No. of Recommendations: 4
The Republican House seems to be willing to diminish the power of Congress and give more of it to the President, upsetting the balance between those branches of government.
Congress essentially banned presidents from unilaterally and permanently impounding funds in a 1974 law. But during the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump, in a video on his campaign website, vowed to restore the power so that he could “squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings.”
What would impoundment mean for presidential power?
Legalizing permanent impoundment would transfer power from Congress to the presidency.
The founders devised the separation of powers to keep each branch from accumulating too much authority and posing a threat to liberty. Central to that is Congress’s control of decisions about taxation and spending — its power of the purse.
He can't get 'massive savings' from the Federal government without cutting from Medicare, Social Security and Defense. And Defense seems sacrosanct. Trump may or may not understand this but he's happy to lie about it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It was several years ago, but I recall reading some essays that Congress has ceded (in effect, or in law) a lot of power to POTUS. As I recall, the argument was that Congress didn't like taking any action because they feared annoying some slice of voters. So rather than do that, they do nothing. And when POTUS acts, they don't -necessarily- oppose for the same fear. I don't recall not all the powers they have effectively given up, but it was a list. I think included was declaring war or approving military action. Often, the executive doesn't bother with Congress at all, or so it seems.
