NEWS ALERT: Democrat @SenBlumenthal LIED in his questioning of OMB Director nominee @russvought when he claimed the Supreme Court had ruled in 1975 that the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was constitutional. The Court did no such thing.
— Mark Paoletta (@MarkPaoletta) January 18, 2025
In fact, the Court SPECIFICALLY wrote in… pic.twitter.com/MIFthlzRim
Democrat Sen BlumenthalLIED in his questioning of OMB Director nominee Russ voughtwhen he claimed the Supreme Court had ruled in 1975 that the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was constitutional. The Court did no such thing.
In fact, the Court SPECIFICALLY wrote in Train v. New York City that “no issues as to the reach or coverage of the Impoundment Act are before us.” Why would Blumenthal lie about this and claim Russ Vought would “defy” a Supreme Court ruling that never happened??
As I have explained elsewhere, Train was confined to a specific statutory scheme at issue and did not address the President’s constitutional impoundment power—the constitutional issue was not even presented in that case.
Russ Vought did a superb job in his testimony, including not backing down in his view that the President has the constitutional power to impound and that the ICA is unconstitutional. Blumenthal is flat out lying to claim that Russ’s view is in defiance of Train’s holding.
The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on the constitutionality of the ICA nor on the President’s constitutional power to impound funds. And we have 170 years of Presidents regularly using his impoundment authority to rein in wasteful or constitutionally problematic spending.
Appropriations is a legislative act, the power of the purse. The spending power is an executive power and is vested in the President.
Would it be constitutional for Congress to mandate that the President spend $100M to investigate and prosecute certain disfavored individuals? Of course it would not be constitutional and the President has the authority to refuse to spend those funds. Likewise, if Congress appropriated $100M to provide aid to a known terror state or international organization, the President has the constitutional authority (in fact duty) to refuse to do send those funds to this terror entity.
There are limits to Congress’ authority to require the President to spend funds.
The Impoundment Control Act is a terrible law. It turns history on its head by requiring a President to spend every dollar of an appropriation, even if the project can be done for less. It makes an appropriation a floor rather than a ceiling. The ICA is designed to shovel money out the door regardless of whether it’s necessary to a program, and it’s wildly irresponsible for our fiscal health.
Replies