|
People seem to like dealing with somewhere between 1/2 and 1 1/2 of them.
1. The 14th Amendment. It distinguishes between debts and obligations. The validity of the debts shall not be questioned. It doesn't say they have to pay them. Presumably by not paying a debt it would lead people to question the validity of the debt, but at the time the problem was that people were saying they simply wouldn't honor some of the debts, but would honor others. Let's let the language mandate what's an implication, by all means. This is what people cite, the first 1/2 of an issue. However, that amendment also *explicitly* grants the authority to implement section 4, the bit everybody's quoting, and by granting the authority explicitly to one authority. In assigning responsibility to one party it's obvious the amendment could have granted it to another, as well, and in not doing so effectively denies the authority to everybody else. Congress is authorized to implement, by legislation, the section everybody's quoting. The president is tacitly told, "None of your business. Article II says you're to follow the laws; await your orders."
2. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says that the Congress shall borrow against the credit of the United States. The authority is again granted specifically to Congress. We seem to want the president to not only ignore the language of the 14th Amendment, but Article I of the Constitution. I guess we have to destroy the democracy to save it?
3. The budget itself. People argue that by granting permission to spend the money permission is given to obtain the money. In other words, they're trying to argue that Congress may have explicitly taken the authority to borrow to itself in enacting the debt ceiling, never hinting at anything else, but more importantly it can be construed to have implicitly granted any and all powers at revenue raising. They're claiming that by merely passing a budget the Congress has transferred Article I section 8 authority to the president, presumably also allowing him to declare war, make and ratify treaties, and set tariffs and taxes on his own. However, the budget that passed doesn't just authorize the president to spend the money: It says that he shall pay for a few things (essential, but not really huge), and then, the president shall be authorized to spend money from any *additional* revenues for the rest of the budget. In other words, the president's great authority is contingent on revenues; the acquisition of revenues is *not* contingent on complying with mandated spending. The tax bills authorize Obama to find money from taxes; bills on tariffs and other fees and fines authorize him to find money there; the debt ceiling authorizes him to find revenues by borrowing. People are arguing that a contingency provides a mandate. "If it rains, I'll have to stay home" can't be interpreted to mean, "If I stay home, it'll have to rain." He has to pay the interest on the debt; he doesn't *have* to pay for the other, contingent obligations.
4. The general welfare of the US is placed in Congress' hands. They may not act like it, but thems the risks in a democracy. The president could very easily pay the interest on the debt and any debts that come due without spending on other obligations. It's up to him whether to obey the Constitution in this regard, but I'm not likely to praise a President who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and then decides that his oath isn't worth the air it took to say it. It's easy for a single individual to say, "I think what I need to do to help the country is at odds with the laws and the Constitution I've sworn to uphold. My need in avoiding what I think would be a catastrophe justifies my ignoring the law, I am above the Constitution, I am above Congress." Not a good thing in a president; thugs use the same reasoning. Obama is showing that he's not a thug. Some of his supporters, not so much. Now, if there is *already* a catastrophe--and I'm not talking economic distress or a sudden drop in the polls--extraordinary steps needed to restore a Constitutional order that has already been destroyed is in order. For example, the Continuity of Government plan that all presidents in the last 20 or 30 years have signed. For this purpose there is martial law. Just as Obama has managed to produce a war that doesn't need approval because it's a "humanitarian kinetic military activity with the political goal of overthrowing another country with little risk to us"--essentially staging a coup, but not as cleanly as happened in Chile, so people are asking him to implement partial martial law for reduced grounds without actually implementing full martial law. They want him to just suspend *part* of the Constitution until his uppity minions in the House learn their place, apparently. Perhaps they're Democrats; they're certainly not democrats as the US has traditionally known democrats to be, in other words, republicans. (No, not all republicans are Republicans, and vice-versa, just as not all Democrats are democrats and vice-versa.)
5. The crisis is, in one sense, faked. When the president says the economic catastrophe resulting from not raising the debt ceiling would be utterly heinous and destructive, well, I have my doubts. Harmful, sure, but I'm unconvinced it would be quite so devastating.
On the other hand, when he says he will run the risk of such an utterly heinous and destructive economic catastrophe by not signing a short-term debt ceiling increase, he's just implied that he thinks the short-term debt-ceiling increase is more heinous and destructive than the risk of economic devastation that some say justifies suspending part of the Constitution--or he's playing politics, bargaining with public uncertainty. But why would a short-term debt-ceiling increase be worse than an imminent economic catastrophe? Is it just that he honestly thinks economic ruin is preferable to a repeat of the hassle? Because he thinks a debt-ceiling increase in line with the traditional average increase is beneath him? Because he doesn't want to run the risk of a repeat of this tussle before the elections, providing possible campaign fodder to his opponents and letting governing distract him from his real job of campaigning? Does he intend to make the argument that economic uncertainty would necessarily prevent a jobs-based recovery? I don't know, but I can't think of a good civil-servant response that doesn't shift him from altruistic and good-willed to selfish and defensive. I think a grown up would have the obligation to explain his reasoning, and, if he decides that uncertainty is the reason for the lack of economic growth, act to reduce any and all uncertainty even if he suddenly realizes he sounds like Boehner and McCain.
In fact, straight along a compromise has been possible on both sides, but both sides act as though the consequences of a default are a reasonable price to pay for getting one's way. *They* have explained their reasoning, although perhaps they're not really crazy but faking insanity as a kind of bargaining position (do you really want to challenge a crazy person's bluff?). It's just that one side has delusional people that really seem to believe that their cause is worth extreme economic sacrifice, or that there will be no economic disaster; the other side says that the price would be too high to contemplate, and then acts exactly the same way as the folk called delusional. The inconsistency is glaring and needs to be accounted for. The delusion, well, that I can take at face value.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
