[refurb]

No, it’s not “quite clear” as the link provided described.

Any impoundment authority and how it has been curtailed is purely a political solution, not a constitutional one.

If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.

And while the President is mandated to execute the law you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law. USAID “to further the mission of the US in foreign countries” would give the President a lot of latitude in how that money is spent. A lot.

Then layer on the immense agency structure written all through “interpretation” of the law that the agencies no longer can rely on Chevron to defend and things get really interesting.

And while the Supreme Court did rule on Empoundment law curtailing Nixon, it did not rule specifically on the constitutionality of it and a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon.

So please don’t respond with “doesnt have the constitutional authority” when that is most definitely not the case.

[a_puppy]

> If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.

They did sue, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the "federal spending freeze".

> you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law

It's true that many aspects of the government are not described in law. But the major federal expenditures are definitely described in law. That's why Republicans in Congress are currently debating the budget! https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-spending-bill-stalls-congre...

[refurb]

> They did sue, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the "federal spending freeze".

Last I saw the judge blocked the mechanism, and needed time to decide on other issues.

Hence the confusing email (only if you don’t know how the government works) that rescinded the original mechanism and replaced it with another.

> They then returned with a proposal of $700 billion in spending cuts, but that failed to convince some of those in the right flank.

It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.

But unlike last time where he got there day 1 with “ok, what’s next”, he went in this time with a laundry list and an actual strategy.

Which is just smart. I’ve worked for big corps and it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.

[a_puppy]

> Last I saw the judge blocked the mechanism, and needed time to decide on other issues.

A second judge is now quite clearly reiterating that the money must keep flowing for now: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5124167-trump-f...

> It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.

Yes, that's how spending cuts are supposed to be decided: Congress.

> it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.

Trump has every right to "get creative" within his constitutional power; he doesn't have the right to "creatively" violate the constitution by refusing to faithfully execute the law.

Let's return to the original question. Suppose that Congress passed a law fifty years ago saying that "there shall be an agency to do ABC, with a budget of $X/year, and the President can figure out the details". I agree that the President has wide latitude to decide how the agency does ABC. But he cannot just decide "ABC is a waste of money, let's abolish the agency and use that $X/year to pay off the debt instead". Do you agree? Or are you claiming that the President could unilaterally abolish the ABC agency and stop doing ABC? (Setting aside the question of whether Trump is currently doing that; do you agree that he would not be allowed to do that?)

[refurb]

> But he cannot just decide "ABC is a waste of money, let's abolish the agency and use that $X/year to pay off the debt instead". Do you agree? Or are you claiming that the President could unilaterally abolish the ABC agency and stop doing ABC?

Oh I agree, if the law Congress passed was explicit in the funding and the purpose of it.

My comment was more around the multitude of spending in the federal government that is not tied to a specific purpose approved by Congress.

Which is why USAID is likely being targeted.

I would argue that the room to maneuver is where the courts will need to decide - if the President is still following the law but not spending all the money, what happens? Or if the money spent is shifted significantly but still represents a “good faith” effort to follow the law, is that allowed?

[a_puppy]

> a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon

Both legislation and Supreme Court precedent say that the President cannot impound funds. You seem to be arguing that it's OK for him to impound funds because the Supreme Court decision was fifty years ago and they might rule differently today.

Couldn't that argument be used to justify breaking any law? I think Trump must follow the law. Do you agree that Trump must follow the law even if the Supreme Court hasn't specifically reaffirmed that particular law recently?

(I'd feel differently if Trump illegally impounded some trivial amount of money just to get a case before the Supreme Court; but that's not what he's doing here.)