Please cite to the original publication
Although 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. The goal of this Article is to assess where we stand in the war against the deficit after Bowsher v. Synar and to suggest an alternative approach for regulating the deficit in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision.
Date of Authorship for this Version