DOJ appropriations/Separation of powers

[Sanford Levinson]

Given that the Clinton Administration, to its discredit (though
understandably, politically), defended the constitutionality of the
disgraceful Act of Congress that limited the right of federally financed
lawyers fully (and effectively) to represent their indigent clients
effectively, then why isn't the Administration hoisted on its own petard
and forced to concede that Congress can put whatever conditions it wants on
lawyers paid with federal funds?  Or, more to the point, if the suggested
bill "souldn't fly constitutionally," is this because the Act defended in
court this past week (with apparently hostile questions coming from
Kennedy, as well as the "liberals") is clearly unconstitutional and that
Rust was wrongly decided as well?

sandy

 toAt 11:25 PM 10/06/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>>  A bill
>> directing DOJ to dismiss the case wouldn't fly
>> constitutionally.
>
>I wonder.  Isn't DOJ ultimately just another agency, limited to the powers
that
>Congress grants it?  Why couldn't congress limit who Justice can sue on
behalf
>of the government, when congress can limit the jurisdiction of the courts
>themselves?  Whether they could get the president to sign the bill or
override
>his veto is a problem, but we know that congress can overturn the actions of
>other agencies and limit their scope of action to nothing, consistent with
due
>process and equal protection.
>
>Ed
>