The Trump administration's Monday spending freeze is likely to provoke a crisis over the constitutionality of "impoundment"—one that the justices could well have to resolve *very* soon.
One can only hope that many of Trump's illegal moves will be shut down by the courts. Trump hates to lose, so maybe, he'll have his Project 2025 people stop doing this. I'm also wondering why Congressional Republicans aren't speaking out against such blatant power grabs since it takes away their power and leverage.
Many of the people in the Supreme Court and the legislature are His and they are under his sway. They will not likely counter him. That was the overriding warning during the campaign: the thing that saved us last time was the existence of guardrails and people stopping him… and that there are few (if any) guardrails left to oppose him or stop him this time.
So true (see my comments below about Tom Emmer). During lunch, I tried watching the first Trump press conference, and, after 30 minutes, I had to change the channel, shaking my head in disgust. Karoline Leavitt's fealty to Trump was so evident in her propaganda, it put Leni Riefenstahl to shame.
Exactly. What cowards the Republicans are. Perhaps if their personal family ox is gorded it will move them to action. The whole party is for sale so there is that.
The orange man is a bat-s—t crazy puppet of extremely wealthy, power hungry individuals and foreign enemies of the free world. Their design is to create chaos in the US government and downgrade our country’s socio-economical standing, and destroy our national reputation- thus weakening our international influence and increasing our defensive vulnerability. His actions which are unconstitutional and traitorous. He should be removed from office!
Not only do his actions lead to a downgrade of our standing in the world, in a fascist regime (which is where this is leading if Congress doesn't put a stop to it), the brightest people with potential for advancements in science, technology, medicine, and other important fields will leave to find countries where their expertise can flourish for mankind to share and improve. In a fascist state, the likes of which project 2025 and their puppet in the White House seek to attain, there is no room for advancement in these fields if it doesn't belong to or financially enrich those in power. In a fascist state, energy and expertise is wasted on hatred and violence in order to keep the populace ignorant, divided, and subversively in line.
Yesterday, the traitor-in-chief stopped the CDC from working or communicating with the WHO, with a threat not to disobey the order.
Why on earth would any leader who actually cared about the citizens he leads work against the agencies that protect them from disease? He wouldn't.
The scientists, doctors, and other educated individuals working at the CDC won't stop the work they are dedicated to, they will go elsewhere.
" . . . there will quickly be lawsuits by those who were entitled to the frozen federal funds challenging agencies’ compliance with the Vaeth memo on both constitutional and statutory grounds."
Hopefully entities with deep pockets (such as the various States) will be at the forefront of bringing any such suits, though query - what about those state attorneys general and governors who are Trump devotees? This action of OMB is going to hit hard and will be tough for them to whitewash.
Exactly. The red states could have--and still could ---intervene in the Birthright Fiasco. Instead, their Attorney Generals have gotten a severe case of laryngitis And as professor Vladeck points out it is a matter of hours before the Blue States attack the impoundment fiasco. Evidently, the OMB stooges who launched this attack do not understand that the Blue well- to -do- states like New York or Washington State are not nearly as dependent on (among other Federal Grant Programs) Farm price supports as e.g. Iowa ,Kansas etc. The only possible mistake in Professor Vladek's analysis is his speculation that the Impoundment Order will now reach the Supreme Court faster than Birthright. There is reason to suspect that, ion fact, Impoundment will be called off on some bogus claim of mission accomplished.
He’s obviously acting as the “CEO” of the country instead of the president whose powers are constrained by the constitution. He wants full and absolute power to do as he likes, and does not care.
By the way, Prof. Vladeck, my daughter is a third year at Amherst College. She loves it there.
Is there a colorable argument to follow the line of thought coming up in FCC v. Consumer Research where under the nondelegation doctrine the ICA should be struck down because Congress is unable to delegate its purse powers? Thus there should be zero paths to any impounding at all?
I doubt it is realistic, nor would I expect consistency from the SC like that, but I think it could be funny.
No food, no meds, NO TOILET PAPER to be bought for the use of any of these insane Jokers (since by definition the funds are not paid out directly to them). Lock them in a room and throw away the key.
Sorry, not sorry, that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do to us.
At first, I have thought this was a kinky way to put off the crisis of the government running out of money, and thus having to have another continuing resolution. However, this is more the car's drive shaft front falling off, embedding in the pavement, and flipping the whole vehicle off the bridge.
“to the extent permissible by law" seems to obviate most of your argument surely as it means they are freezing all discretionary spending for a review. Seems pretty sensible for a new administration especially when the previous one was shovelling money out the door.
Not true. And now, the billions will be disappear, funneled to those in charge, as the traitor-in-chief is only in it for the money, making fools of those who actually think he cares about the particulars of the money Congress has appropriated.
Nixon tried impoujndment several times much more tightly framed than this lunacy. It was held Unconstitutional and a Bi Partisan Bill was enacted specifying the very narrow circumstances in which impoundment of a few grants is permitted. The Trump Administration is now arguing that (a) the impound act act is unconstitutional and (b) the Constiution allows the President to shut the Government down by freezing all grants. The Biden Administration was pushing money out the door because they anticipated this. The Red States did not object to Biden's actions. They dont seem thrilled by what is happening now.
We can only hope that in all the chaos, litigation will quickly ensue. Between this and the debacle at Justice yesterday, the litigation opportunities are coming fast and furious. We have to be ready to respond. Keep writing because people need to understand what is happening so as not to normalize this destruction of our democracy in plain sight.
Steve, it looks like this administration has been working full tilt for four years to get all this, and what is to come next, in place so abruptly. A full-scale revamp of the role of the federal government and the balance of power established by the constitution. How'd they know they were going to win? Did they 'steal' this election?
I hope Prof. Vladeck is right that the Supreme Court would likely reject any Trump reliance on his Article II authority to impound funds. But even though the OLC memo laughs at the idea that Article II's Take Care clause authorizes it, the majority in Trump v. U.S. cited it in support of presidential immunity from prosecution. It did so even while purporting to rely on Justice Robert Jackson's authoritative delineating of presidential power in his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Here's what Jackson actually said about that clause:
"That authority must be matched against words of the
Fifth Amendment that
'No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law .. . .' One gives a governmental
authority that reaches so far as there is law, the other
gives a private right that authority shall go no farther.
These signify about all there is of the
principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men,
and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules."
343 U.S. at 646.
Let's hope we remain a government of laws, not men.
Now, I'd love to attend this oral argument. It could reveal more detail about the Court's fissures than we've been able to suss out in the past and whether there is a principled center to protect against the most significant abuses.
I would be much more willing to accept the 'unconstitutionality' of Trump's actions if SCOTUS had not made the immunity ruling it did. His impoundments are being call unconstitutional and non-starters which sound similar to claims when the issue of total presidential immunity was first raised.
Sounds like 'to the extent permissible by law' means none of it then. Whether one thinks freezing spending is a good idea or not, it has to be done Congressionally and not by executive fiat.
One can only hope that many of Trump's illegal moves will be shut down by the courts. Trump hates to lose, so maybe, he'll have his Project 2025 people stop doing this. I'm also wondering why Congressional Republicans aren't speaking out against such blatant power grabs since it takes away their power and leverage.
Many of the people in the Supreme Court and the legislature are His and they are under his sway. They will not likely counter him. That was the overriding warning during the campaign: the thing that saved us last time was the existence of guardrails and people stopping him… and that there are few (if any) guardrails left to oppose him or stop him this time.
So true (see my comments below about Tom Emmer). During lunch, I tried watching the first Trump press conference, and, after 30 minutes, I had to change the channel, shaking my head in disgust. Karoline Leavitt's fealty to Trump was so evident in her propaganda, it put Leni Riefenstahl to shame.
Exactly. What cowards the Republicans are. Perhaps if their personal family ox is gorded it will move them to action. The whole party is for sale so there is that.
The orange man is a bat-s—t crazy puppet of extremely wealthy, power hungry individuals and foreign enemies of the free world. Their design is to create chaos in the US government and downgrade our country’s socio-economical standing, and destroy our national reputation- thus weakening our international influence and increasing our defensive vulnerability. His actions which are unconstitutional and traitorous. He should be removed from office!
Not only do his actions lead to a downgrade of our standing in the world, in a fascist regime (which is where this is leading if Congress doesn't put a stop to it), the brightest people with potential for advancements in science, technology, medicine, and other important fields will leave to find countries where their expertise can flourish for mankind to share and improve. In a fascist state, the likes of which project 2025 and their puppet in the White House seek to attain, there is no room for advancement in these fields if it doesn't belong to or financially enrich those in power. In a fascist state, energy and expertise is wasted on hatred and violence in order to keep the populace ignorant, divided, and subversively in line.
Yesterday, the traitor-in-chief stopped the CDC from working or communicating with the WHO, with a threat not to disobey the order.
Why on earth would any leader who actually cared about the citizens he leads work against the agencies that protect them from disease? He wouldn't.
The scientists, doctors, and other educated individuals working at the CDC won't stop the work they are dedicated to, they will go elsewhere.
I'll help you remove him
Thanks Prof. Vladek - incredibly helpful.
" . . . there will quickly be lawsuits by those who were entitled to the frozen federal funds challenging agencies’ compliance with the Vaeth memo on both constitutional and statutory grounds."
Hopefully entities with deep pockets (such as the various States) will be at the forefront of bringing any such suits, though query - what about those state attorneys general and governors who are Trump devotees? This action of OMB is going to hit hard and will be tough for them to whitewash.
The red states can passively benefit from suits filed by blue states without having to openly cross Trump.
Exactly. The red states could have--and still could ---intervene in the Birthright Fiasco. Instead, their Attorney Generals have gotten a severe case of laryngitis And as professor Vladeck points out it is a matter of hours before the Blue States attack the impoundment fiasco. Evidently, the OMB stooges who launched this attack do not understand that the Blue well- to -do- states like New York or Washington State are not nearly as dependent on (among other Federal Grant Programs) Farm price supports as e.g. Iowa ,Kansas etc. The only possible mistake in Professor Vladek's analysis is his speculation that the Impoundment Order will now reach the Supreme Court faster than Birthright. There is reason to suspect that, ion fact, Impoundment will be called off on some bogus claim of mission accomplished.
He’s obviously acting as the “CEO” of the country instead of the president whose powers are constrained by the constitution. He wants full and absolute power to do as he likes, and does not care.
By the way, Prof. Vladeck, my daughter is a third year at Amherst College. She loves it there.
Is there a colorable argument to follow the line of thought coming up in FCC v. Consumer Research where under the nondelegation doctrine the ICA should be struck down because Congress is unable to delegate its purse powers? Thus there should be zero paths to any impounding at all?
I doubt it is realistic, nor would I expect consistency from the SC like that, but I think it could be funny.
No food, no meds, NO TOILET PAPER to be bought for the use of any of these insane Jokers (since by definition the funds are not paid out directly to them). Lock them in a room and throw away the key.
Sorry, not sorry, that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do to us.
At first, I have thought this was a kinky way to put off the crisis of the government running out of money, and thus having to have another continuing resolution. However, this is more the car's drive shaft front falling off, embedding in the pavement, and flipping the whole vehicle off the bridge.
“to the extent permissible by law" seems to obviate most of your argument surely as it means they are freezing all discretionary spending for a review. Seems pretty sensible for a new administration especially when the previous one was shovelling money out the door.
Not true. And now, the billions will be disappear, funneled to those in charge, as the traitor-in-chief is only in it for the money, making fools of those who actually think he cares about the particulars of the money Congress has appropriated.
Nixon tried impoujndment several times much more tightly framed than this lunacy. It was held Unconstitutional and a Bi Partisan Bill was enacted specifying the very narrow circumstances in which impoundment of a few grants is permitted. The Trump Administration is now arguing that (a) the impound act act is unconstitutional and (b) the Constiution allows the President to shut the Government down by freezing all grants. The Biden Administration was pushing money out the door because they anticipated this. The Red States did not object to Biden's actions. They dont seem thrilled by what is happening now.
We can only hope that in all the chaos, litigation will quickly ensue. Between this and the debacle at Justice yesterday, the litigation opportunities are coming fast and furious. We have to be ready to respond. Keep writing because people need to understand what is happening so as not to normalize this destruction of our democracy in plain sight.
Steve, it looks like this administration has been working full tilt for four years to get all this, and what is to come next, in place so abruptly. A full-scale revamp of the role of the federal government and the balance of power established by the constitution. How'd they know they were going to win? Did they 'steal' this election?
Read Project 2025. Everything was in place and ready to go
I hope Prof. Vladeck is right that the Supreme Court would likely reject any Trump reliance on his Article II authority to impound funds. But even though the OLC memo laughs at the idea that Article II's Take Care clause authorizes it, the majority in Trump v. U.S. cited it in support of presidential immunity from prosecution. It did so even while purporting to rely on Justice Robert Jackson's authoritative delineating of presidential power in his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Here's what Jackson actually said about that clause:
"That authority must be matched against words of the
Fifth Amendment that
'No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law .. . .' One gives a governmental
authority that reaches so far as there is law, the other
gives a private right that authority shall go no farther.
These signify about all there is of the
principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men,
and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules."
343 U.S. at 646.
Let's hope we remain a government of laws, not men.
Now, I'd love to attend this oral argument. It could reveal more detail about the Court's fissures than we've been able to suss out in the past and whether there is a principled center to protect against the most significant abuses.
I would be much more willing to accept the 'unconstitutionality' of Trump's actions if SCOTUS had not made the immunity ruling it did. His impoundments are being call unconstitutional and non-starters which sound similar to claims when the issue of total presidential immunity was first raised.
Sounds like 'to the extent permissible by law' means none of it then. Whether one thinks freezing spending is a good idea or not, it has to be done Congressionally and not by executive fiat.
Yes, the president has this authority.