Power of the Purse | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Each house of Congress has the power to introduce legislation on any subject except revenue bills, which must originate in the House of Representatives. may thus appear to have more influence over the public purse than the small states. for the purpose of raising revenue are to start in the House of Representatives. The power of the purse has been a significant power which notably ended. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The organization and character of the House of Representatives have evolved under the influence of political partieswhich provide a means of controlling proceedings and mobilizing the necessary majorities. Party leaders, such as the speaker of the House and the majority and minority leaders, play a central role in the operations of the institution. However, party discipline i. A further dominating element of House organization is the committee systemunder which the membership is divided into specialized groups for purposes such as holding hearings, preparing bills for the consideration of the entire House, and regulating House procedure.
Each committee is chaired by a member of the majority party. There are approximately 20 standing permanent committees, organized mainly around major policy areas, each having staffs, budgets, and subcommittees.
They may hold hearings on questions of public interest, propose legislation that has not been formally introduced as a bill or resolution, and conduct investigations.
Among important standing committees are those on appropriations, on ways and means which handles matters related to financeand on rules. There are also select and special committees, which are usually appointed for a specific project and for a limited period. The committees also play an important role in the control exercised by Congress over governmental agencies.
The constitutional provision making Congress the ultimate authority on government spending passed with far less debate. The framers were unanimous that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds—not the President or executive branch agencies. The Early Appropriations Process The First Congress — passed the first appropriations act—a mere 13 lines long—a few months after it convened.
This simple process was short-lived. Over time, nine regular appropriation bills emerged and funded such priorities as pensions, harbors, the post office, and the military. These were considered on an annual basis by the late s.How is the House of Representatives different than the Senate?
The House Committee on Ways and Means, which also had jurisdiction over tax policy, controlled the appropriations process. But legislation and funding were always kept separate.
Power of the purse
Priorities were spelled out in one law and money appropriated for those priorities in another. This has remained the practice, as substantive committees design authorization acts and the House and Senate Appropriation Committees fund authorized programs later.
Indeed, there are laws and parliamentary rules against making new law in appropriation bills, although such rules are periodically waived. The Appropriations Committee was established to fund programs, while Ways and Means retained jurisdiction on tax policy.
House leadership and other committees also tried to influence the appropriations process, and the lack of coordination over the years led to high deficits and the implementation of the federal income tax in In the s, the Rehnquist Court treated these New Deal cases as the high water mark of congressional power.
In the cases of U. Lopez and U.
Morrisonthe Court confined this regulatory authority to intrastate economic activity. In addition, in a concurring opinion in Gonzales v. RaichJustice Scalia maintained that, under Lopez, "Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. Sebeliusina majority of the justices found that a mandate to compel a person to engage in the economic activity of buying health insurance was beyond the powers of Congress under both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.
The dispute over the breadth of the meaning of "commerce" turns, in large part, on the purposes one attributes to the clause, and to the Constitution as a whole, and what one thinks is the relevance of such purposes to the meaning of the text. At Philadelphia inthe Convention resolved that Congress could "legislate in all cases. Convention 21 Max Farrand ed. This was then translated by the Committee of Detail into the present enumeration of powers in Article I, Section 8, which was accepted as a functional equivalent by the Convention without much discussion.
Proponents of an expansive reading claim that the power to regulate commerce should extend to any problem the states cannot separately solve. Those who support a narrower reading observe that the Constitution aims to constrain, as well as to empower, Congress, and the broadest reading of the Commerce power extends well beyond anything the framers imagined. As the dissenters in the health care case observed, "Article I contains no whatever-it-takes-to-solve-a-national-problem power.
For contrasting views of evidence on the original public meaning of the terms in the Commerce Clause, compare Randy E. Balkin, Living Originalism ; Randy E. Barnett As Professor Koppelman and my jointly-authored essay shows, abundant evidence—including what we know about slavery at the time of the Founding—tells us that the original meaning of the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to make regular, and even to prohibit, the trade, transportation or movement of persons and goods from one state to a foreign nation, to another state, or to an Indian tribe.
It did not originally include the power to regulate the economic activities, like manufacturing or agriculture, that produced the goods to be traded or transported. We should follow the original meaning of this provision for the same reason we limit California to the same number of Senators as Delaware, notwithstanding the vast disparity between their populations, or limit the president to a person who is at least thirty-five years old, though some who are younger than thirty-five might make excellent presidents.
A written constitution is the law that governs those who govern us. And those who govern us— whether the Congress, the president, or the courts—can no more properly change the law that governs them without going through the amendment process of Article V, than can the people can change the speed limits imposed on them without going through the legislative process.
But such an oath would be meaningless if it was merely promising to obey whatever meaning a government official later wants the Constitution to mean. I agree with Professor Koppelman that the Founders attempted to distinguish the problems that were best handled at the national level from those best handled by the states. But they did so by drafting a specific list of such powers, rather than leave it to the national authority to decide the scope of its own power.
Where later developments justify adding to these national powers, such expansion is properly handled by an Article V constitutional amendment, as the Constitution was once amended to give Congress the power to prohibit the intrastate economic activity of producing and selling alcohol. See the Eighteenth Amendment. Enforcing the original meaning of the Commerce Clause does not mean that other economic activities are free from any government regulation.
It merely means that the power to regulate all intrastate economic activities resides with each of the fifty states.
- House of Representatives
- Powers of the House and Senate
- Power of the Purse
Where national uniformity and coordination between states are desirable, these goals can be achieved by the Interstate Compacts Clause of Article I, Section 8, by which states may enter into agreements or compacts with another state or states, provided they have the consent of Congress.
Many such compacts exist. Read the full discussion here.
Power of the purse - Wikipedia
I identify some of the key advantages of decentralizing most law-making at the state level in my statement on Federalism. Here is a summary of my analysis there: Federalism Makes Regulatory Diversity Possible.
Given widespread disagreement about both economic and social policies, lodging this regulatory power in the states enables a diversity of approaches to develop. When it comes to economic regulation, so long as they remain within the proper scope of their power to protect the rights, health and safety of the public, fifty states can experiment with different regimes of legal regulation so the results can be witnessed and judged rather than endlessly speculated about.
States will be somewhat inhibited in imposing restrictions on businesses by the threat of regulatory competition. Businesses small and large can decide to relocate if they deem a particular scheme of regulation to be too onerous.