Isabella Carter
The US Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, meaning that it has control over public funds and can approve or reject spending in the federal budget. This power is at the foundation of the constitutional order and separation of powers, acting as a check on executive power. The President is tasked with spending approved funds and cannot unilaterally decide not to spend money that Congress has provided. However, there have been instances of Presidents impounding funds, including Richard Nixon, who withheld funds for numerous programs approved by Congress, leading to the passing of the Congressional Budget and
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Who has the power of the purse? | Congress |
| Who can approve or reject a bill? | The President |
| Who can propose or concur with amendments? | The Senate |
| Who has the ability to tax and spend public money? | The House of Representatives |
| Who can override deferrals? | Congress |
| Who can approve recissions? | Congress |
| Who can enact, amend, or repeal statutes? | Congress |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The US Constitution's ''Appropriations Clause'
The Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution is part of Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, which states:
> "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
The Clause is a legislative check on the Executive Branch, and therefore on the exercise of federal authority. It requires an appropriation "made by law" before funds may leave the Treasury, with Congress being the branch empowered to authorise such disbursements. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to prohibit conduct that would result in disbursements of public funds for which an appropriation is lacking.
The Clause does not constrain Congress's ability to dictate the terms upon which it makes funds available. However, other provisions of the Constitution may. For example, in United States v. Lovett, the Court held that a limitation in an appropriations act that barred payment of compensation to three named federal employees was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, as it inflicted punishment without a judicial trial.
The Court has also recognised that Congress has wide discretion with regard to the extent to which it may prescribe details of expenditures for which it appropriates funds. This includes making "lump sum" appropriations, or general appropriations of large amounts to be allotted and expended as directed by designated government agencies.
The Constitution also specifies that the duration of appropriations for the "army" must be limited to two years (Article I, Section 8, Clause 12). From the First Congress, operating funds for federal agencies have usually been appropriated annually, but larger capital projects may have longer appropriation durations.
Democrats vs Republicans: Who Honors the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Congress's 'power of the purse'
The US Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, which is the ability to control the federal budget and spending. This power is derived from the Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7) and the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The Appropriations Clause states that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law", emphasising the role of Congress in authorising expenditures.
The power of the purse allows Congress to define the scope of federal power by specifying the activities and amounts of public funds to be spent. It serves as a check on executive power and ensures that federal agencies do not misspend funds. Congress can use this power to influence policy and control the actions of other branches of government by withholding or providing funding. For example, Congress can incentivise states to pass certain laws by offering financial incentives, as seen in the case of the drinking age legislation.
The House of Representatives, as the body closest to the people, plays a crucial role in the power of the purse. According to Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, the House "was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings." This power is further emphasised in the Constitution, which states that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives".
While Congress holds the power of the purse, the President also has a role in the budgeting process. The President submits a draft budget to Congress annually and is responsible for executing the approved budget. However, conflicts can arise when the President withholds or delays spending on Congress-approved programs, known as impoundment. This power has been used by presidents like Richard Nixon to effectively veto programs, leading to controversies and legal challenges.
To address coordination issues and power struggles between Congress and the President, various laws have been enacted, such as the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. These laws aim to balance the powers of both branches and ensure effective financial governance.
The Constitution's Legislative Branch: Framing and Function
You may want to see also
The President's 'Take Care Clause'
The Take Care Clause, also known as the Faithful Execution Clause or Faithfully Executed Clause, is a provision in Article Two of the United States Constitution that imposes a duty on the president to enforce the laws of the United States. The clause states that the president must "take Care that the laws be faithfully executed", which means that the president must ensure the execution of federal law, even if they disagree with the purpose of that law. This clause grants the president broad power over matters of foreign policy and provides support for their exclusive authority to grant recognition to foreign governments.
The Take Care Clause has been interpreted to mean that the president has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes. This interpretation has been supported by the Supreme Court and Attorneys General. The clause has played a central role in several constitutional disputes and debates regarding the scope of presidential power. For example, it has been discussed in relation to whether the president has the constitutional power to remove federal officers, with Presidents Andrew Johnson and William Clinton being impeached by the House for allegedly violating their Take Care Clause duties.
The Take Care Clause also has implications for the president's leadership in legislation. As the de facto head of their party, presidents often drive legislation and legislative agendas, particularly during the first months of their first term. This has led to a shift in the dynamic between the executive and legislative branches, with the executive increasingly withholding information from Congress, citing "executive privilege".
Additionally, the Take Care Clause has been invoked in discussions around the president's power to withhold or delay spending on programs authorized by Congress, known as impoundment. While Congress has the power of the purse under the Appropriations Clause, the Take Care Clause delegates to the president the task of spending approved funds. This has been a controversial issue, with critics arguing that the president can use impoundment powers to effectively veto programs by cutting off their funds.
Colonial Constitutions: Did Each Colony Draft Their Own?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$63.64 $66.99
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974
The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was enacted by Congress in 1974 in response to President Nixon's refusal to spend funds on numerous programs approved by Congress. The most noted example of a conflict over impoundment took place in the 1970s when President Nixon refused to spend funds on numerous programs approved by Congress. During public hearings on the matter in 1973, Nixon's critics said the president was using his impoundment powers to effectively veto programs by cutting off their funds. Congress itself is constitutionally obligated to provide funding necessary for the President to undertake Executive powers specifically granted in Article II.
The ICA provides the only legal mechanism for the President to delay or withhold funding, not cancel it. This law requires that the President notify Congress before delaying or withholding funds. That notification is called a "special message" and must contain information such as the reason for the impoundment along with the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effects. For some types of impoundments, there are only a few permissible reasons to delay or withhold funds. There are also limits on what types of funding may be impounded. For instance, the President may not withhold Social Security and Medicare funding. Impoundment is only legal when the President adheres to the procedures and limitations in the ICA.
Legislative recommendations include repeal of the requirement to report routine impoundments in the form of budgetary reserves, providing a means to reduce the 45-day period during which funds can be withheld pending rescission requests, requiring a statement of the exact duration of proposed partial-year deferrals, elimination of the 25-day waiting period before the Comptroller General can initiate legal proceedings to compel the release of impounded budget authority, and specifying when impoundments may be proposed after prior impoundments for the same program have been rejected by the Congress.
The Power of the People in Presidential Democracy
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court's 1998 decision on the Line-Item Veto Act
The US Constitution's Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve federal budget spending in the Appropriations Clause. This clause outlines that public funds can only be spent following legislative appropriation. It reads, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
The Constitution, however, does not grant Congress the power to specify the objects, amounts, and timing of federal spending. This power is derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The Constitution also delegates to the president the task of spending approved funds in the Take Care Clause, which requires the president to "'take Care' that the Laws be faithfully executed."
The power to veto specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire legislation, known as the line-item veto, is not explicitly granted to the president by the US Constitution. In 1996, the Line Item Veto Act was enacted under President Bill Clinton to control federal spending and waste. The Act faced legal challenges, and in 1998, the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional by a 6-3 vote in Clinton v. City of New York.
The Court's decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that the Act violated the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution. The Presentment Clause outlines a specific process for enacting a statute, requiring the president to approve or reject a bill as presented by Congress without making amendments. The Court interpreted the absence of any mention of unilateral presidential action in the Constitution as an "express prohibition."
Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred with the majority opinion, stating that the line-item veto violated the principle of separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to make spending decisions independently. The Supreme Court's decision rendered President Clinton's use of the line-item veto moot, along with an estimated $1.9 billion in savings attributed to it.
The US Constitution: A True Statement Exploration
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the president cannot refuse to spend funds approved by Congress. The Constitution's Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve federal spending in the Appropriations Clause. The president's role is to spend the approved funds as directed by the Take Care Clause.
No, Congress is constitutionally obligated to provide funding for the President to execute the powers granted in Article II. However, scholars disagree on the extent to which Congress may use appropriations limitations to control the President's discretionary powers.
The President does not have the inherent constitutional authority to impound funds. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) outlines a procedure for the President to request Congress to reduce or eliminate funding. The President may defer spending for up to 45 days, after which, if Congress does not approve the request, the funds must be released for spending.
No, Congress cannot delegate its authority to rewrite laws. By requiring congressional authorization for impoundments, the ICA upholds the principle that only Congress can change a law it has written.
While there are constitutional processes for resolving funding impasses, they are often political in nature. Federal courts have intervened on rare occasions, such as in Train v. City of New York (1975), to affirm that the President cannot unilaterally withhold funds.
