How is it constitutional to shut down the government??

[kentuck]

Does not the Constitution give us the very idea of government?

It seems to me to be not only unconstitutional, but illegal, to threaten to shut down our government. You might as well say that our laws mean nothing.

And rather than debating such an insane idea with a radical Congress, the President should sign an Executive Order to keep government running, as is, until the budget issues can be resolved. It should be kept "as is" because only the legislative branch can pass laws to increase or decrease spending. But they do not have the authority to shut down our entire government.

I say the President sign an Executive Order and take it to the Supreme Court. If they rule that Congress has the right to "shut down our government", then they also have a right to disperse the Supreme Court.

[CTyankee]

1. IIRC, something like this was suggested by Bill Clinton the last time around...

Obama considered it but decided not to do it (I don't recall the rationale). At that time, he might have felt he could bend some of these repukes. But now we know these guys better. I'm all for your idea if it can work...

[PoliticAverse]

2. Note that during these 'shutdowns' the entire government doesn't actually shutdown...

only 'non-essential' parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown

[kentuck]

3. And they do not have that authority...

Without following the Constitution. The President should challenge their asses.

[Harmony Blue]

4. The next 3-5 weeks will be interesting

and isn't it interesting that during that time it coincides with the ACA exchanges?...a perfect hostage for the GOP.

[Warpy]

5. People don't like it when the government shuts down

and since it's usually Republicans who are responsible for it, that's the party that suffers most.

They're undoubtedly banking on having people forget all about it by November 2014. That's not going to happen. A lot of teabaggers are going to get a rude wakeup call this time, just the way a lot of idiots did when Gingrich did this.

People hate having the government around except when they find out it isn't because of some stupid grandstanding Republicans.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I agree, it should be unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Deficiency_Act

Constitutional authority[edit source | editbeta]To some extent, but not entirely, it implements the provisions of Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 9, Clause 7 (the "power of the purse&quot , which provides that "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law." In part, the Act is actually inconsistent with the Constitution because it recites that expenditures without appropriations can be made where expressly permitted by Congress: the Constitution permits no such exception.[citation needed]

In other words if they're going shut the government down, they have to shut everything down or not at all.

Thanks for the thread, kentuck.

[Yo_Mama]

7. I think it is constitutional for Congress to control spending.

It's a power specifically granted to them in the Constitution, and having the power to spend logically implies having the power not to spend.

Also Congress is specifically granted the power to borrow, to coin, to tax, etc.

I don't think the SC would ever support what you are proposing, because it would disrupt the constitutional balance, and it can't be argued that it wouldn't or that this balance was not the intent because of the evolution of the British parliament's power of the purse.

The real protection against excess of this type is an enraged electorate, and that Congress does fear.

[kentuck]

9. I think it is a little deeper than that.

The power not to spend requires a vote. They cannot unilaterally decide to shut down one program or another without a vote by both Houses of Congress and a signature of the President. That is not constitutional. Also, they cannot decide to not pay our debt which we have already accumulated and use it as a bribe on the Executive Branch. They do not have that authority.

[Yo_Mama]

14. They aren't deciding not to pay our debt - they are refusing to raise the debt limit

which prevents more debt (not rolled over debt, but new debt) being issued. Failing to raise the debt limit does not cause the Treasury to default on old debt, or not roll over old debt. It does stop additional deficit financing.

Of course, that does require a halt to a lot of government spending as we are issuing some debt to pay interest on old debt since we have a deficit.

But the voters will go ballistic if it gets to that, so I am not greatly worried. An awful lot of what the government spends goes directly to the voters in the form of SNAP, payments to farmers, TANF, and Medicaid, Medicare and SS. You can't cut spending too much without a widespread impact, so this will naturally be taken care of by popular pressure on Congress, which is what the Constitution is set up to enable.

[Bunnahabhain]

8. Not sure how a clearly unconstitutional EO would help

You really want to set such precedents in the Executive Office? People seem to forget what "their guy" does is going to pave the way for what "the other side's guy" does in the future. It is clearly Congress that the Constitution has vested the power in to preside over financial and budgetary issues. To undermine the Constitution is such a fashion in no way helps supports it.

Additionally any government shut down will only hurt the Repubs. No idea why you'd want to stop your enemy from committing suicide.

[kentuck]

10. Tell me how it hurt them the last time they shut down the government.

They went on to impeach Bill Clinton, stole an election in 2000, and controlled both House and Senate for about 6 years. How did that hurt them??

What if they shut down the military and the Social Security payments also? Would the President have the right to intervene? I think so.

[Bunnahabhain]

15. What does the Clinton impeachment have to do with this?

Stupid and irrelevant issue to raise.

Newt Gingrich was served up as pulled pork over this. They lost momentum. Clinton and Gore were re-elected. What the SCOTUS decided about the Y2K elections had nothing to do with shutting down the government.

Is there any more irrelevant shit you can toss out here? And you think you're the Constitutional whiz so answer your own question. Anyone with an ounce of insight knows the factual answers but something tells me that's not going to slow you down.

[gulliver]

11. It's a good question.

Suppose we were under attack and the President refused to order the military to engage in a war declared by Congress. It's basically the same thing as the House Republicans shutting down the government and refusing to pay lawful debt.

[kentuck]

12. I think that is an apt analogy.

[Posteritatis]

13. Ahh, civics. (nt)