You have said several times violating the ICA was a crime. I don't know if it is. I was asking you, since you said it, just what kind of crime was it? A felony, misdemeanor, parking ticket, something else? If it is a crime, shouldn't it be in the federal registry with punishments outlines? I know the budget office said it was a crime, but no one has ever elaborated on it.
The ICA is part of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which is part of the US Code (2 USC 601-688) so it is a federal law and violating it is a crime. What kind of crime exactly?
“
The Constitution specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse, providing that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The Constitution also vests all legislative powers in Congress and sets forth the procedures of bicameralism and presentment, through which the President may accept or veto a bill passed by both Houses of Congress, and Congress may subsequently override a presidential veto. Id., art. I, § 7, cl. 2, 3. The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law. See Clinton v. City of New York,
524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (the Constitution does not authorize the President “to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes”). Instead, he must “faithfully execute” the law as Congress enacts it. U.S. Const., art. II, § 3.
An appropriations act is a law like any other; therefore, unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017 (the ICA operates on the premise that the President is required to obligate funds appropriated by Congress, unless otherwise authorized to withhold). In fact, Congress was concerned about the failure to prudently obligate according to its Congressional prerogatives when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See generally, H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
“
The act's basis is Constitutional law with regard to what article I establishes as Congress’ power and what article II establishes as the executive’s power. I don’t know of specific enumerated penalties, but as far as I can gather disputes of this level between fundamental branches of government are sorted out at the contempt of Congress, SCOTUS and impeachment level.
www.foxnews.com
www.politifact.com
www.justsecurity.org
