"By striking down or narrowing the ICA, the Court can restore the proper balance of powers, ensuring the president can execute laws faithfully while respecting Congress’s appropriations authority."
Many thanks to Linda Denno for this thorough, rational and timely post. I learned a lot from it and will read it again more than once. I was particularly struck by her reading of the phrase "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That opened a few new doors for me.
(President Biden took no such care, which is one reason we are in the fix we are in.)
Of course, there is reason to fear that the Supreme Court will fail to follow her analysis and will fail to do the right thing. That would create yet another "political question."
For example, what if Congress repeals the obnoxious act?
I'm supportive of the actions to slow down spending and eliminate fraud and abusive expenditures that fund left-wing organizations.
That said, why wait for a Supreme court decision? As Max points out, why not have Congress repeal the legislation? Likewise, why not quickly follow up DOGE recommendations with recession packages for Congress to vote on?
Both of these actions would force wobbly GOP congressman to take a stand against this spending. Last I checked, GOPe were traditional "low taxes, cut spending" types, so why would they ever let TDS get in the way of their political philosophy.
Voting against either of these actions would identify where primary challenges should be fielded and provide on the record votes of Democrat Senators for more "waste, fraud and abuse" that could be used in 2026.
Well argued Linda. I hope that the Supreme Court takes up the case as a constitutional assessment of the differentiation of the perogitives the Executive vis-a-vis Congress. Their interpretation would likely be binding for generations. It would be difficult for Justice Roberts to sidestep (in the interest of the court) the making a choice: Executive or Congress.
That it does. Sad to say the need of certain justices' kids to get into the right schools may outweigh that precedent when the time comes to write the opinion.
Excellent analysis. Note that not judge nor Congress can enjoin the President when conducting his duties as Commander in Chief. All the district court judges who have stayed the president as he attempts to defend the nation should be disciplined by the judiciary even if Congress is too dysfunctional to properly impeach them. John Roberts erodes the power of the Court by sitting on his hands.
It seems to me, a person with no knowledge of law, that a president can, and should, enforce congressional intent in spending by withholding funds if the actual spending does not match the stated purpose - and that doing so complies with ICA etc .
For example, at least as far as I know, congress has never given the president a mandate to set up an international aid organization funding DIE initiatives in communist countries.. or to hire IT contractors to write procedure manuals for 60 year old IBM 370 programs that haven't been used for 35 years.
So wouldn't the group appealing spending cuts to office X/program Y first have to prove that the all of the expenditures fully matched congressional intent? (If so, my bet is none could do it.)
Minor quibble, but GAO (Govt Accounting Office) may officially be considered a legislative agency, as part of Congress, and not in the Xe utice Branch. That should not at all lessent hw correctness and calidity of Linda's arfuments.
"It the first place, the current understanding of presidential power must be understood within the context of the Watergate scandal (itself likely precipitated by Nixon’s attempt to rein in the bureaucracy), which resulted in a number of “reforms” that impeded or restrained the exercise of presidential power. These included such wide-ranging legislation as the War Powers Act, the Federal Elections Campaign Act, and the aforementioned Budget Impoundment and Control Act."
We talk about how gutted Civics education has become in our time, but I have wondered why Nixon didn't veto that ICA when they passed it? Even if Congress overrode his veto, there was still a Constitutionality challenge available.
The President cannot spend money which he doesn't have. That's what Congressional appropriation is for. But that is not at all the same as compelling the Executive to spend all the money given to him. To have allowed Congress to create executive departments, and then shield the executive from managing them even while Congress declines manage them either - how could that law have passed Constitutional muster back in Nixon's era?
I have a question. Is there Anything Donald Trump could do, does, doesn't do, that Our Better could not find fault with?
Has anyone in the MSM written anything favorable about Trump in the past 8 years?
Show your work.
There have been studies down that show 92% of stories in Corporate Media about Trump are negative.
MRC
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2025/04/28/tv-news-assaults-2nd-trump-admin-92-negative-coverage
Very well written arguments!
"By striking down or narrowing the ICA, the Court can restore the proper balance of powers, ensuring the president can execute laws faithfully while respecting Congress’s appropriations authority."
Many thanks to Linda Denno for this thorough, rational and timely post. I learned a lot from it and will read it again more than once. I was particularly struck by her reading of the phrase "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That opened a few new doors for me.
(President Biden took no such care, which is one reason we are in the fix we are in.)
Of course, there is reason to fear that the Supreme Court will fail to follow her analysis and will fail to do the right thing. That would create yet another "political question."
For example, what if Congress repeals the obnoxious act?
I'm supportive of the actions to slow down spending and eliminate fraud and abusive expenditures that fund left-wing organizations.
That said, why wait for a Supreme court decision? As Max points out, why not have Congress repeal the legislation? Likewise, why not quickly follow up DOGE recommendations with recession packages for Congress to vote on?
Both of these actions would force wobbly GOP congressman to take a stand against this spending. Last I checked, GOPe were traditional "low taxes, cut spending" types, so why would they ever let TDS get in the way of their political philosophy.
Voting against either of these actions would identify where primary challenges should be fielded and provide on the record votes of Democrat Senators for more "waste, fraud and abuse" that could be used in 2026.
Well argued Linda. I hope that the Supreme Court takes up the case as a constitutional assessment of the differentiation of the perogitives the Executive vis-a-vis Congress. Their interpretation would likely be binding for generations. It would be difficult for Justice Roberts to sidestep (in the interest of the court) the making a choice: Executive or Congress.
"Historical precedent certainly supports presidential impoundment authority."
That it does. Sad to say the need of certain justices' kids to get into the right schools may outweigh that precedent when the time comes to write the opinion.
So there, Jon.
Seriously, I very much enjoyed this.
Excellent analysis. Note that not judge nor Congress can enjoin the President when conducting his duties as Commander in Chief. All the district court judges who have stayed the president as he attempts to defend the nation should be disciplined by the judiciary even if Congress is too dysfunctional to properly impeach them. John Roberts erodes the power of the Court by sitting on his hands.
It seems to me, a person with no knowledge of law, that a president can, and should, enforce congressional intent in spending by withholding funds if the actual spending does not match the stated purpose - and that doing so complies with ICA etc .
For example, at least as far as I know, congress has never given the president a mandate to set up an international aid organization funding DIE initiatives in communist countries.. or to hire IT contractors to write procedure manuals for 60 year old IBM 370 programs that haven't been used for 35 years.
So wouldn't the group appealing spending cuts to office X/program Y first have to prove that the all of the expenditures fully matched congressional intent? (If so, my bet is none could do it.)
aargh typos -- Executive Branch, and validity of Linda's arguments.
Minor quibble, but GAO (Govt Accounting Office) may officially be considered a legislative agency, as part of Congress, and not in the Xe utice Branch. That should not at all lessent hw correctness and calidity of Linda's arfuments.
"It the first place, the current understanding of presidential power must be understood within the context of the Watergate scandal (itself likely precipitated by Nixon’s attempt to rein in the bureaucracy), which resulted in a number of “reforms” that impeded or restrained the exercise of presidential power. These included such wide-ranging legislation as the War Powers Act, the Federal Elections Campaign Act, and the aforementioned Budget Impoundment and Control Act."
May I Recommend
If Nixon Stayed
Richard Nixon Foundation
Podcast•5 episodes
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpPc8FImp3GGVhLQol_O-3ap2wj9PZtbY
We talk about how gutted Civics education has become in our time, but I have wondered why Nixon didn't veto that ICA when they passed it? Even if Congress overrode his veto, there was still a Constitutionality challenge available.
The President cannot spend money which he doesn't have. That's what Congressional appropriation is for. But that is not at all the same as compelling the Executive to spend all the money given to him. To have allowed Congress to create executive departments, and then shield the executive from managing them even while Congress declines manage them either - how could that law have passed Constitutional muster back in Nixon's era?
Yes. This would restore the historical check and balance that is needed.
So there l, Jon. More seriously, very well put. I am very much of mind that the President should be able to suspend any all all regulations..