|
First, you ignore the part that the other poster said to ignore. It's the immediate application, but not the only application. The debt not to be questioned "includes" Civil War debt, but isn't just the Civil War debt.
Second, you ignore the following clause, which says that Congress will implement that clause by appropriate legislation. Granting Congress the authority to implement the law also means that they can choose not to implement it. They're not supposed to, but there's no penalty.
Third, you assume that even in the presence of an explicit law stipulating a limit on what the executive branch can borrow the language authorizing the executive branch to spend money grants implicit consent to raise the money to cover the expenses.
Fourth, you assume that even though money can be had through taxes, through tariffs, through fees, through cutting other expenses, through selling off assets, or through borrowing, the only real way that the US government can get money is by borrowing and incurring more debt.
Fifth, you step back and realize that "debt" may not mean the same thing as "obligation," but since we're ignoring part of the Constitution to make it mean what we want it to mean, that's not a problem. If we *didn't* ignore it, we'd realize that the debt to be covered is a fraction of current government receipts. In other words, we have to say that Social Security obligations are equivalent to "debt" for the purposes of this clause even if it isn't. Remember, the Constitution is a living document, so if we prune it or bob its tail that's perfectly okay. Good, even.
Sixth, you have to ignore 100 years of precedent and estoppal. The debt ceiling's been in place and honored as law for that long, every president has acted on the same interpretation of the Constitution that Congress has. This would be a rather profound break from precedent. It's not arguing imperial presidency around the edges like we did with Nixon and Reagan and Clinton, or even FDR, it's arguing imperial presidency a la 40 B.C. Rome. And now, as then, there will be people applauding the usurpation of power as the purest form of democracy. After all, what's expedient is good, the Constitution is only useful when it's useful.
Seventh, Obama then declares that Congress has implicitly authorized borrowing more money by spending bills. He then authorizes Treasury to issue more T-bills, and we see exactly what the T-bill buying public thinks about this. Or maybe he decides to increase taxes. Or sell off public lands. But since we've been financing half of the federal budget with credit cards, more or less, that'll be his first choice.
On the other hand, it means that the House, which is responsible for such bills, will immediately realize that any spending bill it passes will, until SCOTUS declares that the President has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution in order to increase the debt and does something about it, make sure that any debt control is in each spending bill. You can count on a lot of smaller spending bills because there'll be no fall back. It's like cutting up your kid's credit cards once you realize that the $100 limit you told the company to place on the kid's account is ignored. It will reduce flexibility, but it would finally make somebody act like a grownup. That's been in very short supply.
What I expect is for Congress to raise the debt ceiling by about $3 billion--and then for the "14th Amendment" people to immediately flip the argument to say that if the debt ceiling was raised after a budget was passed, it constitutes independent authorization for spending up to the debt ceiling without any additional spending bills. Meaning there's no reason not to have a $3 trillion deficit between, oh, 8/3 and whenever that money can be raised and pushed out the door. Wouldn't that be a nice stimulus?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
