Government financial obligations

[Justin Rocket]

Quote:

31 USC § 1341 - Limitations on expending and obligating amounts

(1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not—
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;

A poster asserted in a different thread that if the US Government makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure for which funds don't exist, then an appropriation or funds must later be made available.

That seems to be wrong.

As per the law referenced above, the government cannnot make or authorize an obligation or expenditure until -after- the appropriation or funds are available.

In other words, it is illegal to pass a law which creates an obligation on the part of the US government until _after_ the funds/appropriation for those funds already exists.

[thejeff]

Justin Rocket wrote:

Quote:

31 USC § 1341 - Limitations on expending and obligating amounts

(1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not—
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;

A poster asserted in a different thread that if the US Government makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure for which funds don't exist, then an appropriation or funds must later be made available.

That seems to be wrong.

As per the law referenced above, the government cannnot make or authorize an obligation or expenditure until -after- the appropriation or funds are available.

In other words, it is illegal to pass a law which creates an obligation on the part of the US government until _after_ the funds/appropriation for those funds already exists.

I'm no legal expert and I'm not going to dig through all the legal context to prove it, but I don't think that law means what you think it means.

It certainly doesn't mean Congress can't pass a law until after the funds/appropriations exist. More likely it means the officer or employee can't sign a contract or a check unless the money is available.

[John Woodford]

Unfortunately, the GPO doesn't seem to let you pull out the surrounding text from Title 31, so I can't find the definition of an officer; from elsewhere in the US Code, though, I think that elected positions in the Federal Government are considered to be officials and not officers or employees.

[thejeff]

John Woodford wrote:

Unfortunately, the GPO doesn't seem to let you pull out the surrounding text from Title 31, so I can't find the definition of an officer; from elsewhere in the US Code, though, I think that elected positions in the Federal Government are considered to be officials and not officers or employees.

Nor do I think legislating counts as "make or authorize an expenditure or obligation" in this context.

[meatrace]

thejeff wrote:

I'm no legal expert and I'm not going to dig through all the legal context to prove it, but I don't think that law means what you think it means.

It certainly doesn't mean Congress can't pass a law until after the funds/appropriations exist. More likely it means the officer or employee can't sign a contract or a check unless the money is available.

Yeah that's basically how I read it as well.

Laws don't govern what laws may be passed by Congress, only the Constitution does.

Otherwise you could just stick "it shall be illegal to repeal this law" somewhere in any legislation and BAM permanente.

[Asphere]

Justin Rocket wrote:

Quote:

31 USC § 1341 - Limitations on expending and obligating amounts

(1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not—
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;

A poster asserted in a different thread that if the US Government makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure for which funds don't exist, then an appropriation or funds must later be made available.

That seems to be wrong.

As per the law referenced above, the government cannnot make or authorize an obligation or expenditure until -after- the appropriation or funds are available.

In other words, it is illegal to pass a law which creates an obligation on the part of the US government until _after_ the funds/appropriation for those funds already exists.

If it is me you are referring to than I apologize for asserting that. It wasn't what I meant. You were implying that the PPACA was part of the resolution that failed Monday. We were trying to tell you that it wasn't and I mentioned that this move was unprecedented and was not a failure on the Democrats part to not negotiate. From your posts you seem to believe that the PPACA was funded through the resolution and that the house was simply removing it. I said that what the GOP was doing was unprecedented, meaning to make it clear that laws have not been defunded prior to implementation on financial resolutions that they are not part of. Looking back at it what I said was much more muddled.