The case showed that the presidential power of impoundment, even without the 1974 Act, was not unlimited and that the president is required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which budget authority is provided by the United States Congress.
The case showed that the presidential power of impoundment was not unlimited and that the president is required to carry out the full objectives. This was even without the 1974 Act. The case showed that the presidential power of impoundment was not unlimited and that the president is required to carry out scope of programs for which budget authority is provided by the United States Congress. This was even without the 1974 Act.