• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

should the president enforce an exective order to pay us bills before oct 17

justabubba said:
XOs hold sway in the federal sector. the President directs treasury to satisfy just federal obligations, as is expected by the 14th amendment, then they do it
Click to expand...
No...they dont. Do you see anywhere in the 14th where it authorizes the Exec to enforce provisions of the 14th?
 
VanceMack said:
Dont see the relevance of your question to appropriate powers and executive orders, so I will answer your question with a question..When is a "debt ceiling" NOT a "debt ceiling"?
Click to expand...
Tell me how there's no relevance.
1. Constitution states the US shall make good on it's obligations
2. Constitution states US Congress is in charge of enforcing that provision.
So on what planet is not raising the debt ceiling enforcing a provision that we make good on our obligations. So you believe...that the making good on US obligations can be tossed out...but DON'T DARE! circumvent Congress because that one specific part is sacrosanct.

As for when is a debt ceiling not a debt ceiling....well most sane people realized that the debt ceiling is an ****ing stupid idea and the Gephardt Rule was in place. When Congress passed a budget the debt ceiling was raised the amount needed to fund those appropriations. So technically the "debt ceiling" wasn't a "debt ceiling" from 1979 till 1995.
 
iliveonramen said:
Tell me how there's no relevance.
1. Constitution states the US shall make good on it's obligations
2. Constitution states US Congress is in charge of enforcing that provision.
So on what planet is not raising the debt ceiling enforcing a provision that we make good on our obligations. So you believe...that the making good on US obligations can be tossed out...but DON'T DARE! circumvent Congress because that one specific part is sacrosanct.

As for when is a debt ceiling not a debt ceiling....well most sane people realized that the debt ceiling is an ****ing stupid idea and the Gephardt Rule was in place. When Congress passed a budget the debt ceiling was raised the amount needed to fund those appropriations. So technically the "debt ceiling" wasn't a "debt ceiling" from 1979 till 1995.
Click to expand...
The debt ceiling debate happens about every year and a half. The idea is that there is some new baseline established...only THIS high...and no more, because too much debt is a BAD thing. When your 'debt' is 1-2 trillion, thats not a really big deal considering GNP and economic growth trends. When your debt is INCREASING 1-2 trillion every YEAR and your current debt is over 17 trillion and climbing, with interest obligations along at almost half a trillion annually, then debt ceiling hikes HAVE to start becoming more than some last minute dog and pony show. That you think having a debt ceiling is a stupid idea speaks volumes about you. When is it going to be enough? How much debt and reckless and irresponsible government spending are you going to be comfortable with dumping on future generations?

And again...your comment is NOT RELEVANT. Executive Orders do not apply to congress and congress is responsible for spending. Period. Rather than clamoring for a blank check or looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution you might be better served A-stop electing the same ass clowns to congress and B-stop beginning your budget negotiations with "We will not negotiate".

Maybe its time for people to actually "live on ramen" for a while til they reign in their irresponsible spending habits.
 
VanceMack said:
The debt ceiling debate happens about every year and a half. The idea is that there is some new baseline established...only THIS high...and no more, because too much debt is a BAD thing. When your 'debt' is 1-2 trillion, thats not a really big deal considering GNP and economic growth trends. When your debt is INCREASING 1-2 trillion every YEAR and your current debt is over 17 trillion and climbing, with interest obligations along at almost half a trillion annually, then debt ceiling hikes HAVE to start becoming more than some last minute dog and pony show. That you think having a debt ceiling is a stupid idea speaks volumes about you. When is it going to be enough? How much debt and reckless and irresponsible government spending are you going to be comfortable with dumping on future generations?
Click to expand...

Yeah...it does speak volumes about me. It means that I understand that if we default on our debt or don't raise the debt ceiling for appropriations already made we just end up paying higher debt costs. It means I believe any debate about debt should be during the time to set up budgets not when it's time to pay creditors. It's actually pretty sane and I daresay...FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE....

And again...your comment is NOT RELEVANT. Executive Orders do not apply to congress and congress is responsible for spending. Period. Rather than clamoring for a blank check or looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution you might be better served A-stop electing the same ass clowns to congress and B-stop beginning your budget negotiations with "We will not negotiate".
Click to expand...
The debt ceiling doesn't spend a dime....it gives the Treasury authority to raise the money to pay for money already spent by Congress.

Maybe its time for people to actually "live on ramen" for a while til they reign in their irresponsible spending habits.
Click to expand...
Or maybe someone that makes millions in capital gains could pay the same rate I pay for wages I've earned. There's a lot of things we can do to close deficits but sorry...there's nothing noble or Democratic by holding everyone in possible default status to ensure that we do things your way.
 
VanceMack said:
No...they dont. Do you see anywhere in the 14th where it authorizes the Exec to enforce provisions of the 14th?
Click to expand...

here is what i see as instruction for the President:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Click to expand...

point out the part where it says "except for the 14th amendment"
 
justabubba said:
here is what i see as instruction for the President:


point out the part where it says "except for the 14th amendment"
Click to expand...
The President executes the duties of the office of the president. He does not have power or authority over congress. They kinda set it up on purpose that way. Something about kings and stuff.......

And again...HE certainly bears a large portion of the responsibility for the shutdown. Since Harry Reid and the senate have essentially abrogated all semblance of responsibility to the President to negotiate and since the president starts off a 'negotiation' by stating "I refuse to negotiate"...well...that gives him squarely 50% of the responsibility.
 
iliveonramen said:
Yeah...it does speak volumes about me. It means that I understand that if we default on our debt or don't raise the debt ceiling for appropriations already made we just end up paying higher debt costs. It means I believe any debate about debt should be during the time to set up budgets not when it's time to pay creditors. It's actually pretty sane and I daresay...FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE....


The debt ceiling doesn't spend a dime....it gives the Treasury authority to raise the money to pay for money already spent by Congress.


Or maybe someone that makes millions in capital gains could pay the same rate I pay for wages I've earned. There's a lot of things we can do to close deficits but sorry...there's nothing noble or Democratic by holding everyone in possible default status to ensure that we do things your way.
Click to expand...
Thats comical...I bet your keyboard burst into flames the second you typed "fiscally responsible"

 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
but does nothing to prevent him from exercising the power of the Executive
including the issue of an XO to the Executive directed treasury
"receive a just federal obligation - pay it"

while he cannot create the debt (some precedent exceptions exist, such as the louisianna purchase) he can and should direct the treasury to satisfy all existing federal obligations and those that subsequently occur

problem solved. congress obligates legislatively and the President honors his oath to defend the Constitution, including art 4 of the 14th amendment
Click to expand...

It doesn't have, because he has no power he wasn't given. Tell me you're not really that unknowledgeable about the Constitution? There are no implied powers there.
 
American said:
It doesn't have, because he has no power he wasn't given. Tell me you're not really that unknowledgeable about the Constitution? There are no implied powers there.
Click to expand...

how many XOs have been signed by the presidents thruout history
nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of an Executive Order; however, they number in the thousands
open a history book and learn something before posting what you would have it be instead of as it is
 
plutonium said:
should the prez execute an executive order to pay bills, vets and gov workers already acrued by congress so the u.s. will not have an economic disaster in the world... and / can the supreme court help verify it first..
Click to expand...

I would support it, extra constitutional or not. Effective leadership is more important than a piece of paper most of our Founders weren't that excited about anyway, with Jefferson counting the days until it was gone.

Right-wing tunnel vision only feeds the movement to replace the dollar as international currency.
 
It amazes me that people really argue that the President can enforce one paragraph and yet totally ignore the rest of the essay. Tell me folks, if Obama MUST ABSOLUTELY enforce article 4 because he has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution wouldn't it also mean that he MUST ABSOLUTELY uphold article 5 as well? If Obama just enforces article 4 and not article 5 then he is violating his oath and committing treason. However if he enforces article 5 then he is also enforcing article 4 because article 5 states that it is Congress which will enforce ALL of the 14th amendment through legislation...NOT the President as article 5 specifically states that it is Congress which shall enforce it. Article 5 makes absolutely no indication that the 14th Amendment is under the President's jurisdiction of enforcement at all, just Congresses.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It amazes me that people really argue that the President can enforce one paragraph and yet totally ignore the rest of the essay. Tell me folks, if Obama MUST ABSOLUTELY enforce article 4 because he has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution wouldn't it also mean that he MUST ABSOLUTELY uphold article 5 as well? If Obama just enforces article 4 and not article 5 then he is violating his oath and committing treason. However if he enforces article 5 then he is also enforcing article 4 because article 5 states that it is Congress which will enforce ALL of the 14th amendment through legislation...NOT the President as article 5 specifically states that it is Congress which shall enforce it. Article 5 makes absolutely no indication that the 14th Amendment is under the President's jurisdiction of enforcement at all, just Congresses.
Click to expand...

please share with us how the president would be expected to enforce the provision of section 5 of the 14th amendment
 
justabubba said:
he has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the 14th amendment


emphasis added by bubba

14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

You need to add these also into account.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.​

And congress has passed Antideficiency Act, passed in 1884, amended in 1950 and 1982. This law prohibits the federal government from entering into contracts that aren't fully funded.

Both of these together would bar the US government from issuing new Treasury Bills. Our debt is not a stationary thing. Last year we issued more than 8 Trillion in new debt because more than 7 Trillion came due.

There's also no legal means of prioritizing payments. The Trillion dollar coin is the only hypothetical option that has a shot at working, and it has the problem that it would probably be subject to a legal challenge. Lets just say that the threat of a legal challenge isn't going to make investors feel safe and cozy buying T bills.
 
justabubba said:
please share with us how the president would be expected to enforce the provision of section 5 of the 14th amendment
Click to expand...

Easy, let them do their work and keep his nose out of their business until such time as what they pass crosses his desk to either be vetoed or signed.

Edit note: Sometimes enforcing something simply means to not do anything.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Thats comical...I bet your keyboard burst into flames the second you typed "fiscally responsible"

Click to expand...


Yes.. Raising the debt ceiling is fiscally responsible. Much like threatening to default is f'n moronic.

I'll essplain it simply. Low risk investments have low rates of return. High risk investments have high rates of return. If you a safe investment, you can borrow money for less money. If you're a dangerous investment then you've got to pay a lot more in interest. In the case of our government, our debt consists of treasury notes, treasury bills, and treasury bonds. They've always been the safest place to put your money so they command the lowest possible rates of return. (in other words, we can borrow craptons of money very cheaply).

But that's not a guarantee. A good bit of those treasury notes/bills/bonds come due every month. Last year 7.4 Trillion dollars came due. Even though our deficit was 700Billion dollars, we had to issue 8100 Billion dollars worth of bonds.

Next year we'll have to issue even more. Increases in interest rates will cost us 100's of billions of dollars a year. Spending 100s of billions of dollars for absolutely no reason is insane. So yes, raising the debt limit is fiscally responsible.
 
Mithros said:
Yes.. Raising the debt ceiling is fiscally responsible. Much like threatening to default is f'n moronic.

I'll essplain it simply. Low risk investments have low rates of return. High risk investments have high rates of return. If you a safe investment, you can borrow money for less money. If you're a dangerous investment then you've got to pay a lot more in interest. In the case of our government, our debt consists of treasury notes, treasury bills, and treasury bonds. They've always been the safest place to put your money so they command the lowest possible rates of return. (in other words, we can borrow craptons of money very cheaply).

But that's not a guarantee. A good bit of those treasury notes/bills/bonds come due every month. Last year 7.4 Trillion dollars came due. Even though our deficit was 700Billion dollars, we had to issue 8100 Billion dollars worth of bonds.

Next year we'll have to issue even more. Increases in interest rates will cost us 100's of billions of dollars a year. Spending 100s of billions of dollars for absolutely no reason is insane. So yes, raising the debt limit is fiscally responsible.
Click to expand...
Typically...you miss the point. there is no sense in having a debt ceiling when you continually break that debt ceiling. there is no 'fiscal responsibility' in pushing off your debt and obligations on future generations because you are too stupid and irresponsible to manage your spending. You cannot claim fiscal responsibility by being reckless and irresponsible and then whining about others not continuing to enable your perpetual recklessness and irresponsibility.
 
Mithros said:
You need to add these also into account.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.​
Click to expand...
when the congress passed legislation authorizing programs incurring a federal obligation, the appropriation was thus made

And congress has passed Antideficiency Act, passed in 1884, amended in 1950 and 1982. This law prohibits the federal government from entering into contracts that aren't fully funded.
Click to expand...
which tells the warranted contracting officers of the federal government that it is a criminal act to obligate money which has not been made available to the contracting officer to award to a federal contractor. that has no bearing in this matter. the warranted federal contracting officers are NOT obligating the monies the treasury would be directed to pay. the congress has done that. any outstanding contractor obligations would already have appropriated funds earmarked for disbursement to the contractor

Both of these together would bar the US government from issuing new Treasury Bills. Our debt is not a stationary thing. Last year we issued more than 8 Trillion in new debt because more than 7 Trillion came due.
Click to expand...
notice how the treasury covered the just obligations of the federal government
as an executive agency, the president could issue an executive order directing it to do so should the congress fail to meet is own obligation to assure those federal obligations are paid

There's also no legal means of prioritizing payments.
Click to expand...
no prioritizing required. if it is due and payable, then the treasury should be directed to pay it

The Trillion dollar coin is the only hypothetical option that has a shot at working, and it has the problem that it would probably be subject to a legal challenge. Lets just say that the threat of a legal challenge isn't going to make investors feel safe and cozy buying T bills.
Click to expand...
the trillion dollar coin is a stupid, untenable proposition. returning to the gold standard, another stupid idea, has a better chance, and it still won't happen
 
Kal'Stang said:
Easy, let them do their work and keep his nose out of their business until such time as what they pass crosses his desk to either be vetoed or signed.

Edit note: Sometimes enforcing something simply means to not do anything.
Click to expand...

as you have documented for us, there is no legitimate way for the president to force congress to fulfill its obligation under section 5 of the 14th amendment
that does not preclude him from enforcing section 4 of that amendment as he promised to do when taking the oath of office
 
plutonium said:
should the prez execute an executive order to pay bills, vets and gov workers already acrued by congress so the u.s. will not have an economic disaster in the world... and / can the supreme court help verify it first..
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.
 
VanceMack said:
Typically...you miss the point. there is no sense in having a debt ceiling when you continually break that debt ceiling. there is no 'fiscal responsibility' in pushing off your debt and obligations on future generations because you are too stupid and irresponsible to manage your spending. You cannot claim fiscal responsibility by being reckless and irresponsible and then whining about others not continuing to enable your perpetual recklessness and irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

Let me explain how math works. As long as you have a deficit, you're going to need to increase the debt limit.

No one in the GOP has proposed a balanced budget because it's simply not possible. The Ryan Budget doesn't balance the budget until 2023. That means that even if the GOP were to get everything they've ever wanted, including drastic cuts to medicare; you'd still need to continually raise the debt ceiling until 2023.

And no, I didn't miss your point. You're operating from a drastically oversimplified view of how the debt works. If you want to stop raising the debt limit then propose a balanced budget. THAT"S WHEN YOU SPEND MONEY!!!! What you want is for congress to spend more money than it takes in and then prevent the treasury from paying for it.

Disgusting.
 
Mithros said:
Let me explain how math works. As long as you have a deficit, you're going to need to increase the debt limit.

No one in the GOP has proposed a balanced budget because it's simply not possible. The Ryan Budget doesn't balance the budget until 2023. That means that even if the GOP were to get everything they've ever wanted, including drastic cuts to medicare; you'd still need to continually raise the debt ceiling until 2023.

And no, I didn't miss your point. You're operating from a drastically oversimplified view of how the debt works. If you want to stop raising the debt limit then propose a balanced budget. THAT"S WHEN YOU SPEND MONEY!!!! What you want is for congress to spend more money than it takes in and then prevent the treasury from paying for it.

Disgusting.
Click to expand...
:lamo

You should be able to spend money like a crack fiend and have zero responsibility or integrity and anyone that expects responsibility and objects to you dumping debt on future generations is 'irresponsible'...

classic...
 
justabubba said:
as you have documented for us, there is no legitimate way for the president to force congress to fulfill its obligation under section 5 of the 14th amendment
that does not preclude him from enforcing section 4 of that amendment as he promised to do when taking the oath of office
Click to expand...

I never said that he has to force Congress to do anything. As I said, he can do nothing and that would be fullfilling his oath. For example: Free speech. How is it enforced? By simply not enforcing laws that violate free speech.

And yes, it does preclude him from enforcing section 4. Because section 5 specifically states that CONGRESS shall enforce it. It does not mention the President enforcing it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I never said that he has to force Congress to do anything. As I said, he can do nothing and that would be fullfilling his oath. For example: Free speech. How is it enforced? By simply not enforcing laws that violate free speech.

And yes, it does preclude him from enforcing section 4. Because section 5 specifically states that CONGRESS shall enforce it. It does not mention the President enforcing it.
Click to expand...
the Constitution that Obama swore to uphold tells us:
... The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. ...
Click to expand...
gives him basis for an XO to treasury directing payment of just federal obligations when measures are not otherwise taken to satisfy them
 
plutonium said:
should the prez execute an executive order to pay bills, vets and gov workers already acrued by congress so the u.s. will not have an economic disaster in the world... and / can the supreme court help verify it first..
Click to expand...

It would surprise me, if that had not been a topic between the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary before and again recently. I am not so very sure that I would be very happy, if the Congress lost its absolute command of what is in the purse. That would, in my opinion, endanger US democracy severely and possibly fatally.
 
justabubba said:
the Constitution that Obama swore to uphold tells us:

gives him basis for an XO to treasury directing payment of just federal obligations when measures are not otherwise taken to satisfy them
Click to expand...

Again, the 14th amendment, section 4 is only PART of the whole. Section 5 tells us how and more importantly in this case WHO can enforce section 4. And section 5 does not mention the exectutive branch of our government. You are wanting Obama (along with any other President) to ignore part of the Constitution just so you can push an ideaology. The President must uphold ALL of the Constitution...not just the parts the furthers his/her/your aims. So, in order to enforce section 4 Obama (along with any other President) MUST allow Congress to enforce it their own way and not his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom