superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,670
Ok... over a century.
Instances of presidential impoundment date back to the early nineteenth century, but Presidents typically sought accommodation rather than confrontation with Congress.4 In the 1950s and 1960s, disputes over the impoundment authority resulted from the refusal of successive Presidents to fund certain weapons systems to the full extent authorized by Congress. These confrontations between the President and Congress revolved around the constitutional role of commander-in-chief and tended to focus on relatively narrow issues of weapons procurement. President Johnson made broader use of his power to impound by ordering the deferral of billions of dollars of spending during the Vietnam war in an effort to restrain inflationary pressures in the economy. While some impoundments during these periods were motivated by policy concerns, they typically involved temporary spending delays, with the President acting in consultation with congressional leaders, so that a protracted confrontation between the branches was avoided.
[/QUOTE]
The only actual example of impoundment (pre-Nixon) I'm aware of was Jefferson, and that's a different issue. Basically the impoundment was justified because Congress -- without cars or even telegraphs -- could not respond in real time to developing world affairs. In other words, that particular impoundment was an instance of the president's power over foreign policy. I've not heard of this LBJ impoundment and would have to read more about it.
The examples of "impoundment" under Eisenhower were no such thing. He claimed that there were conflicting federal statutes -- i.e. a debt limit and an appropriation that would exceed the debt limit. I don't know the details if that was true, or how it was true, but that was the claim. That's not impoundment.
And then there was Nixon. Who is not exactly the example you want to cite for the constitutionality of the practice.
I suppose there could be a very narrow case for "impoundment" when there's a conflict between foreign policy and legislation. For instance, suppose the president is negotiating a peace treaty, and the parties agree to a cease-fire while the treaty is being negotiated. Part of the cease-fire is not obtaining more weaponry. If Congress then appropriates $1B for the weapons, one could argue that the president could delay spending that money as part of his commander-in-chief role. Similarly, if Congress appropriates money for, say, torture, which is a violation of international law and a violation of US treaty agreements, the president could refuse to spend that money as against the law.
But those examples are not really impoundment as the term is being used today. Those do not involve the executive making any discretionary judgment as to the appropriateness of spending. You could use the term, but it's not the same concept.
