.
11/21/14, "Will Boehner's House Unilaterally Nullify Its Power of the Purse?" CNS News, Terence P. Jeffrey
"The Constitution is unambiguous about which branch of the federal
government has the authority to make laws governing immigration and
control all money spent from the Treasury. It is Congress.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 says: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
For President Obama to succeed in carrying out his plan to
unilaterally change the status of illegal immigrants, two things must
happen:
1) He must usurp the constitutional authority of Congress to
make immigration laws, and
2) Congress must decline to use its
constitutional power of the purse to stop him.
Now a third thing could happen: The Republican-controlled House, led
by Speaker John Boehner, may not only decline to use its power of the
purse to stop Obama from usurping authority over immigration laws, it
may also try persuade the nation it does not actually have that power
when it comes to immigration laws.
On Thursday, a New York Times blog published a statement from the
House Appropriations Committee that suggested Congress had no control
over the funding of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and
that therefore the agency could "expand operations as under a new
executive order" no matter what Congress said in a continuing
resolution to fund the government.
I contacted the committee via email to confirm the statement
published by the Times and to ask if the committee believes that
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution applies to CIS.
The committee sent me verbatim exactly the same statement that had been published by the Times. It said:
"The primary agency for implementing the president's new immigration
executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it
collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not
appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of
immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the 'E-Verify'
program. Therefore, the appropriations process cannot be used to
'de-fund' the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect
and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations
as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by
the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing
resolution or a government shutdown."
Responding on background, an Appropriations Committee aide said in an
email: "You could 'defund' the CIS, but it would take an
authorization/change to underlying statute that impacts their use of
fees. This is an authorization issue, not an appropriations issue."
"Even if such an authorization change were to be attached to an
omnibus bill via a rider, the president would veto the bill, and the
government would shut down," said the aide. "At that point, the CIS
would still not be defunded and would continue to operate, given that
it is fee-funded."
I followed up by sending the staffer a passage from Justice Joseph
Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States." Story
was named to the court by President James Madison, a leading Framer of
the Constitution.
"The object is apparent upon the slightest examination," Story wrote
about the Article 1, Section 9 power of the purse. "It is to secure
regularity, punctuality, and fidelity, in the disbursements of the
public money. As all the taxes raised from the people, as well as the
revenues arising from other sources, are to be applied to the discharge
of the expenses, and debts, and other engagements of the government, it
is highly proper, that congress should possess the power to decide,
how and when any money should be applied for these purposes. If it were
otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the
public purse of the nation; and might apply all its monied resources at
his pleasure."
I asked: "Is it not a different thing to say the president would
veto it than to say the committee does not have the power to stop the
expenditure of funds on this? Also, does the committee reject Joseph
Story's interpretation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 when he said
that it applied to "all the taxes raised from the people, as well as
the revenues arising from other sources"? ... Does the committee
believe that fees collected by a federal agency and then drawn from the
Treasury and spent are not covered by its power under Article I,
Section 9, Clause 7?"
Speaking again on background, the committee aide responded via
email: "As per the underlying statute, CIS is funded outside of
appropriations. The fees are collected and spent according to the
underlying authorization (The Immigration and Nationality Act), and are
not subject to the appropriations process. Congress can indeed change
CIS's ability to collect and spend fees, but it would require a change
in the authorization."
Three observations:
1) If Obama spends "fees" collected into the Treasury by CIS to
implement unilateral executive actions he is not acting on the
"underlying authorization," he is defying it.
2) It does not matter whether the government brings money into the
Treasury through a tax, a fee or selling debt to the People's Republic
of China, the Constitution says: "No Money shall be drawn from the
Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
3) It appears that Republican congressional leaders do not want to
take any effective action to protect either the constitutional
authority of Congress to make the immigration laws or the power of the
purse that protects Americans against a president spending money from
the Treasury "at his pleasure.""
=======================
Rep.
Dave Brat, R-Richmond, the economist who defeated Eric Cantor, supports
power of the purse to defund Obama exec. act rewarding illegal
residents:
"Brat
acknowledged that the agency is self-funded through immigration
application fees, but that the appropriations committee voted in August
to determine how the agency spends those fees."...
11/21/14, "Brat: 'Not one thin dime' for Obama's immigration plan," Richmond Times-Dispatch,
The
7th District's newly elected Congressman vowed via Twitter Thursday
night that he supports, "Not one thin dime," to fund the proposed
actions outlined by President Barack Obama to deal with the broken
immigration system.
"I support using
the power of the purse to defund Obama's amnesty," tweeted Rep. Dave
Brat, R-Richmond, the economist, replacing Eric Cantor, who recently
took office in Washington.
Virginia Democrats, meanwhile, applauded the
president's efforts attempting to bring some five million undocumented
residents "out of the shadows."...
Brat said he would not vote to fund a program "that subverts the law
or encourages tens of thousands more people to risk their lives
illegally crossing our border." He said the U.S. House should "use its
power of the purse" to defund in the current budget bill "Obama's
illegal executive action."
"We must fund the rest of government with a
short-term bill while, in a separate bill, defund the appropriations for
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services programs that the
president intends to use to carry out this act," Brat said.
The newly elected 7th District representative
called the presidential action an "attempt to give amnesty to five
million illegal aliens," saying it was unfair to others "waiting in line
to become citizens the right way." Brat said the president's actions
would encourage more children to attempt to illegally enter the U.S.
"In addition, crony insiders will now get the amnesty they lobbied for to provide a cheap supply of labor while
millions of Americans remain unemployed," he said.
A statement Thursday from the House
Appropriations Committee indicated that Congress could not use the
budget appropriations process to cut funding for the president's
proposed actions through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Brat
acknowledged that the agency is self-funded through immigration
application fees, but that the appropriations committee voted in August
to determine how the agency spends those fees.
The committee said in its statement Thursday that
the immigration services agency could continue to collect its fees,
operate and expand operations under the president's new executive order
"without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or
the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government
shutdown.""...
=========================
Comment: Obama merely announced he's not going to deport people he already hasn't deported. Of greater Constitutional urgency is how the GOP since Jan. 2011 has been nullifying or attempting to redefine the House of Representatives' Constitutionally provided Power of the Purse.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment