"Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government."
But you said
"The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money."
Explain
and
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
Says tax and appropriate.
Constitution supersedes what the website says, I'm not sure why the website later misquoted it, but thanks for pointing it out.
At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time.
If a law violates the 10th amendment then it should be challenged in court. The president doesn't decide what is constitutional the courts do.
If you want a king, just say so.
You might think giving one branch all the power to make sure the constitution is not violated might lead to a situation where it’s never violated, but what actually happens is the powers become unbalanced and the executive is free to violate the constitution at will.
The legislature is bound not to create unconstitutional laws. If the law does pass, the executive is bound not to execute it. If the law is executed, the court is bound to strike it (you can argue the court is also bound to strike it even if it's not executed, but Knife Rights v Garland for example found there is at least in that case no standing to challenge a non-executed law).
It's not that one branch has all the power so much as each branch has veto power to stop the unconstitutional law from actually coming into effect. The power to actually do something takes all 3 branches but the power to stop something only takes one. Even the founders understood this -- Jefferson helped block the Sedition Act and actively encouraged states to nullify and avert its enforcement. Obama and later presidents stopped the enforcement of many prohibitions on recreational intrastate commerce of marijuana, a blatantly unconstitutional federal law, which nonetheless still stands (enforcement of medical marijuana is defunded but not recreational). These increased our compliance with the constitution, without creating dictators.
I agree the legislature is bound to not create unconstitutional laws, but the sole power the executive has under the Constitution as to the constitutionality of laws is his veto power, which was intentionally limited by the Framers:
“But it is to be remembered that this qualified negative is in no respect a violation of the rule which declares that the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress. It is not a transfer of the power of legislation to the Executive, because it does not enable him to do any thing more than to suspend the passage of a law, and is a mere check upon the legislative body, by subjecting their resolutions to revision and consideration. The power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and this alone would furnish a complete answer to the objection, if any could be supposed to exist. But the principal answer is, that the veto is not absolute, and that it may be overcome by two-thirds of both Houses.” - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 73
> Even the founders understood this -- Jefferson helped block the Sedition Act and actively encouraged states to nullify and avert its enforcement.
The Sedition Act expired as soon as he entered office, so I'm not sure how you figure he "blocked" it in any sense. Whatever Jefferson had to say about the sedition act was his right, but he didn't use any unconstitutional powers to work against it.
> Obama and later presidents stopped the enforcement of many prohibitions on recreational intrastate commerce of marijuana, a blatantly unconstitutional federal law, which nonetheless still stands (enforcement of medical marijuana is defunded but not recreational).
The scope of POTUS' power over the DOJ is circumscribed by Congress; Article II gives the President general executive power, but the specific scope of prosecutorial discretion is grounded in statutory law -- whatever discretion he has over prosecutions is granted by Congress. You concede that POTUS have not stopped enforcement of the law entirely, which would be unconstitutional; but they have used persecutorial discretion to focus resources, which is constitutional.
Veto prevents the law from going on the books.
Unconstitutional 'veto' doesn't stop future administrations, it's much softer and merely reflects the president following his oath, but allows people to elect another executive who could then enforce the law. That is, veto power is for stopping constitutional or constitutional laws from going on the books. Refusing to execute doesn't strike from the books but allows execution of oath to follow the constitution.
Of course, I'm not sure your point about president not acting on good faith and thus refusing to execute constitutional laws -- in that case he could be impeached but if not it's a sign the whole system has broken down as at that point at least 2 of the 3 branches of government no longer respect the constitution.
>The Sedition Act expired as soon as he entered office, so I'm not sure how you figure he "blocked" it in any sense. Whatever Jefferson had to say about the sedition act was his right, but he didn't use any unconstitutional powers to work against it.
You're right that his time in office didn't actually block it, although Jefferson made clear that he believed the executive had the power to stop enforcing it, and had encouraged states to nullify it before he even took office and before it expired. I'll concede here the argument he personally was the one that blocked it was weak, although it clearly shows a founders take that the constitution permits the executive to follow the constitution instead of an unconstitutional legislation.
>You concede that POTUS have not stopped enforcement of the law entirely, which would be unconstitutional; but they have used persecutorial discretion to focus resources, which is constitutional.
If you prefer, you can switch to the Switchblade Act , which the federal courts have absolutely and unequivocally ruled has had the enforcement of the law "stopped entirely" (albeit in very twisted logic, they didn't count seizures that were then returned) for 10 years (Knife Rights v Garland). In fact the courts in that case basically found you couldn't even challenge a law that had been unenforced by the executive in 10 years, as they basically considered it as no one having standing as it basically doesn't exist as something jeopardizing anyone. Of course the main reason to challenge it is because it's unconstitutional (violates 2nd amendment) in the first place (thankfully executive took care of this before it went to courts, though would be nice if they'd double tap on it)!
I would think if the courts agreed with you, and the executive did have to enforce the laws, they couldn't have argued there is no standing to challenge the Switchblade Act, since the executive was bound to enforce it. The fact you can't challenge a law the executive has chosen not to enforce would seem to presume the courts have decided that the lack of standing stands on a legitimate machination of government, else it would be an absolutely preposterous premise that you won't be in jeopardy.
Where is this stated in the constitution?
That is, the constitution limits POTUS powers to ones explicitly given. If the law exceeds it, he cannot implement it, regardless of the opinion of the judiciary or congress. This is bound on all 3 branches, and due to the design of the constitution it only takes one branch blocking a law to stop it.
Now, you state we need to challenge laws before the president can stop enforce them. Riddle me this, why is it the federal courts won't even let you challenge the federal Switchblade Act, because they state no standing as it hasn't been enforced (by their definition) in over 10 years (Knife Rights v Garland) []. How could what you say possibly be true if the law isn't even allowed to be challenged? If what you said was true, and POTUS had to enforce the law, then there would always be standing by the people jeopardized by it to challenge it. The courts wont even let you do what you've asked.
[] https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/court-opines-feds...
If a court says a law is constitutional then it's considered constitutional when deciding whether to enforce the law.
It doesn't matter if you or the president disagrees. The courts opinion is what matters
Courts can be overruled by a higher court or Years later the Supreme Court can change their mind and issue a new ruling.
What matter is the current opinion of highest court to offer one about a particular law.
Nowhere in the constitution would it give him the ability to ignore the constitution if the other 2 branches violate it. You are inventing new dictatorial rights for POTUS.
No. Because the law would be constitutional since the Supreme Court said it is
You keep trying to argue that the president determines what is constitutional but the courts do. It doesn't matter what the president thinks is constitutional
If the president was bound to enforce the law, how could the court possibly argue the constitutionality can't be considered because no one is in jeopardy?
The court basically decided you can't even challenge the Switchblade Act on 2A constitutional grounds because it's already been nullified by the executive as it's not been enforced in 10 years[].
Nullification of execution/enforcement was something even the founders (Thomas Jefferson) considers legitimate application of the constitution in regards to the unconstitutional Sedition Act.
[] https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/court-opines-feds...
The court's opinion is lack of standing due to lack of harm because the law wasn't enforced and unlikely enforced. They can have this opinion even if the law is supposed to be enforced.
A requirement isn't invalid because it's not always followed.
You've made up your mind the president has to violate the constitution, you've nulled and voided the document, there is no further discussion needed.
It says there's no standing, not be because the law is _unenforced_, but because plaintiff hasn't suffered any perjury _from enforcement_ (which is ofc bc the law isn't enforced, but that's besides the point).
False, they say exactly that
...As a result, Plaintiffs contend they reasonably fear that Defendants will continue to enforce the Federal Knife Ban against them.”10 The evidence presented by Defendants show there are only records of four enforcement actions in the county under the Act since 2004 and it has not been enforced since Plaintiffs do not counter this factual assertion. Accordingly, the threat of prosecution under Section 1242 “is therefore a mere hypothetical dispute lacking the concreteness and imminence required by Article III.
...it has not been enforced since at least 2004—the farthest back that systematic data is available.26 As a result, Plaintiffs plainly lack standing when they fail to provide evidence that the statutory provision has ever been enforced against them or regularly enforced against others.
I said what laws are constitutional not "what is the constitution".
I was very specific and my argument was not long so can you explain what I said, by quoting me, that implied the courts decide the contents of the Constitution?
>The president has a duty to ignore any unconstitutional court ruling, as his oath requires.
The Constitution states “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties…”
The president's oath is to uphold the Constitution. Therefore by ignoring court rulings he's not upholding the constitution
Ignoring court rulings requiring him to violate the constitution, is something he's required to do, under his oath which constrains his authority to a narrowly defined scope.
Where does it say this?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
This is plainly untrue, as the constitutionality of these appropriations can only be established by a court. Bills signed into law are presumed constitutional and valid until an Article III officer decides otherwise. The system is: Congress writes the law, funds the law. President signs the law, executes the law. Court interprets the law, invalidates the law. You can't have the POTUS sign, execute, interpret, and invalidate laws.
Separation of powers is what made the government work. Right now the Article II branch is the one who usurped power, the Congress and SCOTUS abdicated power, and it's causing the government to fail at all levels. If you give the executive the power you want it to have, the entire thesis of the Constitution crumbles (as we are witnessing), so quoting it at this point is futile and meaningless until balance of power is restored.
Right now, what would happen if what you said is true, is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient. That's not how to run a constitutional republic. It's certainly descriptive of another form of government, but here you were quoting the Constitution.
> At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time.
You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence.
see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45388993 as to why it takes all three branches agreeing on the constitutionality of a law for it actually to be put in effect and why that doesn't create the kind of dictatorship you're envisioning.
>is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient.
POTUS is bound by constitution, even if SCOTUS thinks following the constitution is unconstitutional. This doesn't create an unchecked executive -- the legislature can also check the executive by impeaching him if he violates the constitution.
>You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence.
Yes exactly, it was circa the 30s when the apparatus of the state really cranked up to exceed the constitutional constraints of the federal government. The courts would create a more lasting correction to the problem, but that doesn't mean POTUS isn't also bound to stop executing all the unconstitutional laws. A lot of this stems from fraudulent portrayal of intrastate commerce as interstate commerce, which means a great deal of the actions of DEA, ATF, FDA, EPA, etc cannot legally be funded nor most of the wildly unconstitutional provisions of the cherished tyrannical civil rights act.
The impeachment clause is for high crimes and misdemeanors and is supposed to be an extraordinary procedure that takes an immense amount of time. It's not realistic to rely on it to prevent a President from selectively enforcing or ignoring laws on a day-to-day basis, especially considering it has never been successfully used to remove any president from office even in the case where Trump used his office to extort a bribe.
Anyway here's what James Madison had to say about your proposal in Federalst 47:
"No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self–appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, which the argument supposes, it would be the very worst of all possible governments."
See, this is the problem with giving a single person the power to decide which laws to implement. You've made sweeping statements about "fraudulent" portrayals and the government exceeding constitutional authority, but these are just your own conclusory assertions. It's not clear that any constitutional constraints were actually violated, that portrayals of intrastate commerce were fraudulent, or that agencies like the DEA, FDA, etc. cannot legally be funded. These claims are unsupported, in fact they are anti-supported by decades of judicial review. Given your position, the President could just decide to shut down those agencies just on the flimsy basis you have provided. That's not how the system works.
I and others have realized that, despite your frequent appeals to the Constitution and the Framers, you do not appear to genuinely support the idea of a constitutional republic. Instead, you seem comfortable with a king-like authority, a single individual wielding absolute control over the government. That's a legitimate position, but you should be upfront about it rather than twisting the Constitution to fit your ideology. You're never going to squeeze a dictator-shaped peg into a constitution-sized hole -- doing so destroys the constitutional order.
If a president wants to permanently withhold funds then they must ask Congress for a "rescission"(request to cancel the funds) within 45 days~~\
This was created because Nixon withheld funds from programs he didn't support.[1]
This law was challenged in a 1975 court case, Train v NYC, which the Supreme Court upheld the law and stated the full amount appropriated must be spent
>The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect.
>Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance.
>the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending
The president must sign spending bills and while he may be overridden with a veto that's the check and balance.
We're going in circles, I already addressed this.
>The president must sign spending bills and while he may be overridden with a veto that's the check and balance.
That's a check and balance.
The Constitution says the president has a duty to execute the laws.
Where does it say he doesn't have to if it violates the Constitution?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
2. You pasted the 10th amendment - This says the federal government has the powers specified by the constitution and any power not mentioned are for the states unless prohibited
3. Then I asked you how this related to the president not enforcing laws he believes are unconstitutional and you said "If the "United States [government]" doesn't have the power, POTUS in his official capacity doesn't."
What power?