the answer should be obvious - a budget is an estimate based on information at the time not a mandate - so if the money doesn't need to be spent then it shouldn't
Don’t disagree … but … constitutionally, it does create some challenges. I think this just brings bulk bills with all the garbage in it to the end. That would be excellent. More Transparency and focused spending.
and I would guess that the budgets are mostly bulk - like last year plus 5% without any real specifics - I'm sure Buyden didn't specifically include a budget item for Stacy to receive $2 billion
Thank you for re-posting this. The opportunity to roll back the FDR overreach goes well beyond the 22nd Amendment. Unfortunately, the effect to limit presidential terms also fostered the ability for non-elected bureaucracy to thrive. Let's hope the Supremes have the spine to put balance back into government, and follow a textualist interpretation of our Constitution.
As a further note, for anyone who can get the WSJ, Kimberly Strasssel had a fantastic column in yesterday’s paper, Trump’s Constitutional Cleanup, was most excellent. They are purposefully pushing the envelope and fully expecting, if not hoping, for lawsuits and plan to take them all the way to the Supreme Court (like I’ve been saying here repeatedly). They believe they have enough Justices who would vote to radically overhaul the current system and restore the checks and balances to their original form. Does that mean deep sizing the entire administrative state? Probably not, but hey, a guy can dream, right?
I agree that the administrative state exists primarily because Congress has been too lazy or unwilling to do their job. What concerns me is the potential expansion of corporate power and what it means to the average American. The quick dissolution of the CFPB is alarming. Will the attack on a free and open internet resume and where will it end up? Are we headed to a corporate controlled America?
Very interesting and very well written. Thanks for posting.
In my opinion, the Chief Executive’s power to control his branch of government is the core question. Can the President refuse to spend money? A congressional budget is a budget. The laws are not generally written to say “the President shall spend…” What if Congress appropriates money for, say, a war and before it is spent the war is over. Would the President still be obligated to spend it on the war? Of course not.
What about Executive branch employees? If the President cannot fire them, then they are answerable to no one and that, inherently, offends the structure of the constitution which requires that the Executive branch and Congress are answerable to the people and leaves the judiciary as the only branch unanswerable to the voters.
Would congress tolerate being unable to hire and fire its employees? Assuredly not.
I think it’s clear that for the past four year the President and some very, very smart unnamed people planned to force all of these issues to the Supreme Court which now has its work cut out for it.
When I focused on constitutional law 35 years ago in law school, I was one of a very few who longed for the day that these issues would find their way to a court made up of the type of justices we have now. Let’s just say that even back then I was persona non grata for arguing that the entire administrative state is unconstitutional and violates the masterpiece that James Madison gave us.
PS - wish your friend good luck. What a time to be studying these issues!
Lots written about Chevron Deference but when you read the ruling in Loper Vs Bright, it points out that the Supreme Court hasn't applied it to their decisions since 2016. The ruling pointed out that the Circuit Courts were still using it, and said they shouldn't be. And in fact, when you read at least some of the laws, they DO instruct the agencies to produce detailed regulations and make determinations around limits for pollution and so forth. If the agencies didn't do it, we'd have to move people and money over to Congress to do it instead. That's fine and probably what should happen, but would definitely shift the power back to Congress, since the Agency heads currently report to......the President.
Agree. That was my surprise about the logic of NY v Clinton. It has to cut both ways and things like regulating CO2 because EPA decided they wanted to … seems like you need Congress for that. As for cuts - I like smaller bills with direct votes on spending. Less ear marks. More transparency.
I think the CO2 issue is really gonna rip the bandaid off a lot of programs. The EPA knows they're on shaky ground with that one. It's why they're focusing on methane right now. Fair is fair - those CO2 credits need to be looked at.
The most important one of his executive was eliminating the independence of federal agencies in a consolidation of power. Most of these agencies had directors that once appointed had very long terms to keep them independent of who was president.
Post office is one. The Fed is another. Trump is saying through executive order that their independence never existed and all of them report directly to him, allowing him to fire all of them and put his own people in place.
At some point SCOTUS is going to have to more tightly define its immunity clause for the president. Does he have the ability to ignore congress and redefine laws under his own view? Back to the line item veto. Can a president selectively choose what part of a congressional definition of an agency (including its independence) to accept vs ignore? Stay tuned.
the answer should be obvious - a budget is an estimate based on information at the time not a mandate - so if the money doesn't need to be spent then it shouldn't
Don’t disagree … but … constitutionally, it does create some challenges. I think this just brings bulk bills with all the garbage in it to the end. That would be excellent. More Transparency and focused spending.
and I would guess that the budgets are mostly bulk - like last year plus 5% without any real specifics - I'm sure Buyden didn't specifically include a budget item for Stacy to receive $2 billion
🤣
Mr. Blackmon,
Thank you for re-posting this. The opportunity to roll back the FDR overreach goes well beyond the 22nd Amendment. Unfortunately, the effect to limit presidential terms also fostered the ability for non-elected bureaucracy to thrive. Let's hope the Supremes have the spine to put balance back into government, and follow a textualist interpretation of our Constitution.
Hmmm. Perhaps the term limits should have applied to the entire executive branch...
Every four years, the entire bureaucracy must leave and reapply...
Wow, brilliant!
As a further note, for anyone who can get the WSJ, Kimberly Strasssel had a fantastic column in yesterday’s paper, Trump’s Constitutional Cleanup, was most excellent. They are purposefully pushing the envelope and fully expecting, if not hoping, for lawsuits and plan to take them all the way to the Supreme Court (like I’ve been saying here repeatedly). They believe they have enough Justices who would vote to radically overhaul the current system and restore the checks and balances to their original form. Does that mean deep sizing the entire administrative state? Probably not, but hey, a guy can dream, right?
I agree that the administrative state exists primarily because Congress has been too lazy or unwilling to do their job. What concerns me is the potential expansion of corporate power and what it means to the average American. The quick dissolution of the CFPB is alarming. Will the attack on a free and open internet resume and where will it end up? Are we headed to a corporate controlled America?
Very interesting and very well written. Thanks for posting.
In my opinion, the Chief Executive’s power to control his branch of government is the core question. Can the President refuse to spend money? A congressional budget is a budget. The laws are not generally written to say “the President shall spend…” What if Congress appropriates money for, say, a war and before it is spent the war is over. Would the President still be obligated to spend it on the war? Of course not.
What about Executive branch employees? If the President cannot fire them, then they are answerable to no one and that, inherently, offends the structure of the constitution which requires that the Executive branch and Congress are answerable to the people and leaves the judiciary as the only branch unanswerable to the voters.
Would congress tolerate being unable to hire and fire its employees? Assuredly not.
I think it’s clear that for the past four year the President and some very, very smart unnamed people planned to force all of these issues to the Supreme Court which now has its work cut out for it.
When I focused on constitutional law 35 years ago in law school, I was one of a very few who longed for the day that these issues would find their way to a court made up of the type of justices we have now. Let’s just say that even back then I was persona non grata for arguing that the entire administrative state is unconstitutional and violates the masterpiece that James Madison gave us.
PS - wish your friend good luck. What a time to be studying these issues!
[NITPICK]
Kind of difficult, in 2020, for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to decide not to retire under Obama.
Did you mean 2010?
[/NITPICK]
You are right. Died in 2020 in office … got replaced. Could have retired earlier under Obama until 2016.
Lots written about Chevron Deference but when you read the ruling in Loper Vs Bright, it points out that the Supreme Court hasn't applied it to their decisions since 2016. The ruling pointed out that the Circuit Courts were still using it, and said they shouldn't be. And in fact, when you read at least some of the laws, they DO instruct the agencies to produce detailed regulations and make determinations around limits for pollution and so forth. If the agencies didn't do it, we'd have to move people and money over to Congress to do it instead. That's fine and probably what should happen, but would definitely shift the power back to Congress, since the Agency heads currently report to......the President.
Agree. That was my surprise about the logic of NY v Clinton. It has to cut both ways and things like regulating CO2 because EPA decided they wanted to … seems like you need Congress for that. As for cuts - I like smaller bills with direct votes on spending. Less ear marks. More transparency.
I think the CO2 issue is really gonna rip the bandaid off a lot of programs. The EPA knows they're on shaky ground with that one. It's why they're focusing on methane right now. Fair is fair - those CO2 credits need to be looked at.
The most important one of his executive was eliminating the independence of federal agencies in a consolidation of power. Most of these agencies had directors that once appointed had very long terms to keep them independent of who was president.
Post office is one. The Fed is another. Trump is saying through executive order that their independence never existed and all of them report directly to him, allowing him to fire all of them and put his own people in place.
At some point SCOTUS is going to have to more tightly define its immunity clause for the president. Does he have the ability to ignore congress and redefine laws under his own view? Back to the line item veto. Can a president selectively choose what part of a congressional definition of an agency (including its independence) to accept vs ignore? Stay tuned.