Why do we leave it in the hands of a Federal agency to determine whether or not a mandate should be nullified or should be modified? Why should a Federal agency determine on the basis of 'less money, less mandate'? Why should not the legislative branch do this? Why not require that an agency seek the approval of the Appropriations Committees and suggest a reprogramming? That is done from time to time. But why turn a decision of this sort--it is a final decision--over to an executive branch agency? It seems now we are setting up a procedure here that stands in direct conflict with the provisions of article I, section 1, the very first sentence of the U.S. Constitution, which vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States.
Cord Byrd: “Why do we leave it in the hands of a Federal agency to determine whether or not a mandate should be nullified or should…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the authority of federal agencies to modify legislative mandates.
Share
More from Cord Byrd
I opposed the Ensign and Stabenow amendments regarding Social Security and illegal immigrants, because those amendments violated section 313 of the Budget Act--the Byrd Rule--which prohibits extraneous matter on budget reconciliation…
The Florida SAVE Act upholds the Florida Constitution by ensuring only citizens can vote in Florida elections.
The bill includes significant resources for border security, for enforcing our immigration laws, and for improving security at our airports. We include significant new resources for implementing the SAFE Port Act. We also restore cuts in…
We do not sit idle waiting for bad things to happen in order to correct them.





