Question on laws, bills, government power, etc. in the US

I'm doing this big project on embryonic stem cell research, but I have some questions on the whole legal part of it.

In 2001 Bush ordered an executive order which said no federal funds would be allocated for stem cell research that resulted in the death of an embryo. Therefore, federally funded stem cell researched was banned, since the only viable way right now to do it, involves killing the embryo. Under Clinton, a bill that included an amendment that said basically the same thing as Bush's executive order was passed [Dickey Amendment] yet Clinton's council on bioethics said that the law [Dickey's amendment] could be interpreted in a different way, so it was and federal funds were available for embryonic stem cell research during Clinton. Since then the Dickey Amendment has been attached to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill each year.

My question is: if the embryonic stem cell research funds came from a federal source would they would come from the Department of Health and Human Services and then given to the National Institute of Health [NIH] who would then give the funds to scientists? Or is that not the correct procedure?

In the case the above was the correct procedure, and I know that the Department of Health and Human Services is cabinet department, hence part of the executive branch, would this then mean that the executive [president] can simply give a direct order to this department [Health and Human Services] to not give funds for embryonic stem cell research, or would this bill be an appropriation bill and would have to pass through congress?

I know it's kinda long and everything, but I would very much appreciate any help.

-William-;2510265 said:

My question is: if the embryonic stem cell research funds came from a federal source would they would come from the Department of Health and Human Services and then given to the National Institute of Health [NIH] who would then give the funds to scientists? Or is that not the correct procedure?

In the case the above was the correct procedure, and I know that the Department of Health and Human Services is cabinet department, hence part of the executive branch, would this then mean that the executive [president] can simply give a direct order to this department [Health and Human Services] to not give funds for embryonic stem cell research, or would this bill be an appropriation bill and would have to pass through congress?

I know it's kinda long and everything, but I would very much appreciate any help.

Click to expand...

I imagine that is the correct procedure, and then the NIH would just funnel funds to those scientists and laboratories that applied for them. I'm no expert in this stuff, and the government bureaucracy is really complicated.

Yes the President could order that, but he would probably face a legal challenge from the scientists who rely on those funds because the President deprived them of what Congress allocated to them. The President has a lot of power with executive orders, but generally he cannot disobey an Act of Congress; now what Clinton did generally will not face a legal challenge because no one would have a substantial loss and therefore no one would have standing to sue in court. However, if the President deprived people of funds that Congress made available to them, they could sue and probably win.

It's all about money....

That's why the whole ******* place is going to implode in about 10 years....

ShiftyPowers;2510346 said:

I imagine that is the correct procedure, and then the NIH would just funnel funds to those scientists and laboratories that applied for them. I'm no expert in this stuff, and the government bureaucracy is really complicated.

Yes the President could order that, but he would probably face a legal challenge from the scientists who rely on those funds because the President deprived them of what Congress allocated to them. The President has a lot of power with executive orders, but generally he cannot disobey an Act of Congress; now what Clinton did generally will not face a legal challenge because no one would have a substantial loss and therefore no one would have standing to sue in court. However, if the President deprived people of funds that Congress made available to them, they could sue and probably win.

Click to expand...

First of all thanks for your help.

Now that I'm getting more into the whole issue, I got to know how the whole federal spending process will be like for this specific issue, supposing it actually occured [federal funding for embryonic stem cell research].

I understand there are different type of bills, and bills that deal with government spending are appropiation bills, yet the president gives out every fiscal year a federal budget that includes both mandatory bills and appropriation bills. However, in the case we want the spending to occur as soon as possible, would it be feasible to just try to pass an appropration bill that advocates federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, even though this appropriation bill was not included in the president's budget for the current fiscal year.

Then also, disregarding the fact of whether it was in the president's fiscal budget or not, how exactly would a bill of this type be passed through congress. I know first a congressman would bring the bill into congress, but since this bill is about federal spending, and I know bills of this type must be authorized and then appropriated, how will the process go you think?

Like if the bill was introduced by a congressman, it would most likely be passed to [lets say] a House Committee , yet what type of house comittee first? One that deals with federal spending, or one that deals with whether the bill is viable or not [in the moral/ethical sense]? I assume through a house comittee that deals with spending, and then if approved by a commitee that deals with the actual morality/ethical aspect, and then back to the House floor, then to the Senate and it's commitee on the ethical/moral issue and then to it's commmitee on appopriation and finally, to the president.

-William-;2511082 said:

First of all thanks for your help.

Now that I'm getting more into the whole issue, I got to know how the whole federal spending process will be like for this specific issue, supposing it actually occured [federal funding for embryonic stem cell research].

I understand there are different type of bills, and bills that deal with government spending are appropiation bills, yet the president gives out every fiscal year a federal budget that includes both mandatory bills and appropriation bills. However, in the case we want the spending to occur as soon as possible, would it be feasible to just try to pass an appropration bill that advocates federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, even though this appropriation bill was not included in the president's budget for the current fiscal year.

Then also, disregarding the fact of whether it was in the president's fiscal budget or not, how exactly would a bill of this type be passed through congress. I know first a congressman would bring the bill into congress, but since this bill is about federal spending, and I know bills of this type must be authorized and then appropriated, how will the process go you think?

Like if the bill was introduced by a congressman, it would most likely be passed to [lets say] a House Committee , yet what type of house comittee first? One that deals with federal spending, or one that deals with whether the bill is viable or not [in the moral/ethical sense]? I assume through a house comittee that deals with spending, and then if approved by a commitee that deals with the actual morality/ethical aspect, and then back to the House floor, then to the Senate and it's commitee on the ethical/moral issue and then to it's commmitee on appopriation and finally, to the president.

Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter what committee it would go to. I would imagine that since it is a spending bill it would go to the House Appropriations Committee first, but it could go to any one I suppose. I'm not exactly sure if a Bill has to clear two committees, I don't think that's the case, but I don't know for sure. However, I'm not really sure it has to originate in the House; the clause you're talking about is Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution which starts out "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." To me that doesn't mean any appropriations Bill must start in the House, only taxes or tariffs. (EDIT: http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly32.asp I guess the House disagrees with my interpretation).

Regarding the President's fiscal budget, he proposes that every year and then it is up to the Congress to approve it, or amend it, or whatever. The President can only propose, not make law. And his budget is not the only way to pass a spending bill, which you know already. If the President does not include something in his Budget, then the Congress can appropriate it themselves, but of course they would need the President to sign the Bill into law, or 2/3 of both the House and Senate to override the veto. In the event of a Presidential veto, an override is very uncommon with our two party system.

One more concern is that Congress does not hand out money itself, but gives to the Executive Branch to spend according to the law. If a President signs an executive order against spending funds a certain way, his administrative agencies likely won't give out the money even if Congress passes a law. Then there would have to be a lawsuit by someone wronged by the President disobeying the law to compel the Executive Branch to follow the law.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that it is extremely hard for Congress to go over the President's head on this issue and fund something the President has taken a principled stand against. The fastest way would be a sympathetic President, whereas a hostile President could potentially stall governmental spending in an issue he doesn't like for years and years.

Thanks alot man.

And yea, I realized that this proposal would never go through with Bush in power, so I was thinking on making it like a proposal for the future president of the US. Although obviously, this might already be in Hillary's/McCain's/Obama's agenda, yet the paper doesn't have to be completely accurate to real life situation.

Definitely in Obama's agenda, probably in Clinton's, likely in McCain's.

ShiftyPowers;2511159 said:

It doesn't really matter what committee it would go to. I would imagine that since it is a spending bill it would go to the House Appropriations Committee first, but it could go to any one I suppose. I'm not exactly sure if a Bill has to clear two committees, I don't think that's the case, but I don't know for sure.

Click to expand...

Right now that's the dilemma I have. I'm not sure if the bill would have to clear two committee's, I know that a similar bill* was passed in the Senate in 2007 (which Bush vetoed) and after it cleared the Senate, in the House it was sent to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce (they deal with health issues).

*http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00005:

So basically I'm stuck with the dilemma if the bill would have to pass two committee's or not, I would think so since it's a appropriation bill, but then when a similar bill was passed it never passed through any Appropriation Committee.

I emailed atleast four proffessors to ask them about this, and two of them said they didn't know, and other two said they were too busy right now to do the appropriate research to answer my question..

Oh, yes generally it would have to pass a committee in both the House and the Senate. I was wondering if it would go to like the House Appropriations Committee and then something like a Heath Committee in the House. My instinct is to say no, but I'm not sure.