“Congress could pass a law saying, ‘Give this money to the farmers in Iowa’ in which case the farmers get the money. Or Congress could say, ‘Give this money to the farmers in Iowa, if you find they need it,’” Super said. However, Congress can provide money that is contingent on the president releasing it, in which case, an executive order could release funds, if that’s what Congress called for, he said. David Super, a constitutional law expert teaching at Georgetown University, said that means the president cannot spend money without congressional authorization, "whether by executive order or presidential memorandum or anything else." Constitution grants Congress the country’s spending power. More: Another coronavirus stimulus check: What we know about the next round of payments Constitution gives power of the purse to Congress Reich did not respond to USA TODAY’s request for comment. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., called the orders “ unconstitutional slop,” and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called them “ illusions” that don’t “even accomplish what he sets out to do.” Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle criticized Trump's move, as well.
Reich later shared the same post on his Facebook with the caption, “That’s not how this works.” “Your reminder that a president cannot spend taxpayer dollars by executive order,” the tweet read. One of those critics was former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who tweeted his take on the actions a day after the news was announced. Shortly after, critics took to social media questioning the actions’ legality.
With Congress in gridlock over a second stimulus bill to provide coronavirus relief, President Donald Trump issued four executive actions Aug. Watch Video: COVID-19 stimulus: Trump signs new executive orders despite stalemate Claim: A president cannot spend taxpayer dollars by executive order
0 kommentar(er)
