http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/newsletters/article.cfm?id=7592

As to the authority of the Congress to spend the funds for the general welfare, I would point to the constitution, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1. Also see: United States Supreme Court in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936); Chas. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937); and South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

Now, let us see the case law or other authority that you are relying upon that substantiate the right of the President to order agencies to refuse to spend such funds.

The constitutional analysis is the same as that which was presented under the line item veto which had been passed as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act. The majority opinion, as written by Justice Stevens, in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) held:

The Act’s cancellation procedures violate the Presentment Clause. Pp. 17—31.

(a) The Act empowers the President to cancel an “item of new direct spending” such as §4722(c) of the Balanced Budget Act and a “limited tax benefit” such as §968 of the Taxpayer Relief Act, §691(a), specifying that such cancellation prevents a provision “from having legal force or effect,” §§691e(4)(B)—(C). Thus, in both legal and practical effect, the presidential actions at issue have amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. Statutory repeals must conform with Art. I, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954, but there is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal. Under the Presentment Clause, after a bill has passed both Houses, but “before it become[s] a Law,” it must be presented to the President, who “shall sign it” if he approves it, but “return it,” i.e., “veto” it, if he does not. There are important differences between such a “return” and cancellation under the Act: The constitutional return is of the entire bill and takes place before it becomes law, whereas the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law and affects it only in part. There are powerful reasons for construing the constitutional silence on the profoundly important subject of presidential repeals as equivalent to an express prohibition. The Article I procedures governing statutory enactment were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself. Familiar historical materials provide abundant support for the conclusion that the power to enact statutes may only “be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.” Chadha, 462 U.S., at 951. What has emerged in the present cases, however, are not the product of the “finely wrought” procedure that the Framers designed, but truncated versions of two bills that passed both Houses. Pp. 17—24.

Indeed, the court noted that only one method could give the president such authority:

c) The profound importance of these cases makes it appropriate to emphasize three points. First, the Court expresses no opinion about the wisdom of the Act’s procedures and does not lightly conclude that the actions of the Congress that passed it, and the President who signed it into law, were unconstitutional. The Court has, however, twice had full argument and briefing on the question and has concluded that its duty is clear. Second, having concluded that the Act’s cancellation provisions violate Article I, §7, the Court finds it unnecessary to consider the District Court’s alternative holding that the Act impermissibly disrupts the balance of powers among the three branches of Government. Third, this decision rests on the narrow ground that the Act’s procedures are not authorized by the Constitution. If this Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a law whose text was not voted on by either House or presented to the President for signature. That may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may “become a law” pursuant to Article I, §7. If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role, such change must come through the Article V amendment procedures. Pp. 29—31.

Now good_golly, let us hear you justify your rather infantile explanation of a Conference Report. Let us see how you get around the Court’s holding in the Clinton case which clearly rejected the authority of the President to reject spending items even with the express authority of Congress let alone under some implied right to impound funds.

Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

Well, it was too much to hope the she would be distracted by all of the shiny objects over there and stay for awhile…

But i’ll bet that she didn’t bother to try to point out any of their errors over there to see how quickly the would ban her.

Comment by gummitch

gummitch,

gg isn’t confused. Those are it’s genders.

Comment by good_golly

Why would you be? The things you typically agree with are not impressive.

Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

Wow. Goon_golly is even confused about its own gender. That must be tough.

Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

Isn’t she cute? On a brighter note… I did get her to go away if only for a little while. ;)

Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 12:30 pm

That’s funny. It’s funny because all of the Nazi trolls that come here with the expectation of “rights” to freely voice their opinion are the same Nazis that hope anybody that wears a “provacative” t-shirt gets banned or the same ones over at “redstate” that censor any one with an opposing view point.

The Nazi right wing loons love free speech as long as they are the only ones that get to use it. And then they cry “Fowl”(sic) when they get treated the way they treat everyone else.

Hysterical! ;)

Comment by Wayne

They won’t let him. You only get three chances to pass the class.

Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 2:30 pm

F_ck you, you sanctimonious twit

Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 1:54 pm

Wrong, if he signed the bill, it is law. and it is his constitutional duty to follow the law. He does not have line item veto abilities, it is either veto or sign.

Go back to civics class 101

Comment by good_golly

Good idea. Maybe you can call Bush and get him to stop this one.

Dennis Hastert’s Real Estate Investments

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has used an Illinois trust to invest in real estate near the proposed route of the Prairie Parkway, a highway project for which he’s secured $207 million in earmarked appropriations. The trust has already transferred 138 acres of land to a real estate development firm that has plans to build a 1,600-home community, located less than six miles from the north-south connector Hastert has championed in the House.

Comment by goon_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

The responsibility of the Executive branch is to execute the laws, not decide after the fact that he doesn’t like them. He has the opportunity to veto a bill; he does not have a line item veto, which you’d apparently like to give him.

You’re badly confused about the Constitution, goon.

Comment by shoeless — January 28, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

Yeah, but it would give them awful headaches.

Comment by missmolly

Thinking would save the Bushbots from drinking the Kool-aid.

Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 1:14 pm

I see. And which government programs do you define as “welfare”?

Comment by missmolly

Whichever ones Bush says are welfare.

Comment by shoeless — January 28, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

I can see how this WOULD save the kool-aid drinkers from that pesky chore called thinking…

Comment by missmolly

Whichever ones Bush says are welfare.