Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

"Given that the executive is forbidden from unilaterally spending funds, the actual exercise by Congress of its power of the purse is imperative to a functional government. The Appropriations Clause thus does more than reinforce Congress's power over fiscal matters; it affirmatively obligates Congress to use that authority "to maintain the boundaries between the branches and preserve individual liberty from the encroachments of executive power." All Am. Check Cashing, 33 F.4th at 231 (Jones, J., concurring).

The Appropriations Clause thus embodies the Framers' objectives of maintaining "the necessary partition among the several departments," THE FEDERALIST NO. 51 (J. Madison), and ensuring transparency and accountability between the people and their government. The clause's role as "a bulwark of the Constitution's separation of powers" has been repeatedly affirmed."

Wasn't Senator Elizabeth Warren a Constitutional Law Professor at some Law School, oh yeah, Haaaavard. !

("The Appropriations Clause plays a critical role in the Constitution's separation of powers among the three branches of government and the checks and balances between them."). As Justice Story said:

The object is apparent upon the slightest examination. It is to secure regularity, punctuality, and fidelity, in the disbursements of the public money . . . . If it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its moneyed resources at his pleasure. The power to control and direct the appropriations, constitutes a most useful and salutary check upon profusion and extravagance, as well as upon corrupt influence and public peculation."

Hmmm, peculation, sounds like the NWS:
Pec·u·lat·ed, pec·u·lat·ing.
to steal or take dishonestly (money, especially public funds, or property entrusted to one's care); embezzle.

"Justice Scalia similarly observed that, while the requirement that funds be disbursed in accord with Congress's dictate and Congress's alone may be inconvenient, "clumsy," or "inefficient," it "reflect[s] `hard choices . . . consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked.'" NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 601-02 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 959 (1983)). In short, the Appropriations Clause expressly "was intended as a restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive department." Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 321 (1937)."