Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorElliott, E.
dc.date2021-11-25T13:35:22.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:58:57Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:58:57Z
dc.date.issued1987-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifieryjreg/vol4/iss2/4
dc.identifier.contextkey8551157
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/8354
dc.description.abstractAlthough acknowledging that "Gramm-Rudman-Hollings " was enacted "to meet a national fiscal emergency . . . of unprecedented magnitude," in Bowsher v. Synar the Supreme Court nevertheless declared its key provision unconstitutional. Section 251 of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings directed the Comptroller General to prepare a report to the President and Congress specifying program-by-program budget reductions necessary to prevent the deficit for the coming fiscal year from exceeding the maximum permitted by the statute. Seven justices agreed that this provision violates the Constitution.
dc.titleRegulating the Deficit After Bowsher v. Synar
dc.source.journaltitleYale Journal on Regulation
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:58:57Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjreg/vol4/iss2/4
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=yjreg&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
15_4YaleJonReg317_1986_1987_.pdf
Size:
2.604Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record