"The Constitution, statutory provisions, court opinions, and Department of Justice (DOJ) opinions provide the legal framework for how funding gaps and shutdowns have occurred in recent decades. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Federal employees and contractors cannot be paid, for example, if appropriations in the first place have not been enacted. Nevertheless, it would appear to be possible under the Constitution for the government to make contracts or other obligations if it lacked funds to pay for these commitments. The so-called Antideficiency Act generally prevents this, however. The act prohibits federal officials from obligating funds before an appropriations measure has been enacted, except as authorized by law. The act also prohibits acceptance of voluntary services and employment of personal services exceeding what has been authorized by law. Exceptions are made under the act to the latter prohibition for “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” Therefore, the Antideficiency Act generally prohibits agencies from continued operation in the absence of appropriations. Failure to comply with the act may result in criminal sanctions, fines, and removal. For years leading up to 1980, many federal agencies continued to operate during a funding gap, “minimizing all nonessential operations and obligations, believing that Congress did not intend that agencies close down,” while waiting for the enactment of annual appropriations acts or continuing resolutions. In 1980 and 1981, however, U.S. Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti issued two opinions that more strictly interpreted the Antideficiency Act in the context of a funding gap, along with the law’s exceptions." fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34680.pdf
Posted on: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:21:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015