About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

58 UMKC L. Rev. 157 (1989-1990)
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: An Unconstitutional Solution to a Constitutional Problem

handle is hein.journals/umkc58 and id is 167 raw text is: THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974: AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION TO A CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM Irwin R. Kramer* While American presidents have repeatedly urged Congress to provide them with item veto power to selectively disapprove individual items or sec- tions in appropriations bills, they have indirectly exercised this power through- out our nation's history through the controversial practice of impoundment. This practice, which consists of any action or inaction by the President that effectively prevents the use of congressionally appropriated funds, has long been regarded as a significant threat to Congress' constitutional appropriations power.1 Indeed, by assuming the power to withhold funds appropriated under duly enacted laws, American presidents may thwart Congress' will and assume a dominant role in the appropriations process. Responding to the dominant role assumed by President Richard Nixon in executing a record number of impoundments, Congress passed comprehensive legislation to regain control over the federal budget. Without conceding the constitutionality of executive impoundments, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 gave the President limited statutory impoundment authority in exchange for stringent congressional controls upon that authority.' Although the Act succeeded in moderating the struggle for fiscal superiority between Congress and the President, this struggle has intensified following a decision by the Dis- trict of Columbia Circuit invalidating a major provision of the Act.' This Article traces the history of that struggle,4 the impact of the * Copyright 0 1990 by Irwin R. Kramer. Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland. 1990-91 Harry A. Bigelow Teaching Fellow and Lecturer in Law, The University of Chicago School of Law. B.A., 1984, Towson State University; J.D., 1987, University of Maryland; LL.M., 1989, Columbia Univer- sity. The author wishes to thank Eric Schnapper, William G. Dauster, Thomas Armstrong, Larry M. Waranch, Lori L. Bartholomey and the law firm of Weinberg & Green for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this article. 1. See U.S. CONST. art. I, §§ 7, 9, cl. 7. 2. See Pub. L. No. 93-344, 88 Stat. 332 (codified as amended at 2 U.S.C. §§ 681-688 (1982)). 3. See City of New Haven v. United States, 809 F.2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 4. See infra notes 8-59 and accompanying text.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most