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).
“So that’s it? Obama skates again?”
Yes and no. Like I said, the house could impeach him on your grounds. They won’t, and even if they did, the Dem senate won’t convict. But we’re not any worse off, because your way we wouldn’t get any authority to press the issue, anyway. I don’t know what if anything a bunch of governors could accomplish. There really isn’t any precident for that.
They’d have to get federal judges to play along, and though that’s a little more likely than impeachment, it’d end up at the dead end of SCOTUS eventually.
The “fiscal cliff” bill started in the senate, too, didn’t it? Sad truth is that it doesn’t really matter. No one is going to redress it. No one important cares.
What’s the relevant part of the Constitution that backs up your assertion in this matter?
Article I, section III; Article II, section IV.
It takes a bit of figuring, though. And, like everything else, there’s the long history of how it’s been construed along with what it says.
I came across this a few days ago.......
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q115.html
Q115. “What is the impeachment process?”
A. The Constitution details impeachment in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 2, Section 3, and Article 3, Section 2. The word “details,” however, is a bit strong for what the Constitution provides. As with many things, the Constitution primarily gives us a skeleton of a process. The House brings charges for impeachment. The Senate holds a trial and votes to convict or acquit. THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, OR ARTICLE 3 JUDGE IS THROUGH IMPEACHMENT. Impeachments are not tried by a jury. The rest of the process is left to the rules of Congress.
The process begins with the House. It votes on passing articles of impeachment against a member of the Executive or Judicial branches. If the articles pass, then it is said that the person has been impeached. The vote is a straight up-or-down, majority vote.
After the House votes, the impeachment goes to the Senate. There, members of the House who were advocates for impeachment become the prosecutors in the Senate trial (they are called the House Managers). The accused secures his own counsel. The judge is the Senate itself, though the presiding officer acts as the head judge. In the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides; in other cases, the Vice President or President Pro Tem presides.
After all testimony has been heard, the Senate votes. If the Senate votes to convict by more than a two-thirds majority, the person is impeached. The person convicted is removed from office. The Senate may also prevent that person from ever holding another elective office. The Senate may set its own rules for impeachments, and the rules are not subject to judicial review. The Senate has streamlined rules for trial of impeachment for persons holding lower offices. There is no appeal in the case of conviction of impeachment.
# # # # #
The House could impeach Obama for some of the crimes he has committed but the Senate will never convict him with a 2/3 majority. Unless he does something so awful that even they turn from him.
That becomes a lot easier to do if a court has found him guilty of a crime and the appellate process has upheld the convictions. It would take a while, but I'd not be surprised if it changed his behavior.
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.