Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Chew on this: Ronald Reagan, Appropriations Statement, 1987
Another restriction on the use of funds in section 505 raises serious constitutional questions. It is designed to prevent the Secretary of Transportation and the Maritime Administrator from participating "in any judicial action with respect to the repayment of construction differential subsidy for the permanent release of vessels from the restriction in section 506 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended." The prohibition is subject to the proviso that "funds may be used to the extent such expenditure relates to a rule which conforms to statutory standards hereafter enacted by Congress."
As is clear from the proviso lifting the restriction, if and when the Congress alters the existing statutory scheme, this portion of section 505 represents an attempt by the Congress to use a spending limitation as an indirect means of regulating the Executive's interpretation and enforcement of the law, while leaving the law itself substantively unchanged.
Article II of the Constitution assigns responsibility for executing the law to the President. While the Congress is empowered to enact new or different laws, it may not indirectly interpret and implement existing laws, which is an essential function allocated by the Constitution to the executive branch. If the Congress disagrees with a statutory interpretation advanced by the executive branch—or with the efforts of the executive branch to defend or prosecute judicial action based on that interpretation-the Congress may, of course, amend the underlying statute. The use of an appropriations bill for this purpose, however, is inconsistent with the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.
Accordingly, I believe it is my constitutional responsibility to interpret this spending restriction in section 505 consistently with the President's power and duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed— a power and duty that of necessity include responding to any judicial challenge to past or future actions of the Department of Transportation.
As is clear from the proviso lifting the restriction, if and when the Congress alters the existing statutory scheme, this portion of section 505 represents an attempt by the Congress to use a spending limitation as an indirect means of regulating the Executive's interpretation and enforcement of the law, while leaving the law itself substantively unchanged.
Article II of the Constitution assigns responsibility for executing the law to the President. While the Congress is empowered to enact new or different laws, it may not indirectly interpret and implement existing laws, which is an essential function allocated by the Constitution to the executive branch. If the Congress disagrees with a statutory interpretation advanced by the executive branch—or with the efforts of the executive branch to defend or prosecute judicial action based on that interpretation-the Congress may, of course, amend the underlying statute. The use of an appropriations bill for this purpose, however, is inconsistent with the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.
Accordingly, I believe it is my constitutional responsibility to interpret this spending restriction in section 505 consistently with the President's power and duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed— a power and duty that of necessity include responding to any judicial challenge to past or future actions of the Department of Transportation.
Read more at the American Presidency Project: Ronald Reagan: Statement on Signing the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1987 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=34542#ixzz2gmjknONx
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
