Yes, but is that Act constitutional? Has SCOTUS upheld its constitutionality? That’s where there absolutely is room for debate.
That's where there absolutely is room for debate.
This argument can apply to literally anything.
There are law journal articles debating whether the Impoundment Control Act is constitutional. And that isn’t a new thing, here’s one from 1990: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...
There’s a big difference between a law for which there have been longstanding serious scholarly objections to its constitutionality, and a law whose constitutionality has never been questioned in any serious forum
Seems like there’s at least “a debate” to be had.
However, other presidential administrations have worked within the framework of the law and requested that Congress rescind funding instead of running roughshod over the law and unilaterally attempting to defund programs and canceling spending that was authorized by Congress.
We’ll likely get a Supreme Court case testing the CBIA of 1974, we’ll soon find out what these 9 justices think about it.
What people don't understand is that the President is essentially an Administrator (Executer of the laws passed by Congress), not a Decider.
The problem now is that Congress will not impeach or convict him for breaking the law.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 is explicitly clear about this, there is absolutely no room for debate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Imp...
> Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request and has ignored most presidential requests.