No, it’s not “quite clear” as the link provided described.
Any impoundment authority and how it has been curtailed is purely a political solution, not a constitutional one.
If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.
And while the President is mandated to execute the law you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law. USAID “to further the mission of the US in foreign countries” would give the President a lot of latitude in how that money is spent. A lot.
Then layer on the immense agency structure written all through “interpretation” of the law that the agencies no longer can rely on Chevron to defend and things get really interesting.
And while the Supreme Court did rule on Empoundment law curtailing Nixon, it did not rule specifically on the constitutionality of it and a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon.
So please don’t respond with “doesnt have the constitutional authority” when that is most definitely not the case.
Any impoundment authority and how it has been curtailed is purely a political solution, not a constitutional one.
If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.
And while the President is mandated to execute the law you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law. USAID “to further the mission of the US in foreign countries” would give the President a lot of latitude in how that money is spent. A lot.
Then layer on the immense agency structure written all through “interpretation” of the law that the agencies no longer can rely on Chevron to defend and things get really interesting.
And while the Supreme Court did rule on Empoundment law curtailing Nixon, it did not rule specifically on the constitutionality of it and a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon.
So please don’t respond with “doesnt have the constitutional authority” when that is most definitely not the case.