[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-326142-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-326142-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provision-of-balanced-budget-law-read-online-free","SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN KEY PROVISION OF BALANCED BUDGET LAW - read online free","","U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling striking down a key feature of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget law. The Court ruled that the comptroller general’s role in triggering automatic across-the-board cuts violates the constitutional separation of powers. The decision invalidated Congress’s March procedure for a $11.7 billion fiscal 1986 spending cut and set a timeline through Sept. 5 while lawmakers consider a fallback mechanism and potential Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II response.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provision-of-balanced-budget-law-read-online-free/326142/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provision-of-balanced-budget-law-read-online-free/326142.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Valentina","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The Court upheld a ruling declaring unconstitutional a key provision of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget law related to how across-the-board cuts are triggered.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why did the Court find the provision unconstitutional?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The Court ruled 7-2 that the comptroller general’s role in triggering automatic cuts violates the constitutional separation of powers because the comptroller can be removed by Congress.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How might Congress avoid across-the-board budget cuts in the next fiscal year?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The document describes a fallback mechanism requiring congressional approval for any cuts needed to meet the deficit ceiling, plus procedural steps for reconciling deficit projections before sequestration orders are issued.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},326142,1790375469,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":97,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},13056703020460,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/be000253dac470eee5d?_k=1778207105932848923","Vo1。14,No。130  \nTuesday,July 8,1986  \n# SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN KEY PROVISION OF BALANCED BUDGET LAM\n\nEnding months of speculation,the U.S。Supreme Court yesterday upheld a lowercourt ruling declaring unconstitutional a key part of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollingsbalanced budget law.But the architects of the much-feared law immediatelyannounced plans to side-step the Court's objection.  \nAlthough it did not-reject the concept of automatic budget cuts,the Courtruled 7-2 in Bowsher v.Synar(54 USLW 3709)that the comptroller general'srole in triggering across-the-board cuts under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings violatesthe constitutional separation of powers.  \nThe Court affirmed the reasoning of a three-judge federal district court panelin Synar v.U.S.(85-3945),which said Gramm-Rudman unconstitutionally grantscomplicated executive branch duties to the comptroller,who can be removed byCongress.  \nThe Court's action invalidates the procedure by which Congress in March enactedan $11.7 billion cut in fiscal 1986 federal spending,including nearly$700 million in Education Department funds.However,Congress is likely tovote to uphold those cuts,said some congressional sources.The Court stayed1ts decision through Sept.5to give Congress time to deal with the question.  \nEducation supporters tentatively backed the ruling,sayingthey said the likelihood of avoiding across-the-board cuts in fiscal 1987 de-pends on the outcome of a“fallback”mechanism in the law that requires Con-gressional approval of any cuts needed to meet the $144 billion deficit ceilingstill in effect.  \nAs originally passed,Gramm-Rudman mandated that the comptroller general settleany differences between calculations of the deficit by the Office of Managementand Budget and the Congressional Budget Office and then issue the final reportto the president that would trigger acros8-the-board cuts.  \nSeparation of powers \"produces conflicts,confusion,and discordance at times,\"Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the Court.But the U.S.Constitution\"was deliberately so structured to assure full,vigorous and open debate on thegreat 1ssues affecting the people and to provide avenues for the operation ofchecks on the exercise of governmental power,\"Burger wrote.  \nWithin minutes of the ruling,the law's chief architects,Sens.Phil Gramm,R-Texas,Warren Rudman,R-N.H.,and Ernest Hollings,D-S.C.,unveiled the(more)  \n# SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN KEY PROVISION OF BALANCED BUDGET LAW(Cont.)\n\n\"Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act,\"which wouldaddress the Supreme Court majority's objection by stripping Congress of itsauthority to remove the comptroller general.  \nThe measure,quickly dubbed Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II,would strike out the pro-vision in the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 granting Congress that author¹-ty and transform the office of the comptroller general into an agency \"func-tionally independent”of Congress and the president.  \n\"Those of us who have fought so hard to restore fiscal sanity will not allowCongress to get off the hook on its commitment to balance the federal budget,\"Gramm said in a statement.\"We are confident that members of both parties whosupported the original Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law wil1 reaffirm that support forreducing the deficit.\"  \nRough SleddingAt a news brlefing,however,Rep.Mike Synar,D-0kla.,author of the original suit against the law,predicted the measure,which Grammsaid would be tacked on to a bill needed by Aug.1 to raise the nation's debtceiling,would face\"rough sledding in the House.\"  \nAlan Morrison,an attorney representing the congressman,noted that rescindingcongress's power to fire the comptroller general would not address other issuesralsed in Synar's original suit,which charged that the law unconstitutionallydelegates congressional budgetary power to OMB,CBO and the General AccountingOffice.Synar refused to say,however,whether he would file another suit ifGramm-Rudman-Hollings II or a similar measure clears Congress.  \nEven though ","cbCaiuXi8zzN93oi","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuXi8zzN93oi","pdf",1232472,"English","# Supreme Court ruling on Gramm-Rudman-Hollings\n## Separation of powers and comptroller general\n## Immediate political response and fallback mechanism\n## Impact on education funding and deficit targets","[{\"question\":\"What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law?\",\"answer\":\"The Court upheld a ruling declaring unconstitutional a key provision of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget law related to how across-the-board cuts are triggered.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the Court find the provision unconstitutional?\",\"answer\":\"The Court ruled 7-2 that the comptroller general’s role in triggering automatic cuts violates the constitutional separation of powers because the comptroller can be removed by Congress.\"},{\"question\":\"How might Congress avoid across-the-board budget cuts in the next fiscal year?\",\"answer\":\"The document describes a fallback mechanism requiring congressional approval for any cuts needed to meet the deficit ceiling, plus procedural steps for reconciling deficit projections before sequestration orders are issued.\"}]","SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN KEY PROVISION OF BALANCED BUDGET LAW - read online free | PDF",1789972333,13]