May the President instruct the Secretary to block the use of these funds? Or does he have no option?
The language sounds permissive, not mandatory, to me. But perhaps there is other legislation, or other EO's. But then, perhaps the President could countermand EO's.
Still in the dark ...
Richard F.
I didn't jump in to this food fight to make a point, pro or con, regarding stem cell research. I only got involved because the original article, and the article deport posted were either being disingenuous, or lying.
Congress cannot make a law taking away the Executive's veto power. The Budget is an annual event, and the President gets a chance to veto it every year. Congress' only recourse, in that instance, is to override the veto with a 2/3rds vote. If Congress could make a law that funded something into the distant future, without the Executive having any recourse, the crackheads would have funded their favorite programs through the year 5000 already.
This could be a case where Congress and the NIH pulled a fast one on Bush, I don't have enough info to say. But, believe me, the President's veto is still intact.
As for EOs, I think they are illegal as hell anyway. But, Bush has the authority to overturn prior EOs, and has done so. I don't know if that ability would be helpful to him in this particular instance.