Re:The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"
by sterlind on Sunday March 02, 2025 @12:16AM
(#43227617)
the Take Care clause of Article II would like to have a word with you. The President has a positive duty to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. if Congress passes a law funding something, the President must faithfully make it so.
Re:The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"
by torstenvl on Sunday March 02, 2025 @02:10PM
(#43233837)
That's certainly a popular theory lately, but it obviously doesn't hold water, and there's no case law supporting it.
Re:The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"
by bbor on Saturday March 01, 2025 @11:47PM
(#43227410)
What is the role of congress, if its enumerated powers do not imply that any of those things should actually happen...? Honest question. Are you honestly saying that there's an implied 100% veto available to the executive for anything done by congress?
Re:The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"
by torstenvl on Monday March 10, 2025 @07:43PM
(#43327515)
Congress has many enumerated powers. Spending money is not one of them.
The Founders had just fought a war over unjust taxation to support the head of state's pet projects. Thus they required all funds to be appropriated by Congress. But it is still the head of state that actually spends them. The Treasury has always been part of the Executive branch, ever since Alexander Hamilton led the Treasury under George Washington.
Our country is built on checks and balances. The Executive controls the Treasury and spends money out of it, but is checked by the Congress, because the Executive cannot spend money without it first being appropriated.
No there isn't. The text of the Constitution says the opposite: it makes appropriation a necessary condition for expenditures, but omits any clause making it a sufficient one. And the only case law on this issue is Train v. New York, which assiduously avoids ruling on the separation of powers issue. So there is neither any basis in the Constitution itself nor any basis in case law for your contention.