• 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!

Is shutting down the government unconstitutional?

Is shutting down the government unconstitutional?

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
I voted "yes" with a caveat: If a government shutdown meant that every single government function stopped, then it is absolutely not Constitutional.

The Constitution undeniably obligates the Federal government to do certain things, so if certain functions are discontinued even temporarily it would be unConstitutional.
 
Objective Voice said:
Then I'd say you have the wrong interpretation of what Art 1, Sect. 9, clause 6 says.



Breakdown:

"No money shall be drawn from the Treasurey..."

Clearly defines what repository Congress shall drawn funds to finance the bills it passes and are subsequently made law.

"...but in consequence of appropriations made by law..."

A clear stipulation that the only time Congress can "withdraw" money from the Treasure is when a specific law calls for such financing as per bills passed by Congress and subsequently made law by approval of the President.

About the only thing I believe you got right in your post above is the periodic requirement for Congress to report on what they spend.



I don't know where you get the idea that anyone has stated that the government is being forced to spend money. I AM, however, saying that if Congress passes a law that has appropriations (funding) affixed to it, Congress must, by law, fund that program. Now, maybe they don't fund such-and-such program 100% or perhaps not to the levels it once was a year or two ago, but where appropriations is required by law, I don't think Congress can ignore providing funds for it. Two examples of what I'm talking about:

CPB/NPR. Right now, there's a battle in Congress not merely on how much to reduce funding for public broadcasting, but to defund public broadcasting entirely. If the law that ushered in CPB/NPR requires appropriations, then by law Congress cannot ignore funding it. Furthermore, unless there is a specific fixed amount the law states must be applied toward public broadcasting, Congress can reduce the amount of money that goes to it, but it cannot defund public broadcasting, not without changing the law.

Medicare/SS/Medicaid. These programs are mandated by statute for two reasons: 1) Medicare/SS are "the people's safety net" programs. WE fund them via withdraws directly from OUR income. So, Congress must fund these programs. 2) Medicaid is a partnership between the federal government and the States. As such, Congress must also fund Medicaid by statute. How much goes to fund these permanent programs is also something that needs to be hashed out by Congress, but these programs must be funded by law. Congress can't ignore providing for them if they wanted to.

Based on a strict interpretation of Art. 1, Sect 9, clause 1, I believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to shut down the government even partically if it cannot approve a budget. It can approve continuing resolutions via House rules until the next fiscal year if Congress can't reach an agreement on a spending bill (budget), but with every CR comes more unrest and uncertainty. Still, I'd rather they do that than to shut down government in whole or in-part.
Click to expand...

I do see what you are saying. You are making assumptions that I was not.

I was answering the question directly: Is shutting down the government unconstitutional? No. No it is not. Nowhere does the constitution obligate the federal government to do certain things (T.E.D. - if you disagree, please show me where it obligates the Federal government). I was not assuming that the government would continue appropriations for anything since they would not have the budget for it and it WOULD be unconstitutional for them to fund any programs from the treasury if it was not specified in the law itself (as you clearly explained).

You are assuming that the spending must go on because the laws were passed and need to be funded. And so it's not the actual shutting down that is unconstitutional, but rather you are arguing that the highly probable consequence of shutting down (the spending from the treasury) is unconstitutional. But the act of shutting down isn't unconstitutional itself.
 
Morality Games said:
If it comes to the point a government shuts itself down rather than deals with problems, I'd say the governing articles no longer apply. At that point it's time to wonder whether you can have any sort of society whatsoever, let alone one conforming to the specifications of a constitution.
Click to expand...
The last time the Govt shutdown there was not loss of continuity. We didn't get a new govt or constitution or anything.
Why would we this time?
 
fredmertz said:
You are assuming that the spending must go on because the laws were passed and need to be funded.
Click to expand...

As a consequence of specific laws passed by Congress that require appropriations, you are correct.

And so it's not the actual shutting down that is unconstitutional, but rather you are arguing that the highly probable consequence of shutting down (the spending from the treasury) is unconstitutional. But the act of shutting down isn't unconstitutional itself.
Click to expand...

And again I ask, why isn't it?

Congress creates these agencies, i.e., FDA, FCC, FEC, EPA, USDA, CDC, FBI, CIA, DHS, DHHS, etc, etc, and with each agencies comes required appropriations. Now, I understand that there is a difference between programs mandated by statute and programs whose budgets are not static and have provided examples of such above. As such, I understand that for some programs/agencies their funding fluctuates from one fiscal year to the next. However, my argument is that if Congress fails to fund ANY program/agency which current laws requires them to do AND in not doing so (i.e., passing a budget) causes a government shut down, even partically, it IS unconstitutional because Congress hasn't upheld their oath to provide appropriations for such programs/agencies.

Art 1, Sect 9, clause 6 (summarized) states that Congress can spend money from the U.S. Treasury to fund those programs requiring appropriations as set by law - laws which Congress writes and the President approves. Your argument is that no where in the Constitution does it mandate spending. My argument is:

If Congress is the only legislative body authorized by the Constitution to write laws (which create programs and/or agencies) and these laws require appropriations and the only entity authorized to withdraw funds from the Treasury to pay for such appropriations (by virtue of passing a budget or a continuing resolution) is Congress, yet Congress fails to pass a budget, then IMO they have violated the Constitution. As such, a government shutdown is in direct violation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Well, I voted no it's not unconstitutional, however it is a very sad state of affairs isn't it? In a parlimentary system, the government would be abolished, and a new one would be voted in.

All academic really, since even if we cut 100 billion from the budget, we're still screwed.. The country's debt is unsustainable, not a chance in hell we can ever pay it all back.. Not a chance! There MUST be a world war, and the financial systems will need to be reset for everyone, and hopefully this time round people will learn the lessons that the credit bubble has taught us.


Tim-
 
Objective Voice said:
As a consequence of specific laws passed by Congress that require appropriations, you are correct.



And again I ask, why isn't it?

Congress creates these agencies, i.e., FDA, FCC, FEC, EPA, USDA, CDC, FBI, CIA, DHS, DHHS, etc, etc, and with each agencies comes required appropriations. Now, I understand that there is a difference between programs mandated by statute and programs whose budgets are not static and have provided examples of such above. As such, I understand that for some programs/agencies their funding fluctuates from one fiscal year to the next. However, my argument is that if Congress fails to fund ANY program/agency which current laws requires them to do AND in not doing so (i.e., passing a budget) causes a government shut down, even partically, it IS unconstitutional because Congress hasn't upheld their oath to provide appropriations for such programs/agencies.

Art 1, Sect 9, clause 6 (summarized) states that Congress can spend money from the U.S. Treasury to fund those programs requiring appropriations as set by law - laws which Congress writes and the President approves. Your argument is that no where in the Constitution does it mandate spending. My argument is:
Click to expand...

To be unconstitutional in itself, it must directly (DIRECTLY!) disobey the constitution. The act of shutting down doesn't disobey the constitution. But the consequences of funding programs WILL be unconstitutional. It's semantics really. But the question of whether the act of shutting down is unconstitutional is answered with a big NO.

A situation where this wouldn't be unconstitutional: End funding the budget. Then quickly vote on all laws/programs that need funds and disband them immediately.

I'm not recommending this, obviously. But I'm saying that it wouldn't be unconstitutional, which was the question.
 
fredmertz said:
I was answering the question directly: Is shutting down the government unconstitutional? No. No it is not. Nowhere does the constitution obligate the federal government to do certain things (T.E.D. - if you disagree, please show me where it obligates the Federal government).
Click to expand...

Article 4 Section 4, for starters.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Article 4 Section 4, for starters.
Click to expand...

...ok...

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

What interpretation of this would allow you to conclude that not passing a budget would be unconstitutional? We're not talking about shutting down the military here... we're talking about what is referred to as 'non-essentials' when discussing shutting down the government.
 
Last edited:
fredmertz said:
What interpretation of this would allow you to conclude that not passing a budget would be unconstitutional? We're not talking about shutting down the military here... we're talking about what is referred to as 'non-essentials' when discussing shutting down the government.
Click to expand...

I now refer you back to my comment on the subject:


TacticalEvilDan said:
I voted "yes" with a caveat: If a government shutdown meant that every single government function stopped, then it is absolutely not Constitutional.

The Constitution undeniably obligates the Federal government to do certain things, so if certain functions are discontinued even temporarily it would be unConstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
TOJ said:
The USA Constitution is a living and breathing document so it's meaning can be whatever those in power at any particular time want it to be.

.
Click to expand...

That is total HORSE****.
 
Objective Voice said:
But why isn't it? The Constitution grants the Congress the power to right laws that are "necessary and proper" in carrying out the people's business for running the country. Therefore, if that approve of a law - and consent of said approval is derived from Congress passing a bill, thereby making it law - does not Congress have a responsibility to fund those portions of the law that require funding (appropriations) so that the law is fully carried out?

I'll go one further: Right now there is a bill before Congress (the House), H.R. 819: Government Shutdown Fairness Act, which would prohibit Congress and the President from getting paid if Congress doesn't pass a budget within 24-hours of it's required deadline to do so (April 16 or end of fiscal year, as necessary; I think those were the dates quoted recently by Congressmen Woodall from Georgia on CSPAN recently. I'd have to look them up to be sure) or pass a CR. Woodall also agreed that it IS unconstitutional for Congress not to pass a budget and effectively shutdown the government. So, I ask who's right? The Congressman or those with a decenting opinion?



So, you're saying it's okay to ignore the supreme law of the land?

I mean, really...

If WE don't know what those we elect to govern us are expected to do in adherring to our nation's highest law, how then can we expect to hold these people to task and call them out when they (presumably) violate the supreme law?
Click to expand...

When you write **** like this, it makes me wonder if you are serious and/or have ever read the Constitution. Do you really believe the Founders were the same as the assclowns we vote into office now?
 
American said:
That is total HORSE****.
Click to expand...
Really? Then how do you explain some of the actions of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the USA government?

You may wish it actually meant what it says but that ain't the way it is.

.
 
TOJ said:
Really? Then how do you explain some of the actions of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the USA government?

You may wish it actually meant what it says but that ain't the way it is.

.
Click to expand...

How do you explain that we still follow the Constitution, and aren't a complete dictatorship?
 
American said:
How do you explain that we still follow the Constitution, and aren't a complete dictatorship?
Click to expand...
I see you claim to be conservative.

What do you think of the Roe v Wade decision? How about Obamacare? Are these Constitutional? How about the McCain–Feingold Act? Do you think the Establishment Clause is interpreted today as it was in 1800?

Although you may not agree, many think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

Are you really trying to argue that the USA Constitution is interpreted in 2011 the same as it was 220 years ago?

I would bet that when (not if) the USASC declares that gays must be allowed to marry, your head will explode. Are you going to say that is not constitutional? Won't matter. You don't get to decide.

The USA President and Congress pay little heed to whether some action they are contemplating is consistent with the understanding of the Constitution in 1800. The USA Constitution means whatever five old people happen to want it to mean at a particular point in time.

.
 
fredmertz said:
...ok...

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

What interpretation of this would allow you to conclude that not passing a budget would be unconstitutional? We're not talking about shutting down the military here... we're talking about what is referred to as 'non-essentials' when discussing shutting down the government.
Click to expand...

I think what TacticalEvilDan is saying here is the government does shutdown, it can't preform its duty to adequately protect the Union. Of course, I don't believe we've ever had a full government shutdown. In those few instances where the government did "shutdown", it was only a partial shutdown. "Essential programs" such as the Treasury (for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), the military including our intellegence agencies (CIA, FBI, DHS, etc., because they come under DoD) and the postal service all continued to operate. Most Americans didn't "feel" the effects of a government shutdown the last couple of times it happened. So, to many its of little to no consequence. But there are other factors to consider, such as, our credit worthiness abroad. But that's an entirely different matter.

For me, I think it is unconstituation whether partially or otherwise, but it would seem the majority of respondants disagree. Regardless, I was curious what others thought on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom