“If Congress wanted a president to have that authority, it would need to change the law,” it continues.
Zachary Price, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, says that the move is an “abuse” of the ICA.
“It’s perverse to read that as, instead, creating this mechanism for unilaterally canceling funds,” Price tells TIME, adding that this interpretation is not supported by a lot of “historical practice.”
The maneuver seeks to withhold the funds until they expire at the end of the fiscal year, leaving Congress little time to respond.
In this case, Price says, it further showcases how the ICA is being manipulated.
The government “shouldn’t have a lot of money left over at the end of the fiscal year if you’ve been spending it as you go in the way the statute contemplates,” he says.
He also points out that the American government is distinctly separated into three branches, with Congress, sitting in the legislative branch, being given the power to pass legislation—or, in this case, cancel funds that have already been appropriated. It has been explicitly separated from the authority of the executive branch and the President.
Read the full article here