no constitutional atty here - but the argument is that since the money was appropriated then THAT is the “authorized by law”.
Added is that there was no budget last year.
So can anyone clear this up? I’ve not seen a post that addresses both sides at all.
Does “appropriated” give authorization to spend even though no budget was passed? Does a budget not being passed matter?
>>no constitutional atty here - but the argument is that since the money was appropriated then THAT is the “authorized by law”.<<
Spending and borrowing (to support spending) are two entirely different matters.
You can sign a contract to purchase something and be legally obligated to pay for it whether you have the money or not. You authorized someone to dun you for what you owe them.
You can also sign a contract to borrow money, agreeing to pay interest and principal as stipulated in the contract.
But they are two different matters entirely. Maybe the reason people get confused about this is that we often do both at once, signing contracts to purchase a house or car, for instance, while simultaneously signing lending agreements that enable us to get the money to make the purchase. Still, they are two separate matters.