Interesting reading on Bush vs Obama economic issues:
-
Blogroll
Other Links
Google Ads
Can the President ignore the debt ceiling ?
I am of the opinion that an agreement is the best course but that the President can act by himself and ignore the debt ceiling but that is opinion. There are arguments on both sides.
Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution says of the President:
… “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” …
So if congress passes a budget that requires borrowing by spending more than revenues, the President has a duty to borrow so he may execute the laws. It would seem unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to limit his abilities.
The President has an obligation to execute the laws. It is impossible to execute all laws since the debt ceiling law denies him the money to execute many laws, and so he has no choice but to ignore the debt ceiling law unless Congress increases the debt ceiling. By failing to increase the debt ceiling in a timely manner, Congress is blocking his constitutional obligation.
So it seems to me there are 2 good arguments in favor of this. First, the President is in a situation where he cannot execute all the laws so he must pick either this one debt ceiling law or all the others. The second is that the debt limit law is unconstitutional since it prevents the President from carrying out duties specified in the Constitution.
On the other hand, Article 1 Section 8 of the same Constitution gives Congress the power “to pay the Debts” and “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States” so maybe there is a Constitutional case for the debt ceiling. But then nowhere does it say that Congress can refuse to pay debts or limit the ability of the President to carry out the laws that they passed.
And nowhere does it say that the President cannot borrow in order to carry out the laws.
Posted in Current Events
Leave a comment
Debt ceiling: do the right thing, compromise now
I’ve writtten many times deficit and the debt ceiling. I think law makers on both sides of the aisle should “do the right thing” and compromise now. Some feel compelled to stick to a position because of a previous pledge or stance. I have previously written about The “no taxes” pledge or a higher duty. But the same applies to both sides. To members of Congress are concerned that the deficit ceiling or budget negiotiations may cause them to violate their previous pledges or stances, but need to remember that you took a more important oath when they were sworn in to offfice.
But if both sides are stubborn, everyone loses. Think about it. If we default or even come close, the markets are likely to reward us with a higher interest rate on our debt. Even a small increase on a mutli-trillion dollar debt is a lot of money. We could also stubbornly refuse to reform pet programs and find those programs can not last in the long-term.
Do the right thing, compromise now.
Debt ceiling and the Constitution
If Congress and the President do not reach an argreement on the debt ceiling, the U.S. could default for the first time in its history. Since this has never happened before, we don’t know with certainly what will happen. But do we want to take a chance to make a point?
I am of the opinion that an agreement is the best course but that the President can act by himself and ignore the debt ceiling but that is opinion. There are arguments on both sides.
Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution says of the President:
… “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” …
So if congress passes a budget that requires borrowing by spending more that revenues, the President has a duty to bowrow so he may execute the laws. It would seem unfair and perhaps unconstituional to limit his abilities.
On the other hand, Article 1 Section 8 of the same Constitution gives Congress the power “to pay the Debts” and “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States” so maybe there is a Constitutional case for the debt ceiling.
I don’t knows how the Supreme Court would come down on this. Sort of like the War Powers Act in that both sides have a good argument but both also have much to lose if the courts decide that the other side has a better argument.
Debt ceiling fiasco
More on the debt ceiling fiasco -
Bill Clinton has an easy answer for the current debt stalemate: If push comes to shove, President Obama should just raise the ceiling on his own and force Republicans to sue to stop him.
“I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether they pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy”
I’ve quoted Slate in the blockquote and the quote within the blockquote is President Clinton.
I agree it does seem crazy for Congress to appropriate money we don’t have and then have to vote again to approve the borrowing. If they didn’t want to spend it, why approve the budget in the first vote?
A compromise is probably the best and most certain solution. But will compromise come in time?
The President also has Article 2, Section 3 of the constitution on his side. Of course, the abilty of the President to ignore the debt ceiling law could be challenged and we can never be sure how the courts will decide but the suggestion that this is a likely outcome could increase the seriousness of Republican negotiating. (see Can the President ignore the debt ceiling?).
The Republican position now seems to be that your side is not giving enough and our side doesn’t have to give anything. But it would be good to remind Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor that they do not hold all the cards. If we are going to negotiate this, let both sides give a little.
The “no taxes” pledge or a higher duty
To members of Congress concerned that the deficit ceiling or budget negiotiations may cause them to violate their “no taxes” pledge, please remember that you took a more important oath:
“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The quote is from the House Member FAQ. Senators take a similar or identical oath.
Stimulus efforts: Shovel ready or not. Please fix our infrastructure.
The stimulus efforts have seemed to slow down for a variey of reasons but often cited is that there are very few truly shovel-ready projects. The infrastructure needs to be fixed. Our roads are certainly in need of improvement and not so long ago a bridge collaped with loss of life and many of our bridges were inspected and found to be sorely lacking. The power grid could use updating too. Remember the black-outs. It would be a long list if I tried to list all the needs and even then I’d surely miss some. Lots of infrastructure improvements are needed in this country.
A project does not need to be shovel-ready to be a stimulus to the economy. The planning stage requires much work (jobs!) and is followed by construction jobs. So we need to fix our infrastucture and stimulate our economy at the same time.
Posted in Current Events, economic recovery
Tagged economic recovery, infrastructure, jobs, stimulus
Leave a comment
Can the President ignore the debt ceiling?
In my past few posts I’ve said that I believe the President has authority to exceed the Congressionally authorized debt ceiling by virute of his (or her) duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (Article 2, Section 3). (See http://www.jackreidy.com/blog/2011/07/15/government-by-separation-of-powers-and-ambiguity/ and http://www.jackreidy.com/blog/2011/07/14/debt-ceiling-choices/ )
This is what I would do if I were in the President’s position. I would remind everyone the President has an obligation to execute the laws. It is impossible to execute all laws since the debt ceiling law denies him the money to execute many laws, and so he has no choice but to ignore the debt ceiling law unless Congress increases the debt ceiling. By failing to increase the debt ceiling in a timely manner, Congress is blocking his constitutional obligation.
So it seems to me there are 2 good arguments in favor of this. First, the President is in a situation were he cannot execute all the laws so he must pick. The second is that the debt limit law is unconstitional since it prevents the President from carrying out duties specified in the Constitution.
Of course, the abilty of the President to ignore the debt ceiling law could be challenged and we can never be sure how the courts will decide but the suggestion that this is a likely outcome could increase the seriousness of Republican negotiating.
A compromise is probably the best and most certain solution. But will compromise come in time? The Republican position now seems to be that your side is not giving enough and our side doesn’t have to give anything. But it would be good to remind Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor that they do not hold all the cards.
Government by separation of powers and ambiguity
Yes, in my last post I did indicate that the President has authority to exceed the Congressionally authorized debt ceiling by virute of his (or her) duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (Article 2, Section 3). I think it would be a reasonable intepretation that although Congress has the power to appropriate money they cannot limit the executive’s ability to pay bills or debt resulting from previous Congressional actions. This seems to be reinforced by the 14th amendment. And if laws conflict, the President has discretion in deciding which laws to carry out.
But that is just my opinion and who knows how the Supreme Court would come down on this. Sort of like the War Powers Act in that both sides have a good argument but both also have much to lose if the courts decide that the other side has a better argument.
So we not only have a separation of powers but ambiguity and somehow it all works. That seems to be the genius of the Constitution. There is quite a bit of ambiguity in the Constituion but lawmakers add more as we go.
Posted in Current Events
Tagged 14th amendment, ambiguity, Constitution, Debt ceiling, Executive powers
2 Comments
Debt ceiling choices
The debt ceiling is a law that that limits the amount the US government can borrow. Yes, it is a law. We have a budget , it is a law (or a series of laws). Medicare and Social Security are also laws. We have a Constitution that says the says that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (Article 2, Section 3).
So the President is there to carry out the laws but there are many laws. And there is one law (the debt ceiling) that would block his ability to carry out the other laws. So what is a President to do? Ignore the debt ceiling law (which itself may be unconstitional) so that the other laws passed by congress are executed and fulfill his Constitutional duty or obey the debt ceiling law and fail in that duty.
It is a difficult situation but would be made much easier if there was an agreement to raise the debt ceiling. It is certainly a dilemma if there is no debt ceiling increase since it is not possible to obey all laws but if it were my choice I’d go with most laws and the Constitition.
Here are 2 articles that discuss these issues in more depth
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2011/07/the-debt-limit-faithful-execution-1.html#entry-more
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/08/Obama-May-Have-to-Break-the-Law-if-Debt-Talks-Collapse.aspx
Posted in Current Events
Tagged 14th amendment, Constitution, Debt ceiling, Executive powers
Leave a comment