EXCLUSIVE: Corrupt DOJ’s Pick to “Investigate” President Trump Is Connected to Andrew Weissmann Who Ran the Sham Mueller Special Counsel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
War Room: MTG says She Talked to Kevin McCarthy and There Will be NO FUNDING for latest Special Counsel Investigation of Trump (VIDEO)
Holman Rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Holman Rule is a rule in the United States House of Representatives that allows amendments to appropriations legislation that would reduce the salary of or fire specific federal employees, or cut a specific program. The rule was first enacted in 1876 and rescinded in 1983, and was reinstated in January 2017 on a temporary basis.[1]
It was in effect for the entirety of the Republican-controlled 115th Congress and several amendments were proposed that progressed to a vote of the full House, but none were adopted. The rule was rescinded once more at the beginning of the 116th Congress upon Democrats taking control of the chamber.
Contents
1 Effects
2 Text
3 History
3.1 Revival
4 References
Effects
The rule is an exception to the prohibition against provisions in appropriations legislation that change existing law.[2][3] Prior to the rule’s reinstatement in 2017, cuts could be made to agencies broadly, but not to specific programs or employees.[4]
The rule was used to eliminate 29 customs positions in 1932 and another eight in 1939, to allow a provision reducing the number of naval officers in 1938, and to allow a 1952 amendment disallowing the filling of vacancies in independent agencies until the agency’s workforce had been reduced by 10%.[2] Prior to 2017, it appeared never to have been used to cut a specific worker’s salary with the intent of incentivizing them to quit.[5] The rule cannot be used if the reductions are contingent on other events, or to give broad authority to agency heads to fire workers.[3][5]
The constitutionality of bills passed under the Holman Rule has been questioned by legal scholars in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Lovett (1946).
That case dealt with an act of Congress, passed during the Red Scare, that defunded the salaries of 39 employees accused of having Communist sympathies. The Court held that, under these circumstances, the Act was no “mere appropriation measure”, but was effectively a bill of attainder prohibited by Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution.
Snip
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4110284/posts?page=9#9
9 posted on 11/18/2022, 9:11:54 PM by Liz