The reason the House is considered to hold the purse strings, is because any spending bill is required by the constitution to originate in the house. But the Senate still has to go along as well as the President before any spending bill becomes law. Unless of course the President's veto is overridden and then the President doesn't matter.
Likewise, any bill to defund, would also need the Senate's approval as well as the President's signature or a veto override.
The vote clearly lets the President know that the House doesn't approve of his dream act executive order. But without the Senate it's nothing more than a nice strongly worded letter.
And I'm still confused about what it means to defund non-enforcement of the law.
I understood from the article that Obama was making law. Something he can not constitutionally do, so it is invalid and can not get funding.
So why should the senate or the president have any say-so over the house decision not to fund ?
Hi DannyTN.
You seem to know something about this, so I ask you:
What can the House do to impede, delay or deny funding for Obama’s projects?
His expenditures are targeted to enrich his followers. Limit his money, and they can undercut his support.