Is Congress Sidestepping Its Duties Through Repeated "One-Time" Spending?

Skip to comments.

Posted on 12/31/2024 5:12:18 PM PST by tarpit

Is Congress Sidestepping Its Duties Through Repeated "One-Time" Spending? A Look at the Nondelegation Doctrine.

We've seen a pattern lately: Congress allocates funds for "one-time" emergencies, like COVID relief, but then that spending keeps getting renewed, effectively becoming part of the baseline budget. While flexibility in emergencies is crucial, this practice raises a serious question: Could this be an end-run around the Nondelegation Doctrine?

The Nondelegation Doctrine, rooted in Article I of the Constitution, says that Congress can't simply hand over its legislative powers to the Executive Branch. By repeatedly extending spending that was initially justified as temporary, without robust debate and a clear legislative mandate for *permanent* programs, Congress might be effectively delegating its power of the purse.

Think of it this way: if an emergency spending bill gives an agency broad discretion to spend money on a new program, and that spending is repeatedly renewed without a thorough reevaluation of the program's merits or a specific legislative authorization for its continuation, is Congress truly exercising its legislative power, or is it letting the Executive Branch effectively create and fund programs on an ongoing basis?

While the Nondelegation Doctrine has rarely been used to strike down laws in recent times, some legal scholars argue it's ripe for a revival. Could this pattern of "one-time" spending renewals be the test case? At the very least, it's a practice that deserves more scrutiny and raises concerns about the balance of power between the branches of government. We need to ensure that emergency measures don't become a backdoor for permanent expansions of government power without proper Congressional oversight and a clear legislative mandate.

Important Caveats (and why this is a long shot):

* The Nondelegation Doctrine is largely dormant: Courts have been extremely reluctant to invalidate laws based on this doctrine since the 1930s. * High Bar for Success: A successful challenge would require a very specific set of facts and a compelling legal argument. It would have to overcome the strong presumption of constitutionality that courts afford to Congressional actions. * Political Question: Courts might deem this a "political question" best left to the political branches.

Disclaimer:* This post is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. It raises a complex legal question and is intended to stimulate discussion.

1 posted on 12/31/2024 5:12:18 PM PST by tarpit

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson