This is false. The power of the purse is meaningless if the executive can simply disregard the appropriation of dollars is the law. There are numerous specific textual bases for this claim. But the mere logic of the document and the structure it creates makes this emphatically clear.
Reposted from
Aaron Rupar
Chip Roy endorses impoundment (which is illegal): "All the powers our founders gave were invested in the executive, in the president. POTUS has the ability to go forward and say, 'we're gonna spend this money the way we're supposed to under the law.' There's no requirement he spend every dollar."
Comments
My ass.
Gov: Raises revenues (i.e. tax collection)
Them: Nooooooo! Not like that!
What are the penalties, exactly, written in the 'Constitution' ?
Who enforces them, those 'Constitutional' laws ?
Or is it just a piece of worthless toilet paper to wipe your collective arses with ?
Madison Fed 58.
-Peleg Sprague 1834
-Samuel Southard, 1834
-Thomas Ewing, 1834
NO SUCH THING
The job of the executive is to enact the laws (in this case the spending) passed by congress to the best of their ability, anything else is a derelection of duty. Oh, and to act as head of state.
They would gin up a war whenever parliament wouldn't approve spending.
Then they'd misappropriate the military funds that were required to be approved during a war.
It opens the door for him to cut a deal with Trump where Roy votes for a Republican-only budget/CR/ceiling that appears to not touch entitlements but then Trump goes and cuts off a bunch of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid unilaterally.
Congress has the power of the purse strings because of precedent.