Appropriations – Constitution Article 1 §9.7

On Wednesdays we study the Constitution. I finally got to Article 1, Section 9, limiting the powers of Congress. Last week I learned about Article 1 §9.6, the “no preference clause,” which requires Congress to treat the states equally. This week it’s Constitution Article 1 §9.7, which deals with appropriations and accounting. Before you dislocate your jaw from yawning, remember “misappropriating” money is usually how politicians do crime.

Constitution Article 1 §9.7

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Appropriations Made By Law

Well, it turns out the Framers were less concerned with politicians lining their pockets than with – you guessed it – the executive branch getting too much power. According to my trusty reference, the Annotated Constitution, the case of Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States verified that the restriction on drawing money from the Treasury “was intended as a restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive department.”

Payment of Claims

The payment of claims, strangely enough, generated more judicial controversy than corrupt politicians or power-grabbing Executives. After the Civil War, this clause figured into several court cases dealing with reparations and claims for reimbursement from pardoned Southerners who lost property in the war. Thanks to this clause, no one in the Federal government could reimburse or settle such claims without Congressional approval. In most cases when two factions fight for control of a country, the loser usually find themselves summoned to midnight meetings ending in gunshots and mass graves, this restriction on compensation for the defeated seems pretty reasonable.

Statement and Account

I thought the requirement that Congress publish its accounts, therefore maintaining transparency and accountability in government spending, was pretty important. But the Annotated Constitution doesn’t show any case history associated with this part of the clause. Maybe it’s never been challenged because everyone agrees that it’s necessary and important?