Part III. Presidential Spending Powers | Howell E. Jackson | August 19, 2015

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

Part III. Presidential Spending Powers

Original Creator: Howell E. Jackson Current Version: Howell E. Jackson Show/Hide
In Part III of the course we take up Presidential Spending Powers and consider the extent to which the Executive has authority to influence spending decisions in a variety of contexts. EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST

Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:

MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (4/4 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/4 playlist item notes are private)
  1. 1 Show/Hide More Class Six -- Monday, January 11, 2016
    Original Creator: Howell E. Jackson Current Version: Howell E. Jackson

    In today's class, we will begin our discussion of presidential spending powers by discussing a debate between Professors Stith and Sidak over the power of the purse. (The Boland Amendment, which figures heavily into the Stith and Sidak debate, is an example of an appropriations rider, a topic explored in a briefing paper assigned as optional reading for Class Five and a legislative tool of continuing significance.)
    In today's class, we will also dig into the specific example of executive spending during government shutdowns, as explored in Puja Seam & Brad Shron, “Government Shutdowns” (May 4, 2005) (Briefing Paper No. 10) – please read pages 18-37 and 40-44.

    Team Assignment: (Teams A, E & I): Please write a short (3-5 page) memorandum evaluating the relative merits of Professor Stith’s and Professor Sidak’s arguments.

    For reference, as an overview of the mechanics of Executive powers, see Schick, The Federal Budget: Chapter Ten: Managing Federal Expenditures, which we will take up in further depth during Tuesday's class.

  2. 2 Show/Hide More Class Seven -- Tuesday, January 12, 2016
    Original Creator: Howell E. Jackson Current Version: Howell E. Jackson

    Today's class will focus primarily on the student loan exercise. Start by reading the exercise itself and then work through background materials included in the student debt exercise playlist. Please read the background materials for this problem carefully. All students enrolled in the course should submit a 1000 word reaction paper on this exercise by 8:00 am of the morning of January 12th. In preparation for working on this reaction paper, you should read the briefing paper on federal credit programs.

    Additional background materials on accounting presentations are also included, but these are optional and will be discussed later in the course in any event. You do not need to read these materials in order to complete the student loan exercise.

    1. 2.1 Show/Hide More Student Loan Exercise
      Student Loan Exercise
      1. 2.3.1 Show/Hide More Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), editted for Federal Budget Policy
        Original Creator: Howell E. Jackson
        Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), editted for Federal Budget Policy
      2. 2.3.2 Show/Hide More Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005), edited for Federal Budget Policy
        Original Creator: Howell E. Jackson Current Version: Howell E. Jackson
        Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005), edited for Federal Budget Policy
        1. 2.3.3.1 Show/Hide More Dispute Over FEMA Sandy Recoupment
          Original Creator: Howell E. Jackson Current Version: Howell E. Jackson
          Read over materials on FEMA Recoupment. Why are members of Congress from New York and New Jersey upset with FEMA's practices with respect to the recoupment of overpayments? Should agencies like FEMA have more latitude to forgive debts? We will be revisiting this topic at the beginning of the second week of class when we discuss the Department of Education's ability to forgive student loan debt.
        2. 2.3.3.3 Show/Hide More Fujioka & Kypriotakis, Briefing Paper on Recognizing Credit Adjustments from Compromise, Waiver and Other Actions of Government Agents (2014) - Read Pages 17-30
          Fujioka & Kypriotakis, Briefing Paper on Recognizing Credit Adjustments from Compromise, Waiver and Other Actions of Government Agents (2014) – Read Pages 17-30
        1. 2.3.4.1 Show/Hide More Fujioka & Kypriotakis, Briefing Paper on Recognizing Credit Adjustments from Compromise, Waiver and Other Actions of Government Agents (2014) - Read Pages 17-30
          Fujioka & Kypriotakis, Briefing Paper on Recognizing Credit Adjustments from Compromise, Waiver and Other Actions of Government Agents (2014) – Read Pages 17-30
        1. 2.3.6.3 Show/Hide More Fujioka & Kypriotakis, Briefing Paper on Recognizing Credit Adjustments from Compromise, Waiver and Other Actions of Government Agents (2014) - Read Pages 17-30
          Fujioka & Kypriotakis, Briefing Paper on Recognizing Credit Adjustments from Compromise, Waiver and Other Actions of Government Agents (2014) – Read Pages 17-30
  3. 3 Show/Hide More Class Eight-- Wednesday, January 13, 2016
    Original Creator: Howell E. Jackson Current Version: Howell E. Jackson

    In today's class, we will continue our discussion of Presidential spending powers, sIn today's class, we will continue our discussion of Presidential spending powers, starting first with the topic of line item vetos, which came before the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998). We will then review the topic of reprogramming, which was touched upon in Chapter Ten of Schick, The Federal Budget, and is explored in more detail in Takeshi Fujitani & Jared Shirck, “Executive Spending Powers: The Capacity to Reprogram, Rescind, and Impound” (May 3, 2005) (Briefing Paper No. 8).

    Team Assignment (Teams BFJ): Please write a short (3-5 page) memorandum assessing whether the practices for reprogramming comport with the constitutional standards articulated in the Clinton v. City of New York decision as well as other separation-of-powers cases we’ve encountered in this course.

    tarting first with the topic of line item vetos, which came before the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998). We will then review the topic of reprogramming, which was touched upon in Chapter Ten of Schick, The Federal Budget, and is explored in more detail in Takeshi Fujitani & Jared Shirck, “Executive Spending Powers: The Capacity to Reprogram, Rescind, and Impound” (May 3, 2005) (Briefing Paper No. 8).

    For additional background on Executive spending powers, see two additional briefing papers included as reference for today's class. Focus especial on the first of these papers.

    1. 3.3 Show/Hide More Briefing Papers for Reference for Jan. 13, 2016

      Stacy Anderson & Blake Roberts, “Capacity To Commit in the Absence of Legislation: Takings, Winstar, FTCA, & the Court of Claims”(May 2005) (Briefing Paper No. 12) (http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/CapacitytoCommitt_12.pdf)

      Bob Allen & Sarah Miller, “The Constitutionality of Executive Spending Powers” (May 10, 2008) (Briefing Paper No. 38) (http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/ConstitutionalityOfExecutive_38.pdf)

  4. 4 Show/Hide More Class Nine-- Thursday, January 14, 2016
    Original Creator: Howell E. Jackson Current Version: Howell E. Jackson

    Today we will take up debt ceiling, starting first with Michael W. McConnell, The Origins of the Fiscal Constitution & Howell E. Jackson, The 2011 Debt Ceiling Crisis Revisited, from Is U.S. Government Debt Different (2012). You should also read over pages 18-62 of Jeremy Kreisberg & Kelley O'Mara, The 2011 Debt Limit Impasse: Treasury's Actions & The Counterfactual – What Might have Happened if the National Debt Hit the Satutory Limit (September 4, 2012) (Briefing Paper No. 41).

    Team Assignment (Teams CGK): Please write a short (3-5 page) memorandum assessing whether the next Secretary of the Treasury should invest effort in a contingency plan to prioritize federal expenditures in a more rational manner should another debt ceiling crisis occur during the next presidential administration. Assuming the Department were to develop such a contingency plan, what system of prioritization should plan follow?

    A student briefing paper on the “Gold Clause Cases” and their implications for government borrowing today is also included as background reading.

Close

Playlist Information

August 19, 2015

Author Stats

Howell E. Jackson

James S. Reid, Jr. Professor of Law

Harvard University

Other Playlists by Howell E. Jackson

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large