Posted on 01/11/2013 5:52:33 PM PST by Windflier
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution states:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
This is the "Power of the Purse" clause, which Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 makes clear is exclusively held by the House of Representatives:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
Actually, there are two "powers of the purse" - to spend money or to deny its being spent. For the US Federal Government to spend any money, one single dime on anything, three things need to happen in this order: 1) an Appropriation must be authorized and passed by the House, 2) such Appropriation must then be passed by the Senate (any differences in the House and Senate versions must be reconciled via joint agreement and passage), and finally 3) be signed into Law by the President.
To deny the federal government the authority to spend any money, one single dime on any program or activity, only one thing needs to happen: the House does not pass an Appropriation for it. Period. Neither the Senate, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court, nor any federal agency secretary or bureaucrat, has the constitutional authority to spend one single dime by themselves, without a majority of the House giving it to them. That is the power of the purse.
There is, however, a problem - a legal problem, not just a psychological one, such as Congressistas being spendaholics or too cowardly to refuse the begging of various constituencies for handouts.
This problem is epitomized by the Senate Republicans' inability to force Harry Reid to pass an annual budget, even though there is a law requiring the Senate to do so. Thanks to Reid's blocking all attempts, the Senate hasn't passed a budget since April, 2009, which clearly violates federal law - the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
So how come Reid can't be prosecuted? Why can't the Senate Pubs take legal action against him? As Byron York explains, "the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. Lawmakers are required by law to pass a budget each year by April 15, but there's no provision to punish them, or even slightly inconvenience them, if they don't."
So we arrive at what may well be the single most important question to ask in America today.
Given that the current President of the United States seems determined to bypass the House's appropriation authority and spend gigantic sums on whatever programs he wants or enforcing whatever Executive Orders he issues, is there an enforcement mechanism for his violating the power of the purse clauses in the Constitution?
The answer is yes. There is a federal law that specifically codifies the power of the purse clauses, and provides specific punishment for their violation by any "officer or employee of the United States government."
This punishment is "suspension from duty without pay or removal from office," and up to two years in federal prison.
This Federal law is: The Antideficiency Act. The original version was enacted into law in 1884. Although revised occasionally since to make its meaning clear in terms of "modern" language, its purpose remains: to be the enforcement mechanism implementing Article I, Sections 7 & 9. It was last revised during the Reagan presidency, and is codified as Title 31 of the United States Code (31 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342, 1349, and 1350).
What a picture... Pelosi looks even more demented than usual.
Sorry for interrupting your normally scheduled Doom and Gloom. My bad.
Did you ever noticed that Andrew Breitbart was breitbarted???
Have just forgotten how the military big time supported Barry Soetoro AGAINST Patriot Lt.Col. Terry Lakin and stripped him from his livelyhood, hmmm???
Well, I guess we'd all best turn in our guns now, and save Dear Reader the trouble, eh?
Geez Louise....where's the patriot channel?
The degenerate nobama can do whatever he wants to...until someone stops him. Constitution??? nobama don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution.
Good find, Windy.
We have to use every tool that presents us with an opportunity to fight back.
You bet. I'm going to pass this article along to my state and national reps. Can't hurt, and who knows - it might actually make a difference.
Again....I don’t shoot the messenger; nothing against you.
I don't like it. But I am ready. I am not one of the many that have back orders on pmags.
The power of the purse is not granted to the house exclusively. The house is the primary holder of said power, meaning appropriations must start there. However, after that, they must pass the senate and the president, or if there’s a veto Congress alone and by a supermajority. So they have the power of the purse, too, in a sense.
“who’s going to enforce it?”
Congress, or at least it could clear the way for enforcement. They must try and convict before a president can stop being president and therefore meet the law by regular people. That will never happen, and should it Biden would no doubt pardon him. So who’s to enforce it is moot point.
“prosecution of the president...is a far easier way to remove him from office than impeachment.”
You cannot prosecute the president until he has been removed from office. The only (legal) means of removing him from office is impeachment. Your proposal is a nonstarter.
Obama has qualified immunity and de facto complete immunity until such time as the house chucks him out. The courts can allow him to be sued like Clinton with Paula Jones or order him to turn over tapes like Nixon. But it’s not as if Nixon could’ve been attested for obstruction of justice while he was president. In the first place all he’d have to do is plead guilty and pardon himself.
attested = arrested
Read the whole article. It's not about impeachment. The relevant portions of the statute are detailed there. If Obama violates any portion of that law (which he probably will), he most certainly can be prosecuted and removed from office.
The only question is, who's going to have to cojones to do it? The author (Dr. Jack Wheeler) suggests that several red state Governors could band together and bring suit, as provided for in the law.
I'm going to send this to my Governor, Rick Perry, my House rep, Kenny Marchant (R-TX), and both of my Senators, one of which is Ted Cruz (R-TX).
[[The Law That Can Save America And Put Obama In Jail]]
There isw NO law that can save ANYONE in a lawless nation- which is exactly what we’ve becoem as the left has brazenly dismantled our constitution bit by bit- the constitution means NOTHING to left anymore- and apaprently it means NOTHING to the supreme court either- The laws of the cosntitution are no logner able to save anyone!
“he most certainly can be prosecuted and removed from office”
No, he MUST be impeached first. Breaking this law may be grounds for impeachment, but you are talking as if immediate prosecution can replace impeachment. It can’t.
“several red state Governors could band together and bring suit”
They could, but they can’t remove him from office. Only Congress can: the house through impeachment and the senate by trial and conviction.
No, he MUST be impeached first. Breaking this law may be grounds for impeachment, but you are talking as if immediate prosecution can replace impeachment. It can’t.
You're not reading the wording of the statute. Here it is, and it is quite clear:
§1341 states:
1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not-
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;
(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law;
§1342 specifies that the "unless authorized by law" exception in 1341 (1)(B) applies only to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property," which does "not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property."
§1349 states:
"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office."
§1350 states:
"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."
It doesn’t matter what the law says. The Constitution preempted it, and according to it the president, vice president, and certain judges can only be removed from office via the impeachment process. He can’t be prosecuted or jailed before removal from office. The president is subject to various legal proceedings, but not what you’re talking about without impeachment.
So that's it? Obama skates again? I think I want a second opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.