Malcolm Rivera
The Appropriations Clause is part of the United States Constitution's system of checks and balances, which prohibits the executive branch from disbursing money without Congressional approval. This clause is found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution, and it establishes a rule of law to govern money contained in the Treasury. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause as a restriction on the executive branch's authority to disburse funds, meaning that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Location | Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States |
| Description | Establishes a rule of law to govern money contained in the Treasury |
| Powers | Denies Congress the power to draw money from the Treasury without an act of Congress |
| Confers Congress with the "power of the purse" | |
| Does not confer a distinct legislative power upon Congress | |
| Does not constrain Congress's ability to dictate the terms upon which it makes funds available | |
| Constrains how federal employees and officers may make or authorize payments without appropriations | |
| Does not address whether Congress can create or incur an obligation directly by statute | |
| Does not constrain Congress's ability to make "lump sum" appropriations |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The Appropriations Clause and the system of checks and balances
- The Treasury and the disbursement of public funds
- The role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Appropriations Clause
- The limitations of the Appropriations Clause on Congress's powers
- The historical context and evolution of the Appropriations Clause
The Appropriations Clause and the system of checks and balances
The Appropriations Clause is part of the system of checks and balances in the US Constitution. It is a legislative check on the Executive Branch, and thus on the exercise of federal authority. The Clause establishes a rule of law to govern money contained in the Treasury.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution 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 Supreme Court has explained that this means that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress. This is the basis of Congress's "power of the purse". The Court has also recognised that Congress has wide discretion in prescribing the details of expenditures for which it appropriates funds, and frequently makes "lump sum" appropriations, or general appropriations of large amounts to be allotted and expended as directed by designated government agencies.
The Appropriations Clause does not confer a distinct legislative power upon Congress, but is phrased as a limitation on government action. It does not constrain Congress's ability to dictate the terms upon which it makes funds available, but it does limit the power of the Executive Branch. It is not a grant of legislative power because, pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress has the power to specify the objects, amounts, and timing of federal spending, even without the Appropriations Clause.
The Clause has its roots in the practice of English parliaments, dating from at least the 1690s, of legislating both the means of raising public revenue and also dedicating, or appropriating, newly raised sums to particular purposes.
Citing the US Constitution: Bluebook Style Guide
You may want to see also
The Treasury and the disbursement of public funds
The Appropriations Clause, as outlined in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution, establishes a rule of law governing money contained in the Treasury. The Treasury refers to a place where public revenue is deposited, accumulated, and utilised to cover public expenses. The Clause stipulates that ""No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law". This means that no money can be withdrawn from the Treasury unless it has been appropriated through an act of Congress. The Supreme Court has interpreted this as a restriction on the disbursing authority of the Executive department, ensuring that legislative control is maintained over the disbursement of public funds.
The historical context of the Appropriations Clause dates back to the practices of English parliaments in the 1690s, where they legislated both the means of raising public revenue and the dedication of those funds to specific purposes. This practice was continued in state constitutions after US Independence, reinforcing the principle that legislative bodies should control the allocation of public funds.
The Clause does not confer distinct legislative power upon Congress but instead acts as a limitation on government action. It ensures that any exercise of power granted by the Constitution to the Judiciary or Executive branches is subject to congressional control over funds in the Treasury. This control is evident in cases such as Knote v. United States (1877), where it was affirmed that presidential powers cannot touch money in the Treasury without express authorisation by an act of Congress.
While the Clause does not constrain Congress's ability to dictate the terms of fund disbursement, it does outline specific contexts in which its provisions apply. These contexts include situations where the Clause conditions the exercise of constitutional or statutory power by other branches, preventing them from making disbursements without appropriate appropriations. Additionally, the Clause addresses the actions of federal employees and officers, guiding how they may authorise payments without appropriations.
In summary, the Appropriations Clause serves as a critical component of the US Constitution, ensuring legislative oversight of the Treasury and the disbursement of public funds. It establishes a framework for managing public revenue, allocating funds for designated purposes, and maintaining accountability in government spending.
Understanding Treason and Its Punishment in the Constitution
You may want to see also
The role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Appropriations Clause
The Appropriations Clause, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution, establishes a rule of law to govern money contained in the Treasury. It states that "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 Supreme Court has interpreted the Appropriations Clause in relatively few cases, but its rulings have had significant implications for how the Clause is understood and applied. The Court's interpretations have focused on several key aspects of the Clause:
Congressional Control Over Funds in the Treasury
The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Appropriations Clause establishes congressional control over funds in the Treasury. This means that any exercise of power by the Judiciary or Executive branches is limited by Congress's authority to appropriate funds. Cases such as OPM v. Richmond (1990) and Knote v. United States (1877) have reinforced this interpretation, stating that money in the Treasury can only be withdrawn through an act of Congress.
Restriction on Executive Branch Authority
The Supreme Court has also interpreted the Appropriations Clause as a restriction on the disbursing authority of the Executive Branch. In Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States (1937), the Court concluded that the Clause was intended to limit the Executive's ability to disburse funds, ensuring that expenditures are made in accordance with congressional appropriations.
Statutory Obligations and Consistency with the Constitution
The Supreme Court has addressed the question of whether the Appropriations Clause allows Congress to create obligations directly by statute. In cases like Me. Cmty. Health Options v. United States (2020), the Court clarified that the Clause constrains how federal employees and officers may authorize payments without appropriations but does not address whether Congress can create obligations by statute. Additionally, the Court has held that Congress may not impose limitations on funds that are themselves unconstitutional, such as limitations that violate the Bill of Attainder Clause, as seen in United States v. Lovett (1946) and United States v. Klein (1872).
Congressional Discretion in Expenditure Details
The Court has recognized that Congress has wide discretion in prescribing the details of expenditures for which it appropriates funds. This includes the practice of making "lump sum" appropriations, where large amounts are allotted to government agencies to be expended as they direct. The Court has declared that this delegation of authority is constitutional.
In summary, the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Appropriations Clause have largely focused on clarifying the respective powers of the different branches of government regarding the appropriation and disbursement of funds. The Court's rulings have shaped the understanding and application of the Clause, reinforcing congressional control over the Treasury and providing guidance on the limits of Executive Branch authority and congressional discretion in appropriating funds.
The Evolution of Ohio's Constitution: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The limitations of the Appropriations Clause on Congress's powers
The Appropriations Clause, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution, establishes a rule of law governing money contained in the Treasury. The Clause states that "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 primary limitation imposed by the Appropriations Clause is on the Executive branch's authority to disburse funds. The Clause requires that any expenditure of public funds must be authorized by an act of Congress. This restriction ensures that the legislature controls the disbursement of public funds, providing a check on Executive power and reinforcing the separation of powers.
However, it is important to note that the Appropriations Clause does not confer distinct legislative power upon Congress. While it grants Congress the "power of the purse," the Clause does not empower Congress to dictate the terms of funding. Instead, it serves as a limitation on government action, ensuring that the Executive branch cannot spend at will and must seek congressional approval for expenditures.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Appropriations Clause in relatively few cases. In Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States (1937), the Court held that the Clause was intended to restrict the Executive branch's disbursing authority. Similarly, in Knote v. United States (1877), the Court affirmed that only Congress can authorize the withdrawal of funds from the Treasury. These cases highlight the Clause's role in maintaining congressional control over public funds.
While the Appropriations Clause constrains the Executive branch, it does not directly address Congress's ability to create obligations or incur liabilities. For example, in Me. Cmty. Health Options v. United States (2020), the Court clarified that the Clause pertains to how federal employees make or authorize payments without appropriations rather than Congress's ability to create obligations. Additionally, the Clause does not restrict Congress's discretion in prescribing the details of expenditures or making "lump sum" appropriations, as seen in the act of June 17, 1902.
In summary, the Appropriations Clause primarily limits the Executive branch's spending authority by requiring congressional approval for disbursements from the Treasury. While it does not confer additional powers on Congress, the Clause reinforces the separation of powers and ensures that Congress controls public funds. However, it does not constrain Congress's ability to create obligations or dictate the terms of funding.
The Massachusetts Constitution: An Enabling Act?
You may want to see also
The historical context and evolution of the Appropriations Clause
The Appropriations Clause, or Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution, establishes a rule of law to govern money contained in the Treasury. The Clause states that "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 historical roots of the Appropriations Clause can be traced back to the practices of English parliaments in the late 17th century, particularly after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. During this period, Parliament asserted its power to legislate supply and expenditure, marking a shift from the previous view that the Monarch was the "master of his own money". The practice of including clauses of appropriation in supply bills dates back to at least the 1690s, when English parliaments began legislating both the means of raising public revenue and the dedication of newly raised sums to specific purposes. This practice continued in the state constitutions adopted after American Independence, reinforcing the principle that legislative control over the disbursement of public funds was firmly established by the late 1780s.
The inclusion of the Appropriations Clause in the US Constitution was influenced by the belief that it would check Executive power and prevent the misuse of public funds. Proponents argued that the Clause would ensure that the President could only appropriate public money for uses expressly provided by law, thereby limiting the potential for abuse of power. Additionally, the Clause was seen as a way to promote transparency and accountability in government spending. Thomas McKean, for example, contended that the Clause would settle responsibility for disbursements on Congress and require the disclosure of disbursements, allowing the people to judge the conduct of their rulers and express their wishes or objections.
Over time, the interpretation and application of the Appropriations Clause have evolved through various court cases. While the Clause does not confer a distinct legislative power upon Congress, it is phrased as a limitation on government action, particularly regarding the Executive branch's disbursing authority. The Supreme Court has construed the Clause in relatively few cases, concluding that it prohibits conduct resulting in the disbursement of public funds without the appropriate appropriation. Additionally, the Court has recognised Congress's wide discretion in prescribing the details of expenditures for which it appropriates funds, including the frequent practice of making "lump sum" appropriations.
Texas Constitution: Four Key Purposes and Their Functions
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Appropriations Clause is part of the system of checks and balances in the US Constitution. It prohibits the executive branch from disbursing money unless it has been approved by Congress.
The Appropriations Clause is in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution.
The Appropriations Clause states that "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 Appropriations Clause establishes a rule of law to govern money contained in the Treasury. It gives Congress the "power of the purse", which is a constitutionally mandated check on executive power.
