Iran-Contra’s constitutional crime was executive use of nonappropriated funds.

Evidence

It is my contention that this kind of method-the map of explanation-can virtually disable the critic from actually taking in the argument that is being made. Consider my description of the Iran-Contra Affair. I argued that the constitutionally significant crime in the Affair was the reliance of the Executive Branch on nonappropriated funds, the receipt of which had not been ratified by statute. These funds were used to endow the “Enterprise,” as General Secord called it, so that it could perform various covert activities on behalf of the government. This, I contended, went to the very heart of our — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 623

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to standard constitutional-law treatments of Iran-Contra and war-powers scholarship on the Boland Amendment.