Please see my previous posts. Congress has not authorized issuance of additional debt. To the extent that tax revenue continues to come in, expenditures may continue, but if spending continues that is in excess of how much money is in the treasury, that is almost certainly a violation of the Antideficiency Act. Violation of that law can carry criminal penalties.
Also, the debt ceiling is most certainly not an accounting or theoretical issue. Without the issuance of debt, there is insufficient money in the treasury for the government to continue expenditures. The United States General Fund does nit have overdraft protection, get it?
Of course it does. That’s what the debt IS. And of Congress passes laws that result in violating the constitution as a result of following the law, then the law is unconstitutional. So a law that forces the US to default on its debt must not be obeyed.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!
I know you have your tongue a little in your cheek here, but I would remind you that the power to spend, the power to tax, and the power to issue debt are all separate and distinct powers of Congress under the Constitution.
Just because the laws may lead to a train wreck, does not give the President authority to seize legislative powers. Art I clearly states that all legislative powers reside in the Congress, and the 14th Amendment does not override Article I.
Speaking as someone whose Social Security benefits are due to begin
next month, I am afraid that Congress absolutely does have the authority
to not pay them:
Apparently the Executive branch also has the authority to stop issuing
Social Security checks. At least it did in 1997 when the Clinton Treasury
threatened to do just that in response to similar importunity by another
Republican Congress.
No, I don’t think so. It would be one thing for the US to lose its AAA rating, which may happen and would be expensive. It would be quite another for it to default on its debt, i.e. not pay interest on it. That would have real world consequences: the US would pay sharply higher interest charges for years.
And the plain language of the constitution states that Obama must pay interest payments and judge’s salaries. All else is grey, relatively speaking. IMHandInsufficientlyInformedO.
Political significance can be highly significant, not that you argued otherwise.[sup]1[/sup] The Republican decision to set it aside in 1995 and 2011 had consequences.
[sup]1[/sup]Nice analysis in this thread, btw.
I would disagree with that.
Let’s review what the Gephardt Rule does: once both houses of Congress pass a non-binding budget resolution (that is not law!), if that budget has a provision which contains a number on the amount of debt that is authorized that is greater than what law currently allows, then the House of Representatives automatically generates a bill that includes a debt limit increase by that amount, and sends it to the Senate. The Senate still has to call it up, vote on it, etc. before it can be sent to the White House.
In 2011, there is literally zero chance that the GOP-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate will agree on a budget resolution, therefore even if the Gephardt Rule were still around, it would never be triggered. That’s because the House passed the Ryan budget plan calling for cuts to Medicare, and the Senate has yet to pass any budget.
Interesting, but puzzling. There are 2 barriers to agreement. Surely the removal of one of them is significant. Put another way, surely the suspension of the Gephardt rule placed another barrier to passing a timely and mathematically consistent budget.
Sure the US legislative system has lots of block-points. But putting up another must have practical consequence, as it signals a lack of seriousness in getting their job done.