Stopping unlawful executive action

The proposal

The Constitution should say, in terms a court can enforce, that a president may not act outside the law. The court-obedience half already lives in our Executive Compliance amendment, where 78% of Republicans, 76% of independents, and 92% of Democrats say a president must obey the Supreme Court (Marquette Law School Poll, 2025).¹ Three sub-items remain. (a) Appropriations fidelity: funds appropriated by law are withheld, delayed, or terminated only by law. (b) Executive privilege: none against congressional investigation of impoundment, election interference, or the conditioning of foreign aid. (c) Immunity: presidential immunity does not reach acts performed as a candidate — an answer to the Supreme Court’s July 2024 immunity holding.²

The evidence

Asked whether “agencies and spending that have been authorized by Congress are beyond the president’s authority to close or freeze,” 62% said yes — 37% of Republicans, 64% of independents, and 88% of Democrats (Marquette Law School Poll, 2025).³ It is the only independent party-split reading of the operative rule.

• Which branch decides: asked which institution “should have the most authority to decide how the U.S. government spends money,” 72% chose Congress, 19% the president, and 9% the courts — Congress chosen by 59% of Republicans, 77% of independents, and 82% of Democrats (CBS News/YouGov, 2025).⁴ It allocates authority among three branches rather than binding a president to an appropriation, and was fielded on the third day of a shutdown.
• Principle: 24% of Republicans, 14% of independents, and 10% of Democrats agreed the president “should be able to ignore” Congress or the Supreme Court when their decisions hold the country back — roughly 76% of Republicans did not (PRRI, 2025).⁵
• Immunity: 68% of Republicans, 31% of independents, and 13% of Democrats favored the July 2024 decision (Marquette, 2025);⁶ “a Constitutional amendment to make clear that no person is above the law, even the President” drew 54% of Republicans (Democratic and independent majorities unpublished; USA Today/Ipsos, 2024).⁷
• Advocacy-commissioned, naming the sitting president: 47% of Republicans agreed the president should be able to withhold agency funds without congressional approval and 27% disagreed; 84% of Democrats and 54% of independents disagreed (States United Democracy Center/YouGov, 2025).⁸ In a second advocacy survey, forced to choose between working within checks and balances “even if it means the majority doesn’t always get its way” and letting a few elected leaders pass what the majority voted for, 47% of Republicans chose checks and balances (Issue One/YouGov, 2025).⁹
• Without a party breakdown: 34% supported and 62% opposed “temporarily freezing federal funding for government grants and services” (no party breakdown published; Ipsos, 2025).¹⁰

Where it stands

Appropriations fidelity (a). The bipartisan floor is 37% of Republicans (Marquette, 2025): Weak. High topline, low floor: 62% overall hides a 51-point gap. Abuse-vs-remedy gap: roughly 76% of Republicans on the principle, 37% on its application to spending. Framing dependency: across instruments the Republican reading runs from 20% to 59%, and the two independent 2025 readings differ by 22 points — Marquette asks whether a president has authority to close or freeze what Congress funded; CBS News/YouGov asks which branch should decide spending. That gap is a finding about wording, not a floor. Regime coding: readings are verdicts on a sitting president; on whether “the next president” should have less control over federal agencies, Republicans 20%, independents 46%, Democrats 72% (Marquette, 2026).¹¹ Staleness: cleared. Existential: passes; in 2025 GAO found a withholding the Impoundment Control Act does not permit, and the funds lapsed;¹² the Supreme Court then left the Act’s enforcement to one officer.¹³ Symmetry: open, and decisive — a neither-less-nor-more rule has receipts pointing both ways,¹⁴ but no pollster has asked it. Depth: no poll has named its cost. Why-an-amendment: weak; the Act already requires spending what Congress appropriates, and pending bills would ban pocket rescissions¹⁵ or repeal the Act,¹⁶ neither with cross-party support.

Executive privilege (b). Unpolled; we found no national poll from any pollster. The nearest proxy, 78% saying congressional oversight strengthens the system, names no privilege and publishes no party figures (Issue One/YouGov, advocacy, 2025).⁹ On the current record it fails the existential test; privilege is common law, and Congress could legislate.

Immunity (c). As opposition to the 2024 holding, the floor is 32% of Republicans: Weak. As an amendment, 54%: Moderate. Regime coding applies — the two readings fall inside one eighteen-month window and point opposite ways. Existential passes; why-an-amendment is the category’s strongest, a constitutional holding no statute can narrow. Symmetry is harder: the carve-out answers one fact pattern, with no matched pairing.

Framings we tested

The abstract principle — a president may not ignore Congress or the courts — clears at roughly 76% of Republicans (PRRI, 2025): Strong, and already carried by the Executive Compliance amendment. “No person is above the law, even the President,” put as an amendment, drew 54% of Republicans (USA Today/Ipsos, 2024): Moderate, and the operative principle itself, with two caveats — mid-campaign fieldwork, and only the Republican figure published. On spending, the highest Republican reading is the 59% choosing Congress as the branch with most authority (CBS News/YouGov, 2025), one point below the bar and on a question of who decides rather than a rule binding a president to an appropriation. Every other Republican reading on spending sits between 20% and 47%; the one clean impoundment question, without a party split, found 30% not sure (YouGov, 2025).¹⁷ The symmetric appropriations wording has never been asked; executive privilege has never been asked at all.

What would move it

In. For (a): an independent pollster’s forward-looking, two-directional question — any future president must spend what Congress appropriated, no more and no less, equally barring a freeze of approved funds and spending or forgiving money never appropriated — clearing 60% of Republicans and holding Moderate under a costs-named follow-up. It should carry the which-branch-decides wording as a second arm, so the 22-point gap is explained rather than averaged. An Appropriations Fidelity Clause is already drafted, and held back, for the Executive Compliance amendment. A recorded vote of both parties’ majorities for a pocket-rescission ban would count equally. For (c): a re-ask of the Ipsos wording with full party breakdowns, outside a presidential campaign, clearing 60% of Republicans. For (b): any national poll.

Out. For (a): a symmetric, forward-looking question still under 45% of Republicans would fail high topline, low floor and the symmetry test, sending the sub-item to the statutory list. For (b): a first poll splitting by party as DOJ independence does would fail abuse-vs-remedy. For (c): a re-ask below 45% of Republicans once the incumbent is out of view would show the 54% was itself regime-coded.

← All candidates