• 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'

Harry Guerrilla said:
No he doesn't.
His job is not arbitrator of which contradictory laws to enforce, his job is to enforce the law.
Click to expand...

So he will enforce both laws? I'll wait for you to think this one through.
 
Hatuey said:
So which law will he enforce? I'll wait for you to think this one through.
Click to expand...

The last law passed.
If Congress passes a law that says "PBO must wear a tie," then passes a law that contradicts it, they have effectively repealed the law.

Edit:
He could also challenge the constitutionality in court or veto the legislation.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
No he doesn't.
His job is not arbitrator of which contradictory laws to enforce, his job is to enforce the law.
Click to expand...

You are not listening...there are two DIFFERENT laws which are mutually incompatible. It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to enforce both laws. Not just in an abstract legal sense...in a tautological A=A sense.

He will violate the separation of powers by increasing the debt limit without congressional consent.
Click to expand...

But he won't be violating the separation of powers if he stops funding the programs and entitlements which Congress has authorized? What legal principle indicates that the president should enforce the debt ceiling before he enforces the spending Congress has authorized, instead of the other way around?

Also, he has the power to veto any bill that comes across his desk.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Both the debt ceiling and the federal budget are now laws, and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that indicates which is a higher priority for the executive to enforce.
 
Kandahar said:
You are not listening...there are two DIFFERENT laws which are mutually incompatible. It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to enforce both laws. Not just in an abstract legal sense...in a tautological A=A sense.
Click to expand...

I understand that.

Kandahar said:
But he won't be violating the separation of powers if he stops funding the programs and entitlements which Congress has authorized? What legal principle indicates that the president should enforce the debt ceiling before he enforces the spending Congress has authorized, instead of the other way around?
Click to expand...

Yes he will, below section 4 of the 14th amendment is section 5.

"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

It would be a clear violation.

Kandahar said:
Irrelevant. Both the debt ceiling and the federal budget are now laws, and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that indicates which is a higher priority for the executive to enforce.
Click to expand...

Then he must proportionality under pay them equally.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The last law passed.
If Congress passes a law that says "PBO must wear a tie," then passes a law that contradicts it, they have effectively repealed the law.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then spending would take priority over the debt ceiling. On February 12, 2010 the debt ceiling was raised to $14.3 trillion. On April 15, 2011 the federal budget which would exceed the debt ceiling became law. So by your own standard, the debt ceiling was invalidated the minute that Congress authorized additional spending.
 
Kandahar said:
Let's see here:

1) Congress authorized a certain amount of spending.
2) Congress authorized a certain amount of taxes to be collected.
3) Congress prohibited the Treasury from borrowing money to make up the difference.

It doesn't take a PhD in Economics to see that statements 1, 2, and 3 are incompatible. Since Congress has passed contradictory laws, the executive branch will have to pick and choose which laws get enforced. It's hardly an ideal situation, but under the circumstances I can't say I blame Obama. There is no particular legal reason why #3 should take priority over #1, since Congress passed them BOTH with equal legitimacy and with equal force of the law.
Click to expand...

#3 is false. Only Congress can borrow money. All that the treasury can do is manage the funds that Congress gives them. If Congress does not give them enough funds to cover expenses there is nothing that the Treasury can do about it as that is not within thier mandate. (beyond petitioning Congress for more money of course)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes he will, below section 4 of the 14th amendment is section 5.

"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Click to expand...

Yes, Congress has the power to authorize spending and to create silly spending caps. No one disputes that point. But nothing in the Constitution says which is a higher priority for the president to enforce.

Then he must proportionality under pay them equally.
Click to expand...

Says who? Where is THAT legal principle in the Constitution? The fact is that the Constitution has nothing to say about which law should be enforced when there are two contradictory laws on the books...and certainly nothing calling for him to split the difference. Therefore I suggest he enforces them in the following order: 1) Spending, 2) The debt ceiling, 3) Spending on any minor programs that the Republicans like and Obama doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
If that's the case then spending would take priority over the debt ceiling. On February 12, 2010 the debt ceiling was raised to $14.3 trillion. On April 15, 2011 the federal budget which would exceed the debt ceiling became law. So by your own standard, the debt ceiling was invalidated the minute that Congress authorized additional spending.
Click to expand...

That could be, but I ideally we shouldn't be expanding the executive branch.

No president should have the ability to make this decision, it sets a terrible precedent in my opinion.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes, Congress has the power to authorize spending and to create silly spending caps. No one disputes that point. But nothing in the Constitution says which is a higher priority for the president to enforce.
Click to expand...

Then none have a higher priority.

Kandahar said:
Says who? Where is THAT legal principle in the Constitution? The fact is that the Constitution has nothing to say about which law should be enforced when there are two contradictory laws on the books...and certainly nothing calling for him to split the difference. Therefore I suggest he enforces them in the following order: 1) Spending, 2) The debt ceiling, 3) Spending on any minor programs that the Republicans like and Obama doesn't.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say which should have a higher priority, so based on the funds that are in existence to be spent, he must divvy it out proportionally, giving no particular significance to any.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That could be, but I ideally we shouldn't be expanding the executive branch.

No president should have the ability to make this decision, it sets a terrible precedent in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree. So Congress should get to work on repealing the debt ceiling entirely so that Obama (or any other president) isn't able to prioritize from among conflicting laws.
 
Kandahar said:
Why?

Why?
Click to expand...

Because there is no legal significance of which to fund more than another.
The president is not Congress, he is meant to execute laws, in the best of his ability.

If congress fails to fully fund everything, then he is to divide the funds proportionally.
That is all he can do.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes, Congress has the power to authorize spending and to create silly spending caps. No one disputes that point. But nothing in the Constitution says which is a higher priority for the president to enforce.
Click to expand...

It’s even simpler than you think Kandahar. The President does not have the authority to spend money that hasn’t been directly allocated by congress so he will have no choice but to start shutting down the federal government, while still paying our debts.

No president in history has ever contemplated such a usurpation of legislative power and it will be a fast track case straight to the SCOTUS followed by impeachment if he tries it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Because there is no legal significance of which to fund more than another.
The president is not Congress, he is meant to execute laws, in the best of his ability.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what he'd be doing if he chose to fulfill all the financial obligations which have been authorized by Congress.

If congress fails to fully fund everything, then he is to divide the funds proportionally.
That is all he can do.
Click to expand...

Even if there were some well-established legal principle that called for him to do that (which there isn't as far as I can tell), it would be impossible. Because "dividing the funds proportionally" is inherently subjective. Are you suggesting he withhold an equal amount of funding from every line item of the budget in order to fully obey the debt ceiling law? Or are you suggesting he violate the debt ceiling law and the budget law by splitting the difference between them?
 
GPS_Flex said:
With Democrat Senators, the Treasury Secretary and the White House mulling over yet another unprecedented executive branch end run around the legislative branch and contortion of the law, I have to believe Glenn Beck does less manipulation of the truth than Obama and his cronies do.

This shouldn’t even be a partisan issue. This is an absolute affront to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Not paying our bills is what is an affront to the 14th Amendment. Being deadbeats is unconstitutional.
 
GPS_Flex said:
It’s even simpler than you think Kandahar. The President does not have the authority to spend money that hasn’t been directly allocated by congress so he will have no choice but to start shutting down the federal government, while still paying our debts.
Click to expand...

Except the money WAS allocated by Congress when they passed the 2011 federal budget.

No president in history has ever contemplated such a usurpation of legislative power and it will be a fast track case straight to the SCOTUS followed by impeachment if he tries it.
Click to expand...

:roll:
It's not (entirely) the president's fault that two contradictory laws exist on the books. If the debt ceiling isn't raised there is no way he can possibly AVOID violating the law, because the law also calls for a certain amount of spending for various programs. So talking about impeachment is ****ing stupid; if you put someone in a situation where they MUST violate the law no matter what they do, then you can hardly hold them responsible when they do exactly that.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Except the money WAS allocated by Congress when they passed the 2011 federal budget.



:roll:
It's not (entirely) the president's fault that two contradictory laws exist on the books. If the debt ceiling isn't raised there is no way he can possibly AVOID violating the law, because the law also calls for a certain amount of spending for various programs.
Click to expand...

What contradictory laws are you talking about?
 
Kandahar said:
And that's exactly what he'd be doing if he chose to fulfill all the financial obligations which have been authorized by Congress.
Click to expand...

So he could, raise taxes or confiscate property as well?

Kandahar said:
Even if there were some well-established legal principle that called for him to do that (which there isn't as far as I can tell), it would be impossible. Because "dividing the funds proportionally" is inherently subjective. Are you suggesting he withhold an equal amount of funding from every line item of the budget in order to fully obey the debt ceiling law? Or are you suggesting he violate the debt ceiling law and the budget law by splitting the difference between them?
Click to expand...

The president cannot impound spending, title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prevents such an act.
The only option he has is to divide the funds in mathematical proportion.
 
Kandahar said:
Except the money WAS allocated by Congress when they passed the 2011 federal budget.



:roll:
It's not (entirely) the president's fault that two contradictory laws exist on the books. If the debt ceiling isn't raised there is no way he can possibly AVOID violating the law, because the law also calls for a certain amount of spending for various programs.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter if money was allocated. Federal programs are not debt and are not required to be paid by the 14th Amendment.

There aren’t contradictory laws on the books. There are politicians who are refusing to do their stinking jobs.
 
Kandahar said:
Except the money WAS allocated by Congress when they passed the 2011 federal budget.



:roll:
It's not (entirely) the president's fault that two contradictory laws exist on the books. If the debt ceiling isn't raised there is no way he can possibly AVOID violating the law, because the law also calls for a certain amount of spending for various programs.
Click to expand...

Actually the budget is prepared by the president and approved by congress, he shares an equal blame for passing spending that couldn't be paid for.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What contradictory laws are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Congress has authorized $X in spending and $Y in taxes, then prohibited any borrowing to finance the difference. There is no particular reason why one of these laws (the debt ceiling) should take precedence over the other (the federal budget).
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually the budget is prepared by the president and approved by congress, he shares an equal blame for passing spending that couldn't be paid for.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's fair to hold the president accountable for fiscal profligacy (if you're worried about that). But it's not fair to talk about impeachment when the laws on the books don't give him any way to AVOID violating the law.
 
danarhea said:
Not paying our bills is what is an affront to the 14th Amendment. Being deadbeats is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

This is basically true but pretty simplistic considering there is a difference between debt and spending.
 
Kandahar said:
I agree that it's fair to hold the president accountable for fiscal profligacy (if you're worried about that). But it's not fair to talk about impeachment when the laws on the books don't give him any way to AVOID violating the law.
Click to expand...

I think impeachment is perfectly valid for any president who can't seem to align the budget with incoming revenue.

Could of saved us from the last few decades of ****ty presidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom