Constitutional law should be boring.
Reposted from
Josh Chafetz
There is simply no plausible argument that the president has the constitutional authority to refuse to spend appropriated funds because he doesn’t like how the money is being spent.
The legality of policy impoundments is just not a close question.
The legality of policy impoundments is just not a close question.
Comments
Truman nationalising the US's steel mills in 1952 springs to mind.
Not everything can and should be shrugged off as the same as before.
Assuming nothing can be new and distinctive, is another error.
The job of the half-decent commentator is to work out the differences between what is new and what is not.