Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ...
In late November 2019, the Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, when two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to Michael Duffey ...
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, in Trump’s telling, is “not a very good act; this disaster of a law is clearly unconstitutional, a blatant violation of the separation of powers.”
“He’s been leading the charge on impoundment of funds,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said to reporters Thursday, arguing that Vought “could decide what funds that we ...
The Impoundment Control Act is a clearly constitutional law to protect Congress’ control over federal spending. But even apart from the Impoundment Control Act, impoundment is unconstitutional.
In a case that preceded the passage of the Impoundment Control Act, the Supreme Court ruled in Train v. City of New York in 1975 that presidents cannot impound funds authorized by Congress unless ...
In that case, the Nixon administration had sought to spend only $2 billion of $5 billion in funds approved for water and sewer improvement for 1973 and only $3 billion of $6 billion approved for 1974.
Trump vowed during his presidential campaign to use impoundment of spending "to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings." He also said the law allowed Congress to usurp power ...