By Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, March 8, 2025 - On Thursday, a second federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from pausing federal spending. Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the federal district court in Rhode Island issued his ruling Thursday in a 45-page opinion. He joins Judge Loren L. AliKhan, of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., who issued a similar ruling in a 39-page opinion last week. ....
.. when it comes to freezing domestic spending, the president’s problem isn’t the partisan affiliation of the jurists; it’s the Constitution’s bedrock separation of powers principle.
Congress decides by statute what the government will spend taxpayer money on. The president’s job is to carry out those decisions — to execute the laws faithfully. The president lacks impoundment power of the extravagant breadth the administration likes to imagine.
... In terms of nullifying policy, a president may undo previously issued executive orders and agency guidance memos — although even with respect to that, the Supreme Court ... has required compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. A president, however, has no authority to negate statutes by executive order.
If Trump wants spending to conform to his policy priorities, he can veto future budget bills that don’t do so ... the president has no power to “veto” that spending just because he disagrees with it.
... I’m not saying presidents have no impoundment power at all ... A president may refuse to spend funds if he can establish that such spending would violate the law. .... A president may also pause spending for a reasonable period of time to ensure its lawfulness, provided that doing so does not countermand Congress’s directions about when the funds should be expended.
... Beyond those narrow exceptions, the president cannot legitimately nullify spending Congress has enacted into law. When Congress writes a domestic spending law, it tends not to add the proviso “as long as expenditures are consistent with the president’s policy priorities.” That would get the Constitution exactly backward. The president takes an oath to carry out the laws, not rewrite them; and those laws predominantly reflect Congress’s priorities. (Read it all)
Rod's Comment: Please read the full article for an explanation of why a President cannot just refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. In the article, the nuances and case law are examined. Trump's refusal to spend money appropriated by Congress is clearly unconstitutional. There is a method to impound funds, but a procedure must be followed and that must involve Congress. It is astounding that most Republicans can now justify governing in violation of the Constitution. I am pleased that National Review remains committed to the principle it has espoused since its founding while so many other Republicans and conservative organizations have abandoned those sacred principles.
For more on this topic see the following:
Top Stories
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment