• 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!

Obama Bypassing Congress on Debt Limit is 'Crazy Talk'

justabubba said:
please explain how acting on the authority vested by the Constitution causes the president to then be found a dictator
Click to expand...

It is clearly in you misinterpretation of said constitution. If you think that the executive has the ability to end run congresses constitutional duties when ever he sees fit, then why even have a congress?

j-mac
 
cpwill said:
not raising the debt ceiling means a sharp reduction in current spending. Our budget is immediately balanced to revenues, which would mark a cut in expenditures of about 40%. We can take and make alot of temporary fixes to push out what we can save from what, but it would get very serious very fast.



Between 1945 and 1948, Government expenditures were cut by about 66%. I'd call that pretty significant.

figure-12.png
Click to expand...

Right, 66% over 3 years. Cutting 40% of total expenditures over a month would cause another depression. And again, that 66% was mostly wartime spending.
 
j-mac said:
It is clearly in you misinterpretation of said constitution. If you think that the executive has the ability to end run congresses constitutional duties when ever he sees fit, then why even have a congress?

j-mac
Click to expand...

the president swore an oath to uphold the Constitution
he did not swear to uphold all except the 14th amendment at section 4
 
justabubba said:
the president swore an oath to uphold the Constitution
he did not swear to uphold all except the 14th amendment at section 4
Click to expand...

And he breaks that oath when he feels like it.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Lybia for one....It's in the papers.

j-mac
Click to expand...
if you have more, please list them...and what exactly is the issue you have with libya?
 
j-mac said:
Lybia for one....It's in the papers.

j-mac
Click to expand...

ah. this one:
The House refused to vote President Barack Obama the authority for U.S. military operations against Libya on Friday but stopped short of cutting off funds for the mission, a mixed message reminiscent of congressional unease on Vietnam and more recent wars.
Click to expand...
House vote to defund Libya mission fails - politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

so, the house refused to give Obama authority to engage in libya but it also refused to de-fund the costs associated with our libyan activities
one would expect de-funding of that with which the congress disagreed
but they didn't
which appears to be implicit congressional consent in the absence of explicit congressional consent
 
justabubba said:
show me where the president is excluded
had the seat of government needed to have been defined, it would have been
Click to expand...

Already have. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. By not including the President he was excluded, this is the way that the Constitution was written. It was written where each section of government had its own powers. If one section was not included then they did not have that specific power.

In anycase the only power that the President has when it comes to funding is through a veto. Everything else is up to Congress.

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Already have. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. By not including the President he was excluded, this is the way that the Constitution was written. It was written where each section of government had its own powers. If one section was not included then they did not have that specific power.

In anycase the only power that the President has when it comes to funding is through a veto. Everything else is up to Congress.
Click to expand...
you got me. at section 5 it does specify the congress

but let's look again at section 4
oops. i was right after all
no seat of government is specified as it was in section 5
those clever forward thinking founders
 
Jesus, And you libs said Bush was shredding the Constitution....This is sad.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Jesus, And you libs said Bush was shredding the Constitution....This is sad.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well, in this case, this is exactly written in the constitution. I don't know where in the constitution it says the government can wiretap your phones and monitor your email w/o a warrant.
 
justabubba said:
you got me. at section 5 it does specify the congress

but let's look again at section 4
oops. i was right after all
no seat of government is specified as it was in section 5
those clever forward thinking founders
Click to expand...

I'm going to be polite here.....

Perhaps you didn't read ALL of Section 5?

"5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." That includes section 4.
 
Gargantuan said:
Well, in this case, this is exactly written in the constitution. I don't know where in the constitution it says the government can wiretap your phones and monitor your email w/o a warrant.
Click to expand...

You didn't see that? It's in the selective applications clause....Because Obama is doing that now, and I see no outrage.

j-mac
 
Gargantuan said:
Well, in this case, this is exactly written in the constitution. I don't know where in the constitution it says the government can wiretap your phones and monitor your email w/o a warrant.
Click to expand...

Only if you are totally ignoring the rest of the Constitution and how it was written and ignoring section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
 
I'm not saying that he should/shouldn't use this to raise the debt ceiling... I'm just saying that there is at least some what of a constitutional basis for this.
 
Gargantuan said:
I'm not saying that he should/shouldn't use this to raise the debt ceiling... I'm just saying that there is at least some what of a constitutional basis for this.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There is NO constitutional basis for this. None. Notta. Zilch. Zip. Zero.
 
justabubba said:
please explain how acting on the authority vested by the Constitution causes the president to then be found a dictator
Click to expand...

I've been wondering that for some time now.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Incorrect. There is NO constitutional basis for this. None. Notta. Zilch. Zip. Zero.
Click to expand...

here you go. a speech written for Obama in his enforcement of the 14th amendment provisions:
It says it “shall not be questioned.” The national debt must be paid in full, on time, regardless of any political division within our Congress. That is what the Framers intended: to set the debt obligations of our country beyond the reach of Congressional meddling. Those obligations will not be questioned as long as I am president of the United States.This action requires me to authorize borrowing that is not in conformity with the debt-limit statute. But no congressional statute can command or permit our government to violate the Constitution. I find the debt limit, to the extent that it could be construed to require national default on any obligation of our nation, to be in the words of the great chief justice John Marshall, repugnant to the Constitution and thus void.
Click to expand...
Is The Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional?
... despite the clear language of the debt ceiling statute that the Federal Government cannot borrow above the statutory limit without Congressional authority, that the President has the authority to order the Treasury Department to issue new debt in order to ensure that the national debt is not repudiated ...
Click to expand...
 
The thing he leaves out of the argument is that just because the debt ceiling isn't raised does not mean that a default on our debt is the only other course. He is employing the fallacy of the false dilemma.

j-mac
 
justabubba said:
here you go. a speech written for Obama in his enforcement of the 14th amendment provisions:

Is The Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Again, they ignore the 5th section of the 14th Amendment and the rest of the Constitution.

Not to mention a debt ceiling is not questioning the debt. It is suppose to be a stopper on how much the government spends. So if it is questioning anything (which its not) it is questioning how much Congress can spend.

And seriously...an article from "Outside the Beltway"? I doubt you could have found a site that isn't more biased than that one.
 
Even if the Debt ceiling is unconstitutional, its not the presidents power to ignore it or veto it.
It the supreme courts.
 
cpwill said:
nope, i think it will continue to be a huge mounting problem.

it just won't be the end of the world, as some are painting. we have cut larger percentages of public spending before (post-WWII, for example) and seem to have survived.
Click to expand...

Back then it was mostly defense spending that was being cut. Now it would be the social safety net (and a good bit of defense as well). Make no mistake about it: Eliminating 43% of our federal budget with no advance notice whatsoever would be absolutely catastrophic. I mean, where are you going to find 43% to suddenly cut, when our spending looks like this?

Defense: 25%
Health care: 23%
Social security/pensions: 21%
Debt interest: 5% (plus more if we're in a de facto default)
Everything else: 26%
 
Kandahar said:
It is a law that we spend $X on this and $Y on that. It is also a law that we can't borrow to pay for them. Both laws cannot be followed simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Money allocated by congress does not constitute a law requiring the money be spent. Appropriations are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for spending. Just because there is money in your budget does not empower you to spend money that does not exist.


Kandahar said:
I wish it were that simple, but that's not the case. When the government "shut down" before, the majority of federal spending actually continued. We continued paying the debt, we continued paying entitlements, we continued paying for defense, and we continued paying other discretionary services deemed "essential." If the government does not raise the debt ceiling, those kind of cuts will simply not be sufficient to cover the shortfall. We would need to cut 33% of all spending, effective immediately. Here's what our federal government spends its money on:

Defense: 25%
Health care (Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans Administration): 23%
Social security / other pensions: 21%
Debt interest: 5% (although this will surely rise if the debt ceiling isn't raised)
Everything else: 26%

The bolded part includes everything that was affected by the previous shutdown...and only SOME of the spending within the bolded part was halted. So let's assume that we once again halt all "non-essential" discretionary spending if the debt ceiling isn't raised. That would be maybe 20% of federal spending. Sorry, that's not good enough. We would STILL have a shortfall, and spending would inevitably be affected in areas that ARE deemed essential.
Click to expand...

Please provide some sources for your 33% and spending breakdown.

Kandahar said:
Every single one of those agencies is included within the bolded section above. That's not enough.
Click to expand...

It’s not as simple as that in reality. Some functions for some of those agencies falls into the mandatory spending category and some doesn’t. This is why your simple breakdown is about as useful as a solar powered flashlight.
Please do some research on Discretionary spending vs Mandatory spending.


Kandahar said:
The difference is that previous shutdowns were standoffs over BUDGET allocations, not the debt ceiling. In previous cases, the government shut down because Congress had not authorized any spending (i.e. it had failed to pass a budget). That isn't the case this time around...Congress ALREADY authorized the spending, and has simply tied Treasury's hands in its ability to actually pay for it. So yes, there IS a requirement that the Treasury continue to pay federal agencies in accordance with the 2011 federal budget, and there's no particular reason why THAT requirement should take a back seat to the debt ceiling requirement. Both are the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Your argument doesn’t hold water. There are many types of laws, statutes, resolutions and other bills and they are not all equal. Not everything that is passed by congress carries the force of law (resolutions for example).

Add to that the simple fact that there is a difference between money allocations/budgets and actual cash. You see, no agency can spend money that it doesn’t have and the money will no longer be available until the debt limit is raised. The treasury doesn’t just send everyone big fat checks for the full amount allotted to them upon passage of a budget resolution. It doesn’t work that way.

Kandahar said:
Previous government shutdowns were a fundamentally different animal from this one, because A) most of the government continued to operate under previous shutdowns, B) Congress hadn't passed mutually contradictory laws, and C) the standoff was over a different issue.
Click to expand...

I agree that most of the government will not continue to operate if the debt limit isn’t raised but there are not contradictory laws that have been passed. There are only politicians who are not doing their jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom