• 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

plutonium

plutonium

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
302
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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..
 
not unless he is pulling the money from other services to do it
 
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...

he has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the 14th amendment
AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

SECTION 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4.

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. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5.

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

emphasis added by bubba

14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
In theory, the US Supreme Court could order it be paid. It could rule that Congress not paying the debt is Unconstitutional and then render a judgment paying the debt. But there is no constitutional authority for the president to convey such authority to himself.
 
joko104 said:
In theory, the US Supreme Court could order it be paid. It could rule that Congress not paying the debt is Unconstitutional and then render a judgment paying the debt. But there is no constitutional authority for the president to convey such authority to himself.
Click to expand...

unlike Harry S Truman, who issued such XO, Obama does not have the gravitas (more accurately, the gonads) to do the same
 
He cant. Executive orders do not extend to the legislative branch...the legislative branch controls the purse strings.
 
VanceMack said:
He cant. Executive orders do not extend to the legislative branch...the legislative branch controls the purse strings.
Click to expand...

he could direct the treasury to pay all EXISTING just federal obligations. the ones the congress has already obligated (but not appropriated)
just as did Harry asS Truman
 
Yes. I think that is what he should do. Then start impeachment proceedings against the legislators who failed to legislate.
 
American said:
Yeah, except that Section 5 gives him zero authority to do anything.
Click to expand...

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
 
justabubba said:
he could direct the treasury to pay all EXISTING just federal obligations. the ones the congress has already obligated (but not appropriated)
just as did Harry asS Truman
Click to expand...
Thats pretty much what they are doing...right up until the 17th. Thats nothing new. They have been and are executing current FY13 funds. There is no authorization to spend FY14 dollars. Separation of powers and all...
 
VanceMack said:
Thats pretty much what they are doing...right up until the 17th. Thats nothing new. They have been and are executing current FY13 funds. There is no authorization to spend FY14 dollars. Separation of powers and all...
Click to expand...

has the congress passed legislation creating a just federal monetary obligation? then in EVERY such instance, the Executive has not a right but a sworn DUTY to see those obligations paid ... as is instructed by amendment 14 section 4 of the Constitution
 
justabubba said:
has the congress passed legislation creating a just federal monetary obligation? then in EVERY such instance, the Executive has not a right but a sworn DUTY to see those obligations paid ... as is instructed by amendment 14 section 4 of the Constitution
Click to expand...
Doesnt work that way. Not his job. And considering a good portion of the delay in the current federal appropriations lays at the feet of the President its easy to see why.
 
VanceMack said:
Doesnt work that way. Not his job. And considering a good portion of the delay in the current federal appropriations lays at the feet of the President its easy to see why.
Click to expand...

you are right to the extent that the congress should be responsible and appropriate funds for the legislative obligations they incurred
however, the Executive has no control over what they do or do not do. (s)he does have the power and responsibility of the Executive to direct executive agencies to comply with the US Constitution, including amendment 14, section 4
which is why i will fault him if he fails to perform that duty
 
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...

As I understand it such an executive order would be illegal under the Anti-Deficiency Act.
 
justabubba said:
you are right to the extent that the congress should be responsible and appropriate funds for the legislative obligations they incurred
however, the Executive has no control over what they do or do not do. (s)he does have the power and responsibility of the Executive to direct executive agencies to comply with the US Constitution, including amendment 14, section 4
which is why i will fault him if he fails to perform that duty
Click to expand...
Its simply not even a question. the executive CANNOT order the Legislative branch to do anything. Period. Your highlighted post quite clearly points out who has the power and authority in this regard. What you are proposing is the equivalent to you personally owing someone 50 bucks and me DEMANDING you pay them.
 
VanceMack said:
Its simply not even a question. the executive CANNOT order the Legislative branch to do anything. Period. Your highlighted post quite clearly points out who has the power and authority in this regard. What you are proposing is the equivalent to you personally owing someone 50 bucks and me DEMANDING you pay them.
Click to expand...

It's not an order to the Legislative branch...it's an order to the Treasury to sell Treasury Bills to finance US appropriations...made by Congress
 
VanceMack said:
Its simply not even a question. the executive CANNOT order the Legislative branch to do anything. Period. Your highlighted post quite clearly points out who has the power and authority in this regard. What you are proposing is the equivalent to you personally owing someone 50 bucks and me DEMANDING you pay them.
Click to expand...

poor analogy
here it is as is obligated

congress effects legislation
that legislation causes the federal government to incur a financial obligation
if the congress does nothing further to satisfy such obligations [such as a an appropriation and/or extension of a debt ceiling]
then the Executive is OBLIGATED by oath to defend amendment 14 of the Constitution and all other aspects of that document
which should then cause him to direct the EXECUTIVE agencies to act to do so. in this case treasury being directed by XO to pay all existing federal obligations
 
justabubba said:
poor analogy
here it is as is obligated

congress effects legislation
that legislation causes the federal government to incur a financial obligation
if the congress does nothing further to satisfy such obligations [such as a an appropriation and/or extension of a debt ceiling]
then the Executive is OBLIGATED by oath to defend amendment 14 of the Constitution and all other aspects of that document
which should then cause him to direct the EXECUTIVE agencies to act to do so. in this case treasury being directed by XO to pay all existing federal obligations
Click to expand...
The simple fact is Executive Orders hold no sway with regard to congress. Congress is responsible for paying the bills. Thats fact. Wanting it to be different does not make it so, your own constitutional interpretation notwithstanding.
 
iliveonramen said:
It's not an order to the Legislative branch...it's an order to the Treasury to sell Treasury Bills to finance US appropriations...made by Congress
Click to expand...
Someone already posted a link to who's job it was...even highlighted it. I think it was post 3.
 
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...

Yes to the first question.
No to the second question.

This is a dumb discussion. The debt limit will be increased without any problems.

vasuderatorrent
 
VanceMack said:
The simple fact is Executive Orders hold no sway with regard to congress. Congress is responsible for paying the bills. Thats fact. Wanting it to be different does not make it so, your own constitutional interpretation notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

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
 
iliveonramen said:
Since when is not raising the debt ceiling to cover obligations Congress has already incurred "enforcing" the 14th Amendment....?
Click to expand...
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"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom