[twoodfin]

The Constitution. What you’re saying is no different from Congress declaring war and funding the army, but with the proviso they must clear all battles with a Federal judge before they’re begun.

Or funding the Department of Justice, but with the proviso that any nominee for Attorney General must be over age 60.

The power of the purse is not unlimited.

[AnthonyMouse]

Requiring battles to be approved by a judge has obvious practical problems, because they often happen in remote locations at unpredictable times, but Congress can pass all kinds of dumb requirements if they want to. That doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

You're proposing an alternative where the executive gets to decide how money is spent. As if mass surveillance, which is a waste of money, has to be funded in order to fund ordinary investigations.

The executive is the weakest branch. It has almost no powers of its own, and shouldn't. It's checks and balances. For something to happen, the executive has to want to do it and Congress has to fund it. Not one or the other; both.

[twoodfin]

No, it really is unconstitutional for Congress to encroach on the enumerated powers of the executive. Just look at the recent SCOTUS cases around the setup of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to understand how consequential this constraint is.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Just look at the recent SCOTUS cases around the setup of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to understand how consequential this constraint is.

Isn't this about the opposite issue, whether Congress can delegate control over funding to the executive? They were trying to get the executive to do the job of Congress and control the CFPB's funding.

[int_19h]

The Constitution has already been shat on in all manner of ways to the point where it's not recognizable anymore. If we continue doing so anyway, we might at least do that to the citizens' benefit.