Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Let's hope the President can hold the red line he's drawn this time   (motherjones.com) divider line 89
    More: Unlikely, Obama, Jack Lew  
•       •       •

1290 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2013 at 8:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-27 10:03:40 AM  

sprawl15: hershy799: Hell, I hope that he plays the 14th amendment card so butthurt Republicans can file suit, only to have SCOTUS knock down debt ceiling laws as unconstitutional

That probably would not play out like you think it would.

Congress is enumerated with the power to borrow money. The debt ceiling laws are Congress deciding to grant borrowing authority (up to a limit and with caveats) to the Executive. If those laws are found unconstitutional, then the situation defaults to Congress needing to specifically authorize all borrowing.


Actually it is more complicated than that. Congress authorized spending, which the president is required to spend. However, the debt ceiling is the point where money can no longer be borrowed. So, the President is placed in an impossible position because he is legally required to spend the funds but unable to spend the money because it does not exist for all intents and purposes.

In addition, the president has the legal duty to ensure the United States does not default on its obligations. Therefore, the only correct finding would be to say that by passing a budget, the congress has implicitly authorized an increase of the debt ceiling to the extent it is necessary to carry out the budget.

In other words, congress can't go around running up bills all over town without also authorizing a way to pay said bills.
 
2013-09-27 10:03:44 AM  

Aristocles: LittleSmitty: Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters. We'll see how the dems fare in the next elections.

Far better than your knuckle headed Republican masters will. Oh, and you seem to have it backwards, it's the Teatards driving the country off the cliff. But you know that.

Does being a shill for scumbags pay well, or do you just like being associated with pathological liars and morons willing to let the country burn because the President is a Black Democrat?

I'm not a repub... I once had faith in the Teabagger movement, but they've let me down... I suspect (since it looks like the repubs will cave to BOB), that another movement of even more Patriotic, Constitutional Conservatives will come in to sweep out the dusty, old GOP and so-called "teabaggers." Then maybe we can begin to recover from the damage done by BOB, the dems, and to a certain extent the GOP.


On the plus side, the trains will run on time.
/Maybe I should open a store specializing in brown shirts.
 
2013-09-27 10:11:08 AM  

GoldSpider: hershy799: Hell, I hope that he plays the 14th amendment card so butthurt Republicans can file suit, only to have SCOTUS knock down debt ceiling laws as unconstitutional

If that's possible without a default actually happening, this is precisely what needs to happen.


"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "

I don't have a GED in law or anything, but this does seem pretty clear-cut to me.
 
2013-09-27 10:13:11 AM  

zeroman987: Actually it is more complicated than that.


No, I get all that. But the fact remains that it's clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 that Congress has sole power to borrow money. What had to happen originally was Congressional action on every individual act of borrowing. The debt limit laws were a way to simplify the whole deal. Repealing the laws would default it to that original state, as that is the legal question. The position the President is put into would be a political question, and generally not judicable. For example, the War Powers Resolution has been considered unconstitutional by every sitting president since it's been passed but it is actually a law. The courts have ruled that because the question is not legal ('what does the law say') but rather political ('what should the law say'), they have no grounds to resolve the dispute.

That's a very similar case to the specific enumeration of borrowing, where the Constitution is in a weird grey area and cannot be relied upon as a primary source.

Another possible way to rule, for example, would be that Congress must specify borrowing and that anything unfunded simply doesn't happen (including something in the budget and actually doing it are distinct actions, remember). Another way to rule would be that the President is given discretionary authority to cut the budget to make up the gap; Congress passes a budget with a 1 bil deficit, the President is allowed to trim 1 bil in spending from that budget. But no matter which way it's ruled, some part of the Constitution is going to have to be violated.
 
2013-09-27 10:13:28 AM  
He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.
 
2013-09-27 10:31:01 AM  
When the people disaffected by the wealthy rise up and begin to kill them, things will change.

When a fed up parent of a child denied food and medical treatment kills a bunch in a country club, it will be justice given to those that have done everything in their power to poison people and not take any responsibility for it.  Stop shooting people in McDonald's...those aren't the ones killing your kids so they can have a nicer car and a private jet.

Unless the wealthy fear death from those they exploit, they will just continue to kill them and profit.
 
2013-09-27 10:31:16 AM  

DamnYankees: He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.


Pretty sure he admitted negotiating last time was wrong and since he doesn't have to run for election again or seem "reasonable" to the dc mongoloids he's not going to fark that up.

The stupid thing is despite what the beltway "BOTH SIDES!" wants to claim, americans will hold the GOP primarily responsible BECAUSE THEY farkING ARE RESPONSIBLE! It drives me nuts when idiots on tv go "The gop is worried they might get blamed" THEY farkING SHOULD BE WORRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS!
 
2013-09-27 10:34:58 AM  

doyner: PoweredByIrony: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

^THIS

And BOB is not a politician.  This is BOB:
[plancksconstant.org image 270x267]

Stop trying to make BOB happen. BOB is never going to happen.


How about if BOB's a guy with no arms and no legs floating in a pool?

/hung out with a 10 year old last night
 
2013-09-27 10:47:34 AM  

PoweredByIrony: /hung out with a 10 year old last night


Why don't you have a seat, right over there.
 
2013-09-27 11:02:13 AM  

Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters.


So you are saying Obama will not be elected President in the next election.

You must be some kind of genius.
 
2013-09-27 11:09:24 AM  
If the best counter-proposal he can come up with is Sequestration 2, it's best he not negotiate.
 
2013-09-27 11:17:30 AM  
Actually, he's already "caving". Didn't he sign the bill fixing the debt ceiling where it currently is? There was his "red line". Since then, he's been very busy, redefining the military coup in Egypt so he can send them money that would be better spent fixing bridges here, and granting exemptions to his "Affordable Care Act." (Hint: If it was really "Affordable", exemptions wouldn't be necessary, now would they?).
 
2013-09-27 11:18:06 AM  

sprawl15: zeroman987: Actually it is more complicated than that.

No, I get all that. But the fact remains that it's clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 that Congress has sole power to borrow money. What had to happen originally was Congressional action on every individual act of borrowing. The debt limit laws were a way to simplify the whole deal. Repealing the laws would default it to that original state, as that is the legal question. The position the President is put into would be a political question, and generally not judicable. For example, the War Powers Resolution has been considered unconstitutional by every sitting president since it's been passed but it is actually a law. The courts have ruled that because the question is not legal ('what does the law say') but rather political ('what should the law say'), they have no grounds to resolve the dispute.

That's a very similar case to the specific enumeration of borrowing, where the Constitution is in a weird grey area and cannot be relied upon as a primary source.

Another possible way to rule, for example, would be that Congress must specify borrowing and that anything unfunded simply doesn't happen (including something in the budget and actually doing it are distinct actions, remember). Another way to rule would be that the President is given discretionary authority to cut the budget to make up the gap; Congress passes a budget with a 1 bil deficit, the President is allowed to trim 1 bil in spending from that budget. But no matter which way it's ruled, some part of the Constitution is going to have to be violated.


In this case, I think you are focusing on the wrong actor. My proposition is that congress has violated the constitution by forcing another branch of government to violate the constitution no matter what action they take. In essence, they are saying that if you do not rubber stamp whatever we want (destroying the executive's check on the legislature), we will either force you to unconstitutionally default on the debt or unconstitutionally borrow money. Because they are bound to pass only Constitutional laws, they should also be barred from passing laws that require another branch of government to violate the constitution.

Further, the War Powers Act is different because it is a limit (not a ban btw) on the President's ability to use the military without congressional approval. What the war powers act does not do is compel the President to choose between completely ceding a check on the legislature (sign a bill into law/veto a bill) and violating the constitution.

Moreover, you are correct in saying that passing a law and carrying out a law are two different actions. However, the executive carries out laws, not congress. Because the president is bound to carry out the laws passed by congress, congress must approve the means to carry out said laws, otherwise, the whole system breaks down.
 
2013-09-27 11:35:47 AM  

SpectroBoy: Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters.

So you are saying Obama will not be elected President in the next election.

You must be some kind of genius.


If you called him an idiot savante, you would at least be half right.
 
2013-09-27 11:51:52 AM  

SenorBenedict: DamnYankees: He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.

The stupid thing is despite what the beltway "BOTH SIDES!" wants to claim, americans will hold the GOP primarily responsible BECAUSE THEY farkING ARE RESPONSIBLE! It drives me nuts when idiots on tv go "The gop is worried they might get blamed" THEY farkING SHOULD BE WORRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS!


You're saying they should be blamed because fighting stacking on more debt is a bad thing?

well I'm in then!

MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!!!
 
2013-09-27 11:56:18 AM  

tfresh: SenorBenedict: DamnYankees: He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.

The stupid thing is despite what the beltway "BOTH SIDES!" wants to claim, americans will hold the GOP primarily responsible BECAUSE THEY farkING ARE RESPONSIBLE! It drives me nuts when idiots on tv go "The gop is worried they might get blamed" THEY farkING SHOULD BE WORRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS!

You're saying they should be blamed because fighting stacking on more debt is a bad thing?

well I'm in then!

MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!!!


You farking mouth breathers. The debt is being reduced at a rate unseen since ww2, and its actively hurting our economy and yet you idiots want more. Except when you don't like more tax cuts, more corporate subsidies, and more military spending.

Not to mention the farking debt ceiling isn't increasing more debt its paying for bills your mouth breathers already rang up.
 
2013-09-27 12:04:11 PM  

SenorBenedict: tfresh: SenorBenedict: DamnYankees: He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.

The stupid thing is despite what the beltway "BOTH SIDES!" wants to claim, americans will hold the GOP primarily responsible BECAUSE THEY farkING ARE RESPONSIBLE! It drives me nuts when idiots on tv go "The gop is worried they might get blamed" THEY farkING SHOULD BE WORRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS!

You're saying they should be blamed because fighting stacking on more debt is a bad thing?

well I'm in then!

MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!!!

You farking mouth breathers. The debt is being reduced at a rate unseen since ww2, and its actively hurting our economy and yet you idiots want more. Except when you don't like more tax cuts, more corporate subsidies, and more military spending.

Not to mention the farking debt ceiling isn't increasing more debt its paying for bills your mouth breathers already rang up.


Whoa don't lump me with those people, I was just being a smart ass. Here's my take on all politics from an earlier post (modified)

Slappy McLongstockings: The only good republicans politicians are dead republicans politicians

 
2013-09-27 12:07:16 PM  

zeroman987: My proposition is that congress has violated the constitution by forcing another branch of government to violate the constitution no matter what action they take.


And the point that I'm making is that your assumption is that if debt ceiling legislation being separate from budgetary legislation is found to be unconstitutional, it will not default to "the President can automatically borrow whatever he needs". It will default to how it was in the early 1900's, where Congress must specifically pass borrowing for their budgeted dollar amounts.

The courts are not able to change explicit Constitutional language. Nor are they allowed to overturn hundreds of years of precedence to answer a political question.

zeroman987: Further, the War Powers Act is different because it is a limit (not a ban btw) on the President's ability to use the military without congressional approval. What the war powers act does not do is compel the President to choose between completely ceding a check on the legislature (sign a bill into law/veto a bill) and violating the constitution.


I never said it was a ban. I said it was a case of Constitutional ambiguity that led the courts to declare that the disagreement was not justicable due to political question doctrine. And yes, as far as the President concerns, what the WPA does is a clear violation of the Constitution - as I said, no sitting President has considered it constitutional. The President is not compelled to follow those laws they deem unconstitutional. The root cause is constitutional, the fight is over legislation. And, in the case of the debt limit, the root cause is constitutional and the fight is over legislation.

You're mixing the two - saying that because an instance of legislation may be considered unconstitutional, it solves the root constitutional ambiguity. That's absolutely not the case.
 
2013-09-27 12:09:21 PM  
Ahh yes the "all politicians are bad" centerist moderate idiocy. Look if you think both politicians are equally bad you are dumber than a tea partier at least they have an idealogy. I bet you didn't even vote in 2012 since "it didn't matter anyway".
 
2013-09-27 12:23:52 PM  

SenorBenedict: Ahh yes the "all politicians are bad" centerist moderate idiocy. Look if you think both politicians are equally bad you are dumber than a tea partier at least they have an idealogy. I bet you didn't even vote in 2012 since "it didn't matter anyway".


Wow, you're just an angry person aren't you?

btw I'm independant (which I'm sure you hate as well) and I voted. I still hate all politicians. They're all corrupt and greedy. If you can't agree to that you're just a blinded fool. And that 'equally bad' thing is all based on political bias so sell that to someone who'll bite.
 
2013-09-27 12:27:29 PM  

FlashHarry: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.

i dunno... i think this is part of his vaunted "long game." i think he's been spoiling for this fight for a while, knowing that the GOP couldn't resist taking the bait. and now he's got the double-whammy of the shutdown AND default, which shows that the GOP is completely willing to burn the US economy to the ground because it didn't get its way.

this sets the dems up for a sweep in '14 and '16 (and beyond, if the GOP doesn't purge the teabaggers from its midst).


I can't entertain the "Obama's Nth failure is a brilliant move in his N+1 dimensional chess game" defense anymore.  At some point you just have to admit that the guy is spineless.
 
2013-09-27 12:29:43 PM  
If the Republican position was "We'll give you a debt ceiling increase in exchange for delaying ObamaCare for a year", that would at least be an actual negotiable position.  But what they've done is added the entire Republican platform plus a pair of golden handcuffs to prevents the Executive Branch from doing anything meaningful without the permission of Congress.  There's no way he can possibly accept that.
 
2013-09-27 12:29:57 PM  

tfresh: I still hate all politicians. They're all corrupt and greedy.


Hate all you like, we're all entitled to our feelings. But we don't get to make up our own facts.

In my state we have a senator named Kirsten Gillibrand. She's as clean as a whistle and could have made a hell of a lot more money than she does now, so she's neither corrupt nor greedy.
 
2013-09-27 12:32:01 PM  

Mentat: If the Republican position was "We'll give you a debt ceiling increase in exchange for delaying ObamaCare for a year", that would at least be an actual negotiable position.  But what they've done is added the entire Republican platform plus a pair of golden handcuffs to prevents the Executive Branch from doing anything meaningful without the permission of Congress.  There's no way he can possibly accept that.


He's not meant to.  The whole thing is theater for the teabaggers back in their home districts.  "We sure stuck it to that darkie, didn't we???"
 
2013-09-27 12:43:02 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: FlashHarry: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.

i dunno... i think this is part of his vaunted "long game." i think he's been spoiling for this fight for a while, knowing that the GOP couldn't resist taking the bait. and now he's got the double-whammy of the shutdown AND default, which shows that the GOP is completely willing to burn the US economy to the ground because it didn't get its way.

this sets the dems up for a sweep in '14 and '16 (and beyond, if the GOP doesn't purge the teabaggers from its midst).

I can't entertain the "Obama's Nth failure is a brilliant move in his N+1 dimensional chess game" defense anymore.  At some point you just have to admit that the guy is spineless.


Which failures might you be referring to?
 
2013-09-27 12:45:24 PM  

sprawl15: zeroman987: My proposition is that congress has violated the constitution by forcing another branch of government to violate the constitution no matter what action they take.

And the point that I'm making is that your assumption is that if debt ceiling legislation being separate from budgetary legislation is found to be unconstitutional, it will not default to "the President can automatically borrow whatever he needs". It will default to how it was in the early 1900's, where Congress must specifically pass borrowing for their budgeted dollar amounts.

The courts are not able to change explicit Constitutional language. Nor are they allowed to overturn hundreds of years of precedence to answer a political question.

zeroman987: Further, the War Powers Act is different because it is a limit (not a ban btw) on the President's ability to use the military without congressional approval. What the war powers act does not do is compel the President to choose between completely ceding a check on the legislature (sign a bill into law/veto a bill) and violating the constitution.

I never said it was a ban. I said it was a case of Constitutional ambiguity that led the courts to declare that the disagreement was not justicable due to political question doctrine. And yes, as far as the President concerns, what the WPA does is a clear violation of the Constitution - as I said, no sitting President has considered it constitutional. The President is not compelled to follow those laws they deem unconstitutional. The root cause is constitutional, the fight is over legislation. And, in the case of the debt limit, the root cause is constitutional and the fight is over legislation.

You're mixing the two - saying that because an instance of legislation may be considered unconstitutional, it solves the root constitutional ambiguity. That's absolutely not the case.


Except you are not taking into account the mechanism by which this would see judicial review. I would say that it would likely only be reviewed when the President takes an unconstitutional action; i.e. he defaults.

A party would challenge the illegal action and at that point, it becomes an actual controversy requiring an interpretation and application of the laws in question because the President has violated the law and has caused actual harm to a third party.

The court will review it and state that unless the passing of a budget allows for sufficient borrowing to cover the budget, the budget itself is unconsititutional because it creates a situation that forces the President to either unconstitutionally cede his signing power, illegally requires him to not spend the money alloted, unconstitutionally requires the president to usurp the debt power, or unconstitutionally default on the obligations. However, because they presume that congress will pass only constitutional laws, they will interpret the appropriations bill so that it is constitutional. In other words, they will have to interpret the appropriations bill as implicitly authorizing the executive to borrow what ever money is necessary to fund the appropriations they have passed.

This would resolve the contradiction between the two sections (the president can't default but also can't borrow money) by ensuring that by ordering the President to spend the money, he has the money to spend.
 
2013-09-27 12:55:33 PM  

qorkfiend: Which failures might you be referring to?


Previous debt ceiling negotiation and sequester.
 
2013-09-27 12:58:22 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


LouDobbsAwaaaay: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


When will you guys figure out you're having the exact same argument in every thread, and he always drums out the same stupid arguments?
 
2013-09-27 01:19:35 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: qorkfiend: Which failures might you be referring to?

Previous debt ceiling negotiation and sequester.


Alright, so that's one, and the "failure" aspect can certainly be debated. Any others?
 
2013-09-27 01:42:06 PM  

zeroman987: Except you are not taking into account the mechanism by which this would see judicial review. I would say that it would likely only be reviewed when the President takes an unconstitutional action; i.e. he defaults.


Which would only be a case for an aggrieved party to seek recompense - the courts would have to state what method via the Constitution would allow for the payment of that party. They must be guided by the Constitution, and the Constitution is contradictory. That's why it's a political question - the answer is not 'what does the law say' but 'which of these mutually exclusive statements is the one that defines our governance'. And while I could see a single exception made for extant obligations to 'shore up the books', it would be legally impossible for the courts to declare the President has power to borrow.

The only route that could be simply taken is defaulting it back to the state prior to the 1917 (iirc) liberty bonds bill, forcing Congress to specify the instrument of debt. Before that, Congress would issue specific legislation to authorize borrowing (like the Panama Canal loan, or directing the Treasury to allow issuance of a certain amount of bonds). Keep in mind, the nature of the debt ceiling limitations have two portions - one is that they allow a certain amount of debt to be issued and the other is that they allow certain forms of debt. Congress could say "We want to take this action, and to pay for it we will issue a new set of bonds". The current nature of debt ceiling legislation is "We authorize you to figure out your own ways to pay for it". To default the power to borrow to the President would also default the methodology for borrowing to the President. And that's a serious transition of enumerated powers.

zeroman987: The court will review it and state that unless the passing of a budget allows for sufficient borrowing to cover the budget, the budget itself is unconsititutional because it creates a situation that forces the President to either unconstitutionally cede his signing power


To rule this way would state that every single budget passed in the history of this nation was unconstitutional. That every legislative borrowing act was unconstitutional...under a Constitution that specifies the power to borrow to the legislative. That's the problem. To solve the conundrum requires a significant shift in Constitutional interpretation (which is a political act) or a modification to the Constitution (something absolutely not within the powers of the judicial).

tl;dr: I'm not saying there's not a problem. I'm just saying the Judicial can't fix it.
 
2013-09-27 01:58:48 PM  

sprawl15: To rule this way would state that every single budget passed in the history of this nation was unconstitutional. That every legislative borrowing act was unconstitutional...under a Constitution that specifies the power to borrow to the legislative. That's the problem. To solve the conundrum requires a significant shift in Constitutional interpretation (which is a political act) or a modification to the Constitution (something absolutely not within the powers of the judicial).

tl;dr: I'm not saying there's not a problem. I'm just saying the Judicial can't fix it.


How would the 14th not imply that Congressional appropriations implicitly grant that power?
 
2013-09-27 01:59:58 PM  

qorkfiend: LouDobbsAwaaaay: qorkfiend: Which failures might you be referring to?

Previous debt ceiling negotiation and sequester.

Alright, so that's one, and the "failure" aspect can certainly be debated. Any others?


It's two, actually.  But I see that I'm talking to a cheer-leader, so this whole conversation is pointless.
 
2013-09-27 02:05:08 PM  

Wooly Bully: Kirsten Gillibrand


Yeah... 1 out of 435 ain't bad.
 
2013-09-27 02:14:46 PM  

tfresh: Wooly Bully: Kirsten Gillibrand

Yeah... 1 out of 435 ain't bad.


Not to get pedantic, but saying one isn't corrupt and greedy is not logically equivalent to saying the other 435 are.
 
2013-09-27 02:22:43 PM  

grumpfuff: When will you guys figure out you're having the exact same argument in every thread, and he always drums out the same stupid arguments?


It gives me a chance to hone my GIS skills...

www.texasbeyondhistory.net
Thanks BULB!
 
2013-09-27 02:22:59 PM  

doyner: How would the 14th not imply that Congressional appropriations implicitly grant that power?


Because the explicit enumeration of the power to borrow is a separate power from the enumerated power to tax/spend and has been considered to be separate, with distinct limitations, since the founding of the nation.
 
2013-09-27 02:49:52 PM  

sprawl15: zeroman987: Except you are not taking into account the mechanism by which this would see judicial review. I would say that it would likely only be reviewed when the President takes an unconstitutional action; i.e. he defaults.

Which would only be a case for an aggrieved party to seek recompense - the courts would have to state what method via the Constitution would allow for the payment of that party. They must be guided by the Constitution, and the Constitution is contradictory. That's why it's a political question - the answer is not 'what does the law say' but 'which of these mutually exclusive statements is the one that defines our governance'. And while I could see a single exception made for extant obligations to 'shore up the books', it would be legally impossible for the courts to declare the President has power to borrow.

The only route that could be simply taken is defaulting it back to the state prior to the 1917 (iirc) liberty bonds bill, forcing Congress to specify the instrument of debt. Before that, Congress would issue specific legislation to authorize borrowing (like the Panama Canal loan, or directing the Treasury to allow issuance of a certain amount of bonds). Keep in mind, the nature of the debt ceiling limitations have two portions - one is that they allow a certain amount of debt to be issued and the other is that they allow certain forms of debt. Congress could say "We want to take this action, and to pay for it we will issue a new set of bonds". The current nature of debt ceiling legislation is "We authorize you to figure out your own ways to pay for it". To default the power to borrow to the President would also default the methodology for borrowing to the President. And that's a serious transition of enumerated powers.

zeroman987: The court will review it and state that unless the passing of a budget allows for sufficient borrowing to cover the budget, the budget itself is unconsititutional because it creates a situation that forces the President to either unconstitutionally cede his signing power

To rule this way would state that every single budget passed in the history of this nation was unconstitutional. That every legislative borrowing act was unconstitutional...under a Constitution that specifies the power to borrow to the legislative. That's the problem. To solve the conundrum requires a significant shift in Constitutional interpretation (which is a political act) or a modification to the Constitution (something absolutely not within the powers of the judicial).

tl;dr: I'm not saying there's not a problem. I'm just saying the Judicial can't fix it.


I think ultimately you are correct, the judiciary can't fix this problem. I am placing my bets on 20 or so moderate republicans caving, acting as sacrificial lambs. Then again I'm an optimist.
 
2013-09-27 07:03:40 PM  

Lyonid: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

I'm fairly conservative and disagree with the current administration on numerous issues...

...and he's now on my ignore list, which is a bit of a rare distinction as I hate using ignore.  Being a troll is one thing.  Being boring, tiresome, and generally worthless is another altogether.

/debt ceiling fight is stupid
//most of the modern GOP also
///GOP primaries are farking depressing

hilariously entertaining!
 
2013-09-27 10:59:07 PM  

Evil High Priest: Lyonid: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

I'm fairly conservative and disagree with the current administration on numerous issues...

...and he's now on my ignore list, which is a bit of a rare distinction as I hate using ignore.  Being a troll is one thing.  Being boring, tiresome, and generally worthless is another altogether.

/debt ceiling fight is stupid
//most of the modern GOP also
///GOP primaries are farking depressing hilariously entertaining!


... until you remember that *one* of those clowns is likely to actually be elected to a position of power and authority.

(I would add 'responsibility'), but hey, we're talking about 'The Party of Personal Responsibility' (tm)' here. *snort* *chuckle* *guffaw*)
 
Displayed 39 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report