I also think the
section involved is vague enough that there is no clear answer, so the President has no crystal clear power/responsibility to unilaterally do something really novel here. This also affects public reaction. Realistically, the drop dead date would not occur for some time and a political solution of sorts will occur.
Pondering the issues is fine.
7 comments:
I don't agree about the claimed vagueness but beyond that, consider the fact that the process of holding the debt limit hostage will simply continue indefinitely. That alone persuades me that it would be in the interest of the administration and the country to assert the 14th as reason to continue borrowing. I'd also suggest that the president address the nation and make the argument based on straightforward English although I agree that his ill advised statements previously that Lawrence Tribe told him not to do it make that more difficult than it should be. The situation is madness and requires decisive action to put out the fire.
The final point is true enough but what does "shall not be questioned" means in practice, especially since actually substantively doing that in practice would not necessarily occur right away (accounts can be juggled, certain types of spending altered etc.) and if Congress doesn't authorize the borrowing because short term authorizations run out, it might be per the second discussion eventually 'less unconstitutional' to do things himself, but since Congress has the power of the purse, unilateral action by the President here is not to me clearly legitimate. The Rs want to use it to cut spending, playing chicken with our well being, but the spending cuts COULD occur and cover programs that are not necessarily the "public debt" the section deals with. It is overall a rather obscure provision to have the President rely on.
For instance, the Republican Form of Government provision of Art. IV says "United States" but it was determined a political question. This section is to be enforced per @5 by Congress. Not clear if the President has unilateral power there to deal with congressional inaction.
But, if "decisive action" is required, it can offer help to defend Obama's ultimate path, especially if congressional inaction leads to no easy solution. OTOH, if Congress passes a bill that requires cutting programs etc. and he vetoes it since he says "ENOUGH! we can't keep on doing this," that migth be different.
It seems to me that Congress authority with respect to authorizing spending is exercised through the appropriations process and to the extent that debt ceiling legislation constitutes an attempt to revoke such authorization after the fact, it constitutes "questioning" the legitimacy of the debts incurred pursuant to the authorization. If that seems vague to some, I would question their ability to read English or their sincerity.
In all probability, the question will not arise because Obama has forsworn raising it. My guess is he will call the House's bluff and then we will see if they actually put the country into default. I think that's a 50/50 proposition at this point. It is equally likely that Obama will negotiate privately because of the coming sequester date which (not so) coincidentally coincides roughly with the debt ceiling date. Whether he will successfully negotiate is also a tossup in my estimation. We continue to live in interesting times.
The provision concerns "debt" not the authorization of all types of spending, let's say military spending. If Congress passes an authorization to honor the "debt" but also revokes authorization for military or social spending in the process, I'm unsure how this "questions" the "debt," which seems like a specific thing, not all authorizations. Such games planning is bad but only if it refuses to pass a bill to honor the debt is the provision clearly violated. At this, this seems a reasonable interpretation. Also, it will take some time before current authorizations will run out -- the President can juggle things and honor the "debt" though again this is a problem for other reasons, since our economic well being is hurt in the process.
Maybe I misunderstand the process but I thought that the debt ceiling did not become an issue until bills were due and there was no money available in the Treasury to pay them thus necessitating borrowing.
all these short term fixes and extensions make the whole thing so confused
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!