> How can people trust a law if it can become null and void upon the next admin coming in?
The law is not null and void with the next admin. The law specifies the exec branch can determine who gets the grants and how much. So everyone is aware that a new admin may not give grants the same as the old admin.
> he determined in the contract that the money was guaranteed.
Then he was misled. There is no contract between the US and the grantee making a guarantee over a time period. Would you complain if a new Congress passed a new budget cutting this fund? Is that breaking a guarantee??
> making the contract he signed with the federal government basically worthless.
You are not signing a contract with the federal government! You are getting a grant. very big difference
> depend on in 4 years may or may not exist depending who wins the next election?
It's even worse than that! Congressional elections are every 2 years. Everyone who gets federal money knows that money is dependent on their patronage, which could change every 2 years. That is why there is so much money and power in politics! $4T is a lot of money to allocate, so of course a lot of money is going to spent determining who controls the purse.
These kinds of arrangements happen all the time with the government. For example NSF gives me a grant, I get that money over a period of maybe 5-8 years, and I make hiring and equipment purchase decisions based on the availability of that money. This provides stability and allows for long-term planning. It's been the case over many revolving administrations over the course of decades.
What we are talking about now is a fundamental shift from that, and you're acting like it's business as usual. No. You mention congressional budgets, I would be fine with that because that's how things are done. The budgets are set by representatives who advance our local agendas, and then everyone agrees on a budget that works. Generally speaking this is a stable way of advancing the country.
Now you are talking about a system where the executive can come in and just upend everything because he doesn't like it personally. There's no accounting for local needs in a population of 300 million spanning 4+ time zones. My question to you was: how do we as country plan long-term when the guy in charge can just shut down all scientific research in the country if he doesn't like the topics people are researching? Or he can cancel all contracts laid out by the last administration? Or cancel all contracts just in blue states? That's the country you're advocating for, so now keep going with this concept, what do we do if in 4 years a Democrat comes in and decides to cancel all contracts in Red states?
> What we are talking about now is a fundamental shift from that
Agreed. And you arguing that a democracy (or constitutional republic) cannot make a fundamental shift in policy via elections. That administrations have to be bound to decisions based on prior administrations, even if that is directly against the will of the electorate. Did I state your position correctly?
No. I'm saying as our Constitution is the foundation of our government, any changes must be made within the framework provided by the Constitution. The "will of the electorate" comprises hundreds of millions of voters; it's varied, complex, multifaceted, and cannot be distilled into the agenda of one man or even the platform of an entire party. For this reason the Constitution puts most of the decision making power in the Congress, who represent the will of the electorate at a much more granular level than POTUS.
If the next administration want to make changes, they can go through Congress. They can pass legislation. They can amend the Constitution. They can express their budget priorities. But they cannot do an end-run around the Constitutional order just to get things done faster because it avoids the pain of debate and finding consensus. The whole point of the Constitution is to prevent that.
The law is not null and void with the next admin. The law specifies the exec branch can determine who gets the grants and how much. So everyone is aware that a new admin may not give grants the same as the old admin.
> he determined in the contract that the money was guaranteed.
Then he was misled. There is no contract between the US and the grantee making a guarantee over a time period. Would you complain if a new Congress passed a new budget cutting this fund? Is that breaking a guarantee??
> making the contract he signed with the federal government basically worthless.
You are not signing a contract with the federal government! You are getting a grant. very big difference
> depend on in 4 years may or may not exist depending who wins the next election?
It's even worse than that! Congressional elections are every 2 years. Everyone who gets federal money knows that money is dependent on their patronage, which could change every 2 years. That is why there is so much money and power in politics! $4T is a lot of money to allocate, so of course a lot of money is going to spent determining who controls the purse.