So is this the antithesis of the case which overturned Chevron last year? There SCOTUS ruled unless legislation specifically spelled out N was to be done, an agency (so part of the executive branch) couldn't take that action. Now it's even though Congress has specifically spelled out, "spend this money on this item" the executive doesn't have to obey?
So is this the antithesis of the case which overturned Chevron last year? There SCOTUS ruled unless legislation specifically spelled out N was to be done, an agency (so part of the executive branch) couldn't take that action. Now it's even though Congress has specifically spelled out, "spend this money on this item" the executive doesn't have to obey?
There is not necessarily an inconsistency here. In both cases, it's about separation of powers. Chevron gave executive agencies too much latitude in exercising legislative power, which belongs to Congress. With the Impoundment Control Act, Congress took advantage of presidential weakness in the wake of Watergate to usurp an executive prerogative - or, at least, that is what the administration will argue - and it's not total nonsense like a lot of their arguments.
So is this the antithesis of the case which overturned Chevron last year? There SCOTUS ruled unless legislation specifically spelled out N was to be done, an agency (so part of the executive branch) couldn't take that action. Now it's even though Congress has specifically spelled out, "spend this money on this item" the executive doesn't have to obey?
There is not necessarily an inconsistency here. In both cases, it's about separation of powers. Chevron gave executive agencies too much latitude in exercising legislative power, which belongs to Congress. With the Impoundment Control Act, Congress took advantage of presidential weakness in the wake of Watergate to usurp an executive prerogative - or, at least, that is what the administration will argue - and it's not total nonsense like a lot of their arguments.
i'm all out of irony