By Douglas V. Gibbs ——Bio and Archives--May 16, 2024

Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

I received a link to a video by The Epoch Times discussing a little known constitutional concept known as “impoundment.”In short, the question on the table is, “Is the President of the United States (Executive Branch) required to spend every penny appropriated by Congress for a particular item provided by law.” According to the video, President Donald J. Trump states that when he returns to office, should he win the 2024 Election, he plans to resurrect the Presidential Power of Impoundment.

The issue is both simple, and complex, simultaneously. It is simple in its basic application, but the political class and judicial community have made it a very complex issue with their deceptive language and ideologically driven activities, interpretations, and rulings. To make sure all is understood I want the full context of the issue to be comprehended by you, the reader. So, in this article I will first lay some groundwork to make sure we fully understand each and every complexity of the issue, from its constitutional foundation, to its legislative demise.

First, let’s list the constitutional clauses related to the issue of the Presidential Power of Impoundment.

In the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land is the United States Constitution. The clauses I provided above establish the following:

The Presidential Power of Impoundment basically means that if the President believes the funds are not appropriate, or the amount of funds appropriated exceed what is necessary, the President has the authority to spend, or not spend, as he believes is necessary as long as those expenditures do not exceed the maximum amount of money appropriated. Therefore, if the President of the United States believes the amount that needs to be spent is less than what was appropriated then he has every authority to spend the amount he needs to spend based on his discretion. If the amount of money that needs to be spent is greater than what was appropriated, then once the maximum amount appropriated is reached, in order for more funds to be spent Congress must by law appropriate more money toward the item in question.

Support Canada Free Press

To give you an idea of what I am talking about, let’s use an example we can relate to. If a mother gave her child ten dollars to spend on candy, there is no way the child can spend more than ten dollars because only ten dollars was given. If the child wants to spend more than ten dollars, more money must be requested by the child, approved by the mother, and then appropriated by the mother in the form of handing the child the additional money. However, if the child spends less than ten dollars it would be unreasonable to argue the child is required to spend the entire amount. However, since the money originally belonged to the mother, and it was her decision to give the child the money in the first place, unless she tells the child otherwise, the child is expected to return the remaining money after the purchase to the mother. Of course, if she says, “Keep it for something else,” then the child may retain the money and spend it at a later time. If the child decides that spending the money on candy is not in his best interest after, perhaps, watching a video about the connection of candy to cavities, the child could return the entire ten dollars back to the mother. It would be unreasonable for her to say, “No, I gave you ten dollars for candy, you are required to spend that ten dollars on the candy.” Then again, perhaps due to various circumstances, the child decides not to spend any of the money on candy, but in the near future plans........

© Canada Free Press