Are you acting this dumb on purpose? Like, is that some big new thing among lawyers, the “I’m pretending to be incredibly dumb in the hopes everyone else is” defense?
Congress determines the budget. It gets full control over how much gets spent on what. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with that; literally the only thing it does is say, “You cannot borrow any more money”. For things we have, essentially, already bought. So if congress has a budget, then refuses to raise the debt ceiling, what it’s essentially doing is running up a credit card and then refusing to pay the bill, despite the part that it has a literally infinite credit line and can pay the credit card bill off with itself. So statements like yours are downright dumbfoundingly stupid. Hence my statement: stop being a tard. It makes you look bad, and seeing as you’re basically the token republican on this board, it reminds us all just how dumb the average Republican can be.
Does this have anything to do with the post you just quoted?
That’s not actually an accurate understanding of the budgeting process, to say nothing of the difference between obligating and committing the funds expenditure.
There are different kinds of obligations Congress may incur. Congress may authorize the Department of the Navy to spend $100 million building a carrier. At that point, it becomes legal for the Department of the Navy to spend that money – but they have not yet spent it.
At some point thereafter, a Navy contracting officer will award a contract to some company to begin building the carrier. At that point, they have begun to spend money, but not all the money is spent. They could call the company next week and tell them to stop, and only be liable for whatever costs the company had incurred and whatever liquidated damages were associated with terminating the contract.
Do you understand those distinctions?
Yes, a great deal – you seem to believe that Congress can authorize the President to raise the debt ceiling. Since this is an error on your part, I’m wondering if the error arises because you believe Congress can empower the President to do anything it, Congress, can do, or if you understand that there are powers Congress has that it may delegate to the President and powers that it has that it may not delegate to the President. Asking you, “Can Congress give the President authority to do anything it wishes?” seemed to be a good way of determining where your confusion lay.
I do, but I don’t understand how the debt ceiling plays into it. If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, does that automatically stop the carrier project, or does it allow the project to continue, but suddenly result in contractors not getting paid on time?
The problem with the debt ceiling “debate” is that a No vote is the worst possible way to manage your spending, and this horrible choice is made by the same people who voted to spend all the money they’re now voting to no longer pay.
Do you understand that they are irrelevant in practice for discussion of the debt ceiling?
The actual giving of the power to the president is a fairly simplistic change in the way congress works which effectively allows the president unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling without actually giving him this power.
It should stop the carrier project – that is, when Congress refuses to borrow additional money to cover the spending plans that they have made, the executive branch must work within the confines of that limitation. The carrier project may have already incurred some expenses – those must be paid. But the project must immediately stop incurring additional expenses.
No, you’re wrong. There is a clear, and legal, distinction between the two, and it’s highly relevant to the discussion of the debt ceiling. In order to spend money, the United States government must either have the money, or borrow the money. Both of these must be done by Congress. Both are separate actions.
Is that legal?
No. As the Supreme Court determined in Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892), Congress cannot constitutionally delegate legislative power to the President.
Control over the debt ceiling isn’t a legislative power. There is no constitutional requirement that we have a debt ceiling at all. It’s a power of government which is currently exercised by the legislative branch, but could just as easily be deemed an administrative one to be exercised by the Treasury.
I think you’re missing the point. The issue is not whether the Republican-controlled House must approve a debt increase, but rather whether it may obstruct one. If it may so obstruct, then it has a fiduciary obligation to its [del]stockholders[/del] constituents to do so. (Cite.)
Control of the debt is a specifically delegated power under the Constitution. “Congress shall have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” It would be no more constitutional to hand off that power to the President than it would be to give the President power of the purse (unless Congress by a veto-proof majority rejected some spending item).
Sorry, but it is pretty damn clear that the proposal simply isn’t allowed under the Constitution. It really isn’t even a close call. But I’m not upset by Obama proposing it; it is just like presidents requesting an unconstitutional authority for the line-item veto.
Seems to me that a workaround would be for Congress to authorize a debt ceiling of one quadrillion dollars which would be effectively good for centuries.
The Congress doesn’t issue debt though. The Treasury Dept. does. It seems pretty clear that Congress both can and has delegated its power to raise debt to the Executive already.
The debt is issued in accordance with the law authorizing debt to be issued. It’s no different than saying that even though Congress has the power of the purse, it is actually the US Treasury that writes the checks. ETA: The fact that the US Treasury issues the physical checks does not mean that Congress could constitutionally hand over the power of the purse to the Executive Branch.
I think it would be perfectly acceptable to replicate what has been done over the past year and a half: the Budget Enforcement Act (which set up the supercommittee and the fiscal cliff) authorized the President to raise the debt limit in two increments, which could not exceed (insert whatever number it was that I can’t recall offhand). I think it would be constitutionally fine for Congress to authorize a generous, but not absurd, amount and allow the President to release the authorized debts in some increments. If the amount of debt authorized to be issued were patently absurd, like a quadrillion dollars, it would be effectively delegating a specific constitutional power to another branch, which simply cannot be done.
Raising the debt ceiling isn’t borrowing money. It’s simply removing a self-imposed restriction on borrowing money. What do you think happened before we had a debt ceiling?
Raising armies and navies is also a power specifically delegated to Congress under Article I. For some reason, however, the executive branch exercises almost exclusive control over the recruiting and training of the armed forces.
Sure, but so far as I can tell, there isn’t any reason that law can’t just say that the Treasury is authorized to issue debt in whatever amount is necessary to cover expenses. Expenses and revenue are already set by Congress, so they wouldn’t be ceding any real authority. There isn’t any constitutional necessity for a “debt ceiling”.
I’m genuinely confused here, Bricker. Are you being intentionally obtuse in order to try to make some sort of point? If so it’s not clear to me what your point is. Because the spending has already been authorized by Congress. The Executive is just executing Congressional orders in spending that money. And your talk of stopping ongoing contracts to avoid spending more is just bullshit. Contracts have been signed. Promises have been made. You’re essentially saying that the US government shouldn’t be counted on to pay its bills. If I’m not mistaken, there’s something in the Constitution about that.
In all seriousness, the current structure is insane. If you want the Executive to spend less money, the way to do that is to authorize less spending in the budget. You don’t authorize a bunch of spending and then refuse to actually come up with the money.
Again, I am just grateful that this particular sort of insanity is impossible in the Westminster system.