 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Congressional powers
I am critical of the notion that the US Congress has any special power over financial matters (I wrote a blog on the subject). I would like this article to clarify that Congress has the sole power to originate laws on any subject, and that its financial bills can be vetoed like any other. I am considering how to complete this article but I'm not sure how to write like an encyclopedia. Boris B 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Glaring omission
Instead of using this article to solicit change to the Constitution, I would like to recommend that a reference be provided to the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.190.94 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is the first time I've visited this Wikipedia article, and also found that to be a glaring omission. I added the referenced to Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 as the first sentence in the "United States" section. Everything else after that is just blah, blah, blah. — QuicksilverT @ 23:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note that Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 deals with revenues, not spending. So it isn't relevant to "power of the purse." The Appropriations Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 *is* relevant. But the actual "power" is given in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. SDLarsen (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Constitution Does Not Give Power of the Purse to the House Alone
The following sentence in the article is factually wrong:
"In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the House of Representatives, as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7, Clause 1."
First, Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution is concerned with revenue bills, not spending bills. So that shouldn't even be cited. Second, it is Congress as a whole, not just the House, that is given power of the purse. While it is true that appropriation bills originate in the House, that is merely a matter of tradition. Both houses of Congress have equal say.
The President has the power to veto an appropriation bill, of course. But Congress can override the veto with a 2/3rds majority. Again, this is both houses, not just the House of Representatives.
I will edit that sentence accordingly.SDLarsen (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Related to that sentence is the following clause located in the next paragraph:
"Appropriation bills cannot originate in the Senate, but the Senate can amend appropriation bills that originate in the House. However, for most of the nation's legislative history, the Senate has avoided that limitation by taking a random bill passed by the House, removing most of the text, and using the shell of the former bill to create its own spending bill."
This sentence has multiple issues. First, where it states that appropriation bills cannot originate in the Senate, that may or may not be the case according to House and Senate rules, but it is certainly not mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Second, the whole clause lacks references. And third, the clause is out of place. If anything it should be located in the first paragraph of the section.
I'm going to remove it. If somebody wants to put it back, that's fine. But put it in the first paragraph and cite an appropriate reference to back it up. Thanks.SDLarsen (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Trump wall money diversion attempts, add ?
Regarding Power of the purse#United States:
A coalition of 19 states are suing to block the Trump administration’s diversion of $3.8 billion from the Pentagon to the Trump wall. The states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin; argue that redirecting money already allocated by lawmakers violates the US Congress’ appropriation powers. The states also argue that diverting billions from defense programs “will cause damage to their economies, harming their proprietary interests.”