President Trump moved aggressively to block the government in paying the funds permitted by Congress for a number of programs and potentially confiscate the power of the legislative branch to keep a larger word in public expenditure.
Although the White House cast a step as freezing This would allow him to check the expenses to make sure it was not contrary to Mr. Trump’s political priorities, this step triggered chaos and uncertainty for the huge lines of the federal government at home and abroad.
It also seems that the seeds of the potential struggle of the Supreme Court on how much power the president must refuse to spend the money that the congress appropriated, and the tactics that the legislators have sharply limited under President Richard Nixon.
Here is a closer look.
What did Trump did?
In his first week in office, Mr. Trump banned expenditures on certain initiatives whose mission disagreed, including programs including “diversity, justice and integration” and financing to non -governmental organizations believed to undermine national interest. Also ordered 90 -day freezing For all expenditures on foreign assistance for review for any conflicts with its priorities and exceptions from military assistance Israel and Egypt.
This freezing has threatened a wide range of congress -justified assistance, such as military assistance to Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion and helps pay the salaries of the Kurdish militia that monitors the detention of the Islamic State in northeast Syria and Distribution of drugs against HIV in Africa and developing countries.
At the beginning of his second week, Mr. Trump signaled escalation. Monday, White House, in the noteHe ordered temporarily to stop “all federal financial assistance” such as loans and grants at home. While Social Security and Medicare have been liberated, the memorandum reported Up to $ 3 trillion in government programs and activities.
If freezing was a permanent program that approved the Congress, but the White House does not like, it could initiate a court struggle for constitutionality of “seizure”.
What is the tank?
It is an act of the president who detains or delays the expenses of the funds that Congress has appropriated the payment of the Federal Government.
Although the routine for a powerful branch to hold back some legitimate expenses, if it is able to come under the budget and still meet the goal of the congress, the practice becomes questionable when the president refuses to spend the money that Congress has appropriated for the program because .
Congress essentially forbade presidents unilaterally entertain funds in the 1974 law. But during the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump, in the video On the campaign website, he committed himself to restore strength to “press inflated federal bureaucracy for huge savings”.
What would it mean for the presidential power?
The seizure would transfer power from the congress to the presidency.
The founders invented the department of powers to prevent each branch from accumulating too much authority and represent a threat to freedom. The central point is to check the congress over decisions on taxation and expenditure – its strength of the wallet.
In federalist papers, James Madison wrote that this force was the “most complete and effective and more efficient weapon” for elected legislators.
However, supporters of the concentration of greater power in the Presidency argue that the Constitution gives the President the power to decide not to perform specific provisions on the expenditure written by Congress in the law. It is said that the phrase “The President will make sure that the laws are faithfully performed” should be interpreted to allow it.
What should a tank for cuts be cut?
The seizure would facilitate the limitation of federal expenditure.
In the era of persistent budget deficits and growing federal debt, people who think that the government spends too many frustrated records of congress and sought ways to expand presidential power to cancel some decisions on the expenditure of legislators.
For example, in 1996, Congress passed a law that would allow the chairmen to veto specific line items in spending accounts rather than having to accept or veto the entire legislative package. But the Supreme Court struck this law as unconstitutional.
Security would be another way to basically do the same thing – if it is legal.
Is seizure statutory?
Not according to the current federal law with narrow exceptions.
There are rare examples of presidents of seized funds for certain programs dating back to the early 19th century. However, this practice became more common during the 20th century, especially with huge expenditures during the Cold War era for weapons and disputes between presidents and congress that you can buy.
Practice has reached a peak under Nixon, which confiscated billions of lawmakers highway expenditure and Control of pollution. In response to Congress in 1974, he tried to restore his power of his wallet by adopting a law called the Act on Control.
The status banned the ability of presidents unilaterally cancel the decision to finance congress. Instead, he set a close procedure by which the presidents could submit the proposed cuts for approval. Without it, the funds had to be spent.
What is Trump’s intention?
The administration pushed back against the horrified reactions to its freezing. An official for a higher administration questioned that the stop was “seized” and portrayed it only as a temporary break until a review was made. The financing of programs that are not contrary to the administration policies can restore, added the clerk.
However, this does not solve what happens to the funds for the programs that the administration determines is out of step with its priorities. Trump’s campaign said explicitly that the president intended to question the constitutionality of the 1974 Act, which limits the power of the presidential seizure.
The campaign said it plans to direct the agencies “on day 1” to “identify parts of their budgets where huge savings are possible through seizure strength”. And in the accompanying video Mr. Trump said, “When I return to the White House, I will do everything in his strength to challenge the law on the control of the reservoir in court, and, if necessary, to get Congress to overturn it.”