DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Obama Wont Abide 2011 Budget Bill Section

**layevymed** · 04-17-2011, 10:01 PM

It has to be obeyed because its the law. Hes a free individual, though. He can choose to break the law. And suffer the consequences.

Those provisions aren't the law if they are indeed unconstitutional. Unconstitutional enactments are void ab initio (on their face) and never have the effect of law. It's the judiciary that must ultimately decide that fact, however.

IMO, it's a pretty interesting issue. Congress does have the power of the purse; however, whether or not it can exercise that in a manner that violates separation of powers--and that seems clearly implicated here--is an interesting conundrum. My initial first impression thoughts off the top of my head--and I haven't delved into it deeply yet at all--are that they are unconstitutional. It's one thing to defund something that the POTUS is permitted but not independently entitled to do and quite another to defund something that a POTUS is independently entitled and empowered to do under his/her powers. For example, could Congress prevent all funding for a President to do pardons and commutations of sentences down to defunding paper and pens? Cut off even the coffee and electricity bills for receiving foreign ambassadors, etc? Defund Air Force One and any and all other travel expenses for conducting issues of foreign affairs within the executive's entitlements?

Courts have stepped in to invalidate things on funding improprieties. For example, unfunded mandates in laws have been deemed unconstitutional. That's not directly on point to this issue, but the concepts do interplay. Defunding something an executive is entitled to do essentially deprives the POTUS of an express power, and that triggers a clear separation of powers issue. In short, IMO, Congress is obliged to fund at least those things that an executive is entitled to do by his/her expressly granted powers so the executive can exercise those granted powers.

04-17-2011, 10:01 PM	#15
layevymed Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 503 Senior Member	It has to be obeyed because its the law. Hes a free individual, though. He can choose to break the law. And suffer the consequences. Those provisions aren't the law if they are indeed unconstitutional. Unconstitutional enactments are void ab initio (on their face) and never have the effect of law. It's the judiciary that must ultimately decide that fact, however. IMO, it's a pretty interesting issue. Congress does have the power of the purse; however, whether or not it can exercise that in a manner that violates separation of powers--and that seems clearly implicated here--is an interesting conundrum. My initial first impression thoughts off the top of my head--and I haven't delved into it deeply yet at all--are that they are unconstitutional. It's one thing to defund something that the POTUS is permitted but not independently entitled to do and quite another to defund something that a POTUS is independently entitled and empowered to do under his/her powers. For example, could Congress prevent all funding for a President to do pardons and commutations of sentences down to defunding paper and pens? Cut off even the coffee and electricity bills for receiving foreign ambassadors, etc? Defund Air Force One and any and all other travel expenses for conducting issues of foreign affairs within the executive's entitlements? Courts have stepped in to invalidate things on funding improprieties. For example, unfunded mandates in laws have been deemed unconstitutional. That's not directly on point to this issue, but the concepts do interplay. Defunding something an executive is entitled to do essentially deprives the POTUS of an express power, and that triggers a clear separation of powers issue. In short, IMO, Congress is obliged to fund at least those things that an executive is entitled to do by his/her expressly granted powers so the executive can exercise those granted powers.
	Quote