power to do indirectly what the President cannot do directly.

The President's power over what is, and what is not, law is through the veto power - if the President does not want something to become law, then he can veto the act - however, the Constitution expressly provides that the president's veto can be overridden by Congress.  Thus, to then find some power to impound - just another emanation from auras and penumbrae - is to allow the president to nonetheless frustrate the enacted will of Congress through the simple expedient of refusing to spend money to carry out the commands of Congress as set out in duly enacted legislation.

To be perfectly honest, if one really believes that the emanations and penumbrae of the Constitution give the president a free-floating power of impoundment, then one is committed to the position that Biden was perfectly within his rights to refuse to enforce Congressionally enacted immigration law - after all, he was simply refusing to spend money to carry out that legislation, and this free-floating view of impoundment means that Biden was acting within his Constitutional authority.

If we are going to talk about Biden and Federal Funding, how about the millions of dollars diverted from Emergency relief funds at FEMA to spend mollycoddling illegals the administration let in by not enforcing immigration law.

If that can get a pass, surely diverting EPA funding to prevent trails of trash left by invading 'migrants' (illegals) through the construction of a border barrier would not be out of the question, and would actually do something to mitigate the stated problem.

[Kamaji]

Wow.  And you people whinge and moan when liberals find a right to abortion in penumbras and shadows, and yet here y’all are doing exactly the same thing, throwing out the Constitution because you don’t like the results. 

Two sides of the same corrupt coin.

[Hoodat]

Wow.  And you people whinge and moan when liberals find a right to abortion in penumbras and shadows, and yet here y’all are doing exactly the same thing, throwing out the Constitution because you don’t like the results. 

Two sides of the same corrupt coin.

Horseshit.  But if you wish to compare, you will find that you are as likely to find a right to abortion in the Constitution as you are to find a right of Congress to wield Executive power.  Neither one exists.  And it isn't a matter of whether I like it or not.  It's a matter of what the Constitution says.

[verga]

This is way to technical for me. I am going to sit here quietly and try to learn something.

[DefiantMassRINO]

So, let it go to the Supreme Court.

Dems will sue over anything and everything Trump attempts.  There's no way to avoid it.

Legislate, revoke previous Presidents' Executive Orders (which are not proper laws), and if necessary. Trump can go to town issuing his own Executive Orders.

Presume it's legal until the Supreme Court says it isn't.  In the meantime, have Admin lawyers identify ways to weasel around any court stays or injunctions.

The Biden Administration was completely lawless.

Let's stop pretending the Federal Government is acting as a functional Republic.

It's been a dictatorship since Congress decided to subordinate itself to the Executive since Bush '43. 

Congress became more dictatorial during the first Obama Administration under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

It was also during the Obama Administration that Executive Orders took the place of proper laws.

Until Congress can pass a budget on time, it's members are just Soylent Green fodder.

[Hoodat]

This is way to technical for me. I am going to sit here quietly and try to learn something.

There's not much to it.

US CONSTITUTION

Article II, Section 1

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

The Legislative branch fills the US Treasury.  The Executive Branch empties it.