Is shutting down the government unconstitutional?

[Objective Voice]

Even since the first shutdown of the government in 1981, I've always wondered if it was the right thing to do. Recently, I came across this same question in a book I've been reading, "Broken Government," by John W. Dean. So, I re-read the Constitution and came across the following clauses:

Art 1, Sect 8 (clause 1):

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;

Art 1, Sect 9 (clasue 6):

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.

Art 6 (clause 3):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

According to Dean, since each member of Congress takes an oath to support as stipulated in the Constitution (and as setforth in both the House and Senate rules), is it then a violation of their constitutional obligation to properly fund the government as laws dictate for adequate appropriations as outlined in Art 1, Sect 9 to include all facets of government as outlined in Art 1, Sect 8, i.e., "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"?

In light of our current budgetary showdown in DC, I was wondering what others may think of this.

Your thoughts...

 

[Morality Games]

Even since the first shutdown of the government in 1981, I've always wondered if it was the right thing to do. Recently, I came across this same question in a book I've been reading, "Broken Government," by John W. Dean. So, I re-read the Constitution and came across the following clauses:

Art 1, Sect 8 (clause 1):



Art 1, Sect 9 (clasue 6):



Art 6 (clause 3):



According to Dean, since each member of Congress takes an oath to support as stipulated in the Constitution (and as setforth in both the House and Senate rules), is it then a violation of their constitutional obligation to properly fund the government as laws dictate for adequate appropriations as outlined in Art 1, Sect 9 to include all facets of government as outlined in Art 1, Sect 8, i.e., "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"?

In light of our current budgetary showdown in DC, I was wondering what others may think of this.

Your thoughts...

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.

 

[Objective Voice]

But if the Constitution IS the law of the land, how then can we not make every effort to adhere to it? Are you suggesting that in the absence of compromise it's okay to cast it aside...to disobeyed the very document we hold so dear?

 

[TOJ]

But if the Constitution IS the law of the land, how then can we not make every effort to adhere to it? Are you suggesting that in the absence of compromise it's okay to cast it aside...to disobeyed the very document we hold so dear?

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.

.

 

[Temporal]

The government has no constitutional rights. They have provisional powers given to them by the people in exchange for management of the country and our collective defense. Only individuals have rights. If the government is not upholding the constitution and is blatantly encroaching upon the rights of the people, then they will no longer be government, and as such the people should remove them.

In short, no, it is not. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government has the right to exist. We allow it to exist, and that is all.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Only individuals have rights.

And corporationsrof

 

[ptif219]

I would be more concerned about them not obeying the constitution by not protecting our borders and stopping illegal immigration.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

It's not Constitutional to run the goverment without an approved budget, ergo, if the Congress fails to do it's job, as it did last year, to pass the Constitutionally required budget, it's not Constitutional to keep it running.

Also, the people to blame for the possible near-future "shut down" will be the Democrats, who refuse to cut their bloated budgets.

HINTS TO DEMOCRATS:

YOU'VE BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY.
You're not in control of the House.
If something bad happens because you have your heads up your asses, it's your fault.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

According to Dean, since each member of Congress takes an oath to support as stipulated in the Constitution (and as setforth in both the House and Senate rules), is it then a violation of their constitutional obligation to properly fund the government as laws dictate for adequate appropriations as outlined in Art 1, Sect 9 to include all facets of government as outlined in Art 1, Sect 8, i.e., "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"?

In light of our current budgetary showdown in DC, I was wondering what others may think of this.

Your thoughts...

That reasoning is tenuous at best, and if it was valid it would only apply to those budgetary items that are actually allowed under the Constitution. Social Security, education, welfare, and whatever else, to the tune of roughly 75% of the budget, aren't allowed by the Constitution.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

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.

.

Well, if what you say is true, you absolutely MUST write that in the past tense, because for decades now that "living breathing document", has been breathing helium. So, not only would it's modern voice be completely unrecognizable to the men who wrote it, it'd be dead. After all, there's no way that the Founders could haver created a living breathing document in the 18th Century that could handle unimagined exotic atmospheres. That Constitution was a good old fashioned AMERICAN document breathing the good air God put on earth to make Adam happy. Helium would have killed it right off.

Then again, the Constitution was never a "living breathing document", it's a piece of paper setting down law, and that document cannot be changed at whim. That document can only be amended by the process encoded in that document itself.

 

[Temporal]

And corporationsrof

Don't remind me.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

But if the Constitution IS the law of the land, how then can we not make every effort to adhere to it? Are you suggesting that in the absence of compromise it's okay to cast it aside...to disobeyed the very document we hold so dear?

The Constitution is sooooo not important to the elected leaders and not very important to most people.
It's been ignored for so long now, why does it matter anymore?

 

[fredmertz]

"The government has the power to" does not imply that the government "has an obligation to"

 

[Objective Voice]

That reasoning is tenuous at best, and if it was valid it would only apply to those budgetary items that are actually allowed under the Constitution. Social Security, education, welfare, and whatever else, to the tune of roughly 75% of the budget, aren't allowed by the Constitution.

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?

"The government has the power to" does not imply that the government "has an obligation to"

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?

 

[fredmertz]

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?

wow... I didn't say at all that we should ignore the supreme law of the land. I love the constitution. My point is that the constitution doesn't say that the federal government must use the taxation power that the constitution provides it with. It simply says that the government has the power to.

Likewise, I'm telling you that you have the power to go into a theatre and scream "FIRE" - but I'm not telling you that you should or that you must. Just that you are able.

 

[Objective Voice]

wow... I didn't say at all that we should ignore the supreme law of the land. I love the constitution. My point is that the constitution doesn't say that the federal government must use the taxation power that the constitution provides it with. It simply says that the government has the power to.

Likewise, I'm telling you that you have the power to go into a theatre and scream "FIRE" - but I'm not telling you that you should or that you must. Just that you are able.

The taxing power of the government (Congress) isn't the issue here nor is free speech (re: yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room). The question is is it unconstitutional for the government to be shutdown if Congress cannot agree on a budget to fully fund the government as outlined in the Constitution (Art 9, Sect 1, Clause 6)?

 

[Chappy]

Of course the House can, under the Constitution, deny the government the operating funds needed to function. I should have voted that it was constitutional but the relevant question these days is is there any advantage in doing so?

 

[Your Star]

It better not shutdown, otherwise we're screwed.

 

[Councilman]

If it were we would have heard about the last time is was shut down.

But I for one will be very pissed and the stinking Liberals in the Senate who going to cause this so they can blame it on the Tea Party.

Thing is they want to do that because they are going to do what ever they can to discredit the Tea Party because they know they are growing in strength as they are going down for the count with Obama leading the race to the bottom.

I'm retired so a shut down will do me and plenty of others no good what ever the results would be.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

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.

No. That's completely wrong.

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to:

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;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And THAT IS ALL.

The Tenth Amendment forbids an unlimited unrestricted Congress. Period.

Congress can only write laws the Constitution allows it to.

If the Congress fails to write a budget or the President refuses to sign it, then the budget doesn't exist and the government does not have the authority to spend money.

It's that simple, and it's what the Constitution requires. So, if the Democrats don't desire a government shut down (they want one, and they want it BAD), they have to stop being such complete idiots and start recognizing that they don't control the House, that the House is where the spending bills originate, and that the country can't afford their bull**** unconstitutional programs anymore.

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?

No.

Mayor Snorkum notes the wonderful cutting edge discoveries from the Super Conducting Super Collider never materialized.

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?

You really, REALLY REALLY must read the Constitution some day. It can be found on line if you're curious about it. Here's what the Constitution says about HR 819:

Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay. Ratified 5/7/1992. History

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

They get paid what they get paid. Period. Certainly Madison meant it to mean that the sitting Congress can't vote themselves a pay raise. It also means their pay cannot be reduced in-term.

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

Certainly doesn't look that way. So the nation should stop funding all those unconstitutional programs, which comprise something like three quarters of the budget.

I mean, really...

No. Mayor Snorkum means really, really start obeying the Constitution. You mean, ignore those inconvenient things like the Constitution that forbids the laws and programs you desire.

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?

Mayor Snorkum knows what the Mayor expects those elected to REPRESENT him are supposed to do. You shouldn't use the pronoun "we" when your uncertainty isn't shared. Those people are held to task by writing them when they err and not voting for them when they really mess up. There's always someone else out there who can read the Constitution.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

wow... I didn't say at all that we should ignore the supreme law of the land. I love the constitution. My point is that the constitution doesn't say that the federal government must use the taxation power that the constitution provides it with. It simply says that the government has the power to.

Mayor Snorkum, like everyone else who will read this passage, doesn't have the faintest idea what it is supposed to be saying.

The looming shutdown isn't about failure to tax. Oh, no, the government won't stop taxing, not at all. No, the shutdown is about the government's inability to come to an agreement on what shall be spent and what shall not be spent. And if no agreement is reached, that means no agreement to spend has been reached.

If no agreement to spend is made, no spending will be allowed. THAT is exactly what the Constitution says.

Likewise, I'm telling you that you have the power to go into a theatre and scream "FIRE" - but I'm not telling you that you should or that you must. Just that you are able.

Well, that was informative. When next the Mayor has the urge to command a firing squad, he'll be sure to do it at a showing of a James Cameron movie. That'll wake up all the bored movie goers.

No idea what executions have to do with the failure of the Democrats to parse simple little items from the budget, but you were just trying to entertain.

 

[Objective Voice]

No. That's completely wrong.

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to:




And THAT IS ALL.

The Tenth Amendment forbids an unlimited unrestricted Congress. Period.

Congress can only write laws the Constitution allows it to.

If the Congress fails to write a budget or the President refuses to sign it, then the budget doesn't exist and the government does not have the authority to spend money.

It's that simple, and it's what the Constitution requires. So, if the Democrats don't desire a government shut down (they want one, and they want it BAD), they have to stop being such complete idiots and start recognizing that they don't control the House, that the House is where the spending bills originate, and that the country can't afford their bull**** unconstitutional programs anymore.



No.

Mayor Snorkum notes the wonderful cutting edge discoveries from the Super Conducting Super Collider never materialized.



You really, REALLY REALLY must read the Constitution some day. It can be found on line if you're curious about it. Here's what the Constitution says about HR 819:



They get paid what they get paid. Period. Certainly Madison meant it to mean that the sitting Congress can't vote themselves a pay raise. It also means their pay cannot be reduced in-term.



Certainly doesn't look that way. So the nation should stop funding all those unconstitutional programs, which comprise something like three quarters of the budget.



No. Mayor Snorkum means really, really start obeying the Constitution. You mean, ignore those inconvenient things like the Constitution that forbids the laws and programs you desire.



Mayor Snorkum knows what the Mayor expects those elected to REPRESENT him are supposed to do. You shouldn't use the pronoun "we" when your uncertainty isn't shared. Those people are held to task by writing them when they err and not voting for them when they really mess up. There's always someone else out there who can read the Constitution.

Your commentary, IMO, is rather disturbing. For starters, I haven't advocated support for any particular program in this thread. I've merely asked a straight-forward question. You, however, have made assumptions as to what you think my motives are. I would think my motive is obvious, but I'll rephrase the question for those who still may not understand what I'm asking:

If our elected representatives, who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, do not approved a budget as Art 1, Sect 9, Clause 6 of the Constitution requires them to do per appropriations as outlined in various laws which Congress has passed, is it unconstitutional for the federal government to shut down?

The question isn't partisan. I'm not trying to lay blame on one side or the other. I'm merely asking a straight-forward question.

Sidenote: Oh, and Mayor, as I said in the OP, I have read the Constitution several times.

 

[fredmertz]

The taxing power of the government (Congress) isn't the issue here nor is free speech (re: yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room). The question is is it unconstitutional for the government to be shutdown if Congress cannot agree on a budget to fully fund the government as outlined in the Constitution (Art 9, Sect 1, Clause 6)?

Ok... We're clearly on the same page, but I don't seem to be getting my point across.

What I'm telling you is that the articles and clauses you have referenced do not say anything about the government needing to be run or spending tax payer dollars. It simply states that the government has the power to tax and must report it's financial situation. No where does it state that it MUST tax and that it MUST spend. I'm explaining my answer to your question. The answer is NO. It is not unconsititutional. The constitution explains that it can tax and how it must report and how it can spend. It gives it the POWER to spend. It doesn't FORCE it to spend. Unless you quote wording in the constituion stating otherwise, if the government 'shuts down', it will do so within the realm of the constitution.

This is why I am continuing to try to explain the difference between being granted the POWER to do something vs being FORCED to do it.


Your question is a rather simple one. Is it unconstitutional? Well, does it say ANYWHERE that it MUST continue running? no. (or at least not that I'm aware of and not that you have referenced)

 

[Councilman]

If it were we would have heard about the last time is was shut down.

But I for one will be very pissed and the stinking Liberals in the Senate who going to cause this so they can blame it on the Tea Party.

Thing is they want to do that because they are going to do what ever they can to discredit the Tea Party because they know they are growing in strength as they are going down for the count with Obama leading the race to the bottom.

I'm retired so a shut down will do me and plenty of others no good what ever the results would be.

Correction to make. I was wrong thinking the the Shut Down would affect Social Security. I check and it turns out I was wrong, and it will not so I apologize for my error.

 

[Objective Voice]

Ok... We're clearly on the same page, but I don't seem to be getting my point across.

What I'm telling you is that the articles and clauses you have referenced do not say anything about the government needing to be run or spending tax payer dollars. It simply states that the government has the power to tax and must report it's financial situation.

Then I'd say you have the wrong interpretation of what Art 1, Sect. 9, clause 6 says.

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.

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.

No where does it state that it MUST tax and that it MUST spend. I'm explaining my answer to your question. The answer is NO. It is not unconsititutional. The constitution explains that it can tax and how it must report and how it can spend. It gives it the POWER to spend. It doesn't FORCE it to spend. Unless you quote wording in the constituion stating otherwise, if the government 'shuts down', it will do so within the realm of the constitution.

This is why I am continuing to try to explain the difference between being granted the POWER to do something vs being FORCED to do it.

Your question is a rather simple one. Is it unconstitutional? Well, does it say ANYWHERE that it MUST continue running? no. (or at least not that I'm aware of and not that you have referenced)

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.