Is the 14th amendment a solution?

[lumberjack_jeff]

Argument against: Congress has the authority to budget, set taxation and authorize borrowing to make up the difference. The president can't unilaterally borrow money in event of an imbalance.

Argument for: Congress has the authority to budget and set taxation. If the policy as adopted by congress includes a deficit, borrowing is necessary to implement those policy decisions, and is essentially an administrative task for the treasury.

In event of congress passing a budget with a deficit, but without authorization to borrow to fund that deficit, the president is stuck with two unconstitutional choices. He can either invent an operating budget of his own and set spending priorities unilaterally, or order the treasury to raise the money so that he can implement the official budget.

Given the two choices, raising the funds is the least constitutionally intrusive.

[thereismore]

1. Makes good sense to me. nt

[OneAngryDemocrat]

2. I Don't Think So...

I don't think so, and the White House doesn't either (http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-14th-amendment-not-available-debt-default-175842988.html).

Before I get flamed, let me explain why...

If the nation goes into default that does NOT mean we're broke.

It means that appx. 60% of the nation's revenue dries up.

That still leaves the another 40% for the government to pay it's debts, and then whatever is left over for government operations.

As long as that 40% covers the cost of our debts, and I believe it will, the President can't invoke the 14th Amendment to pay for government operations.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Your argument is sound, but so is the other. What's the alternative?

Congress passed a budget that the President is constitutionally obliged to implement. He can't without borrowing.

[Llewlladdwr]

14. Actually, Congress hasn't passed a budget in over two years.

We've been running on nothing but Continuing Resolutions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. A distinction without a difference.

an extension of the previous budget is still the operative statement of spending policy.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

16. Running Government...

Running government operations isn't a "debt" covered by the 14th Amendment, and I think a lot of people think (erroneously) otherwise.

Paying contractors, foreign and domestic bond holders, et cetera, is what I believe is what the 14th refers to - government programs are dropped and created all of the time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. True enough.

But what authority is constitutionally given to the president to set spending policy?

This is something that congress can't delegate. They have to provide for the funding to implement their budget.

[CoffeeCat]

3. The Republicans would just love...

...for Obama to do this.

They'll be able to insinuate that Obama thinks he's a dictator, and they'll try
to position him as an out-of-control renegade who wants to bankrupt the country
and continue with reckless spending.

Most importantly, there is much debate about whether or not the 14th Amendment
gives the President the power to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional
approval. Don't think for one second that the Republicans wouldn't use this
unsettled argument to start impeachment hearings.

The right wing will gin up their hatefest on talk radio and we'll be damn near
close to a Tea Party revolt. They'll be marching on Washington, and the MSM
will follow suit--giving untold and attention and coverage to the uproar and
the insinuation that Obama is a Marxist, Communist, inexperienced tax-and-and
spend idiot who is trying to usurp the Constitution.

They would LOVE to do this and they would do it in a heartbeat. Doesn't matter if
it's right or true. They want to take him down, and marring his Presidency with
impeachment hearings and an all-out assault on his integrity and judgment would
please them greatly.

No way in hell is this a smart option.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. And writing his own budget on a blank sheet is less totalitarian?

I couldn't care less about impeachment hearings. It's what Republicans do.

If Obama reopened the banks, the airports, paid the troops and resumed social security checks by issuing the debt dictated by the budget, people will give him a pass.

[Igel]

6. He wouldn't be writing his own operating budget, not entirely.

The budget resolution includes some hierarchy: Do X, and with the remaining revenues do Y. Then there are legal and Constitutional constraints on the hierarchy.

However, let's assume that the budget authorization does implicitly authorize, even in the case of an explicitly imposed borrowing limit, increased borrowing by the president. Now, consider this: Under what circumstances could there be a budget deficit?

Well, if there's a sudden decline in revenues, whether because of recession or disruption (e.g., riots, invasion). In either case, there's a budget in place and therefore we'd have to argue that the budget authorizes borrowing. In fact, in every case where there's a need to borrow there's some authorized expense that would justify borrowing. We conclusde that our assumption lead to the conclusion that section of Article I, section 8, is completely meaningless.

The default presumption is that we do not make an assumption that entails voiding part of the Constitution. In that case, by contradiction, we have proven that our assumption is false.

The proof could be tightened; as it is it's leaky. But proof by contradiction is a nicely established kind of proof.

Let's try it another way. Take the same assumption. The Congress is authorized, in the same section, to levy and collect taxes and tariffs, as well as to borrow. In determining that a budget authorization leads to the authority to borrow in the event of a deficit, we're making a difference between the revenue-raising means. Why does he have the authorization to borrow and not increase tariffs or levy taxes? Do we get to make that decision, in the absence of any basis for it in the Constitution or statutes? Would the president get to determine the debt ceiling: Suddenly the deficit increases even more, so he borrows more? Or maybe he decides, since he has authorization to raise money, to increase taxes and tariffs. Remember: The authority for the distinction between borrowing and taxation is the NYT, DU, and not just a great deal more. It's like claiming that RW talk radio and Fox can properly provide acceptable authority for ignoring some Constitutional provision.

Think of it as reductio ad absurdum. Or ad nauseam, resp.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Either

a) I'm stupid
b) that post communicated your intent poorly
c) it's gibberish

I'm open to any of the three, and asking you to restate will help clarify.

Except for paying creditors, The budget doesn't give any meaningful direction to the president in the case of "okay, now do that but with half the money". Does the president spend zero on education until the pentagon has gotten their full allocation?

In this case, there is no sudden disruption which has caused the deficit. The budget was passed with a policy goal of borrowing $X billion. That same congress now isn't authorizing that borrowing. In this case, borrowing (deficit spending) isn't an eventuality, it's a policy.

A legal framework which requires congress to tax, spend and borrow to make up the difference, can't function if politics or mental illness prevents bringing the three into alignment.

[ZombieHorde]

18. Technically, all three options could be true. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. True enough.

In any event, it'd be good to get clarification for reasons #2 and #3.

[Shrek]

8. Why presume that the president has to borrow to cover the deficit?

He could just as easily impose a surtax on millionaires and raise the funds that way.

It's no less constitutionally sound than usurping congressional borrowing authority.

[originalpckelly]

9. If you don't see how a future president will borrow money...

even if it is not budgeted for, then you fail to see the inherent power greediness in all politicians.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. But the borrowing IS budgeted for.

The congressional budget directs the treasury to finance a deficit.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. No

It's more magic like "the business interests will swoop in and force the House GOP to do it," or, "the Dems should propose a People's Budget - all the people will be for it!"

There is no magical deus ex machina on this thing. There is only a painful negotiation in a divided Congress, at least one chamber of which seems to have been taken over by ignorant lunatics. That's it. End of story.

[Llewlladdwr]

11. Could you provide a link...

to the relevant text of the 14th Amendment that authorizes the Executive to raise revenues or borrow money against the full faith and credit of the United States. Thanks.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. It's in there someplace. Maybe near the part where the president can write his own budget

... if there's not enough money to implement the one congress wrote.

[former9thward]

21. I don't see that in my copy.

Why can't the president just raise taxes to cover any shortfall? It would be just as legal as unilaterally raising the debt ceiling.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Something he CAN do is order the mint to print a $2T platinum proof coin.

Seriously.

http://www.correntewire.com/coin_seigniorage_the_debt_limit_and_the_presidents_duty

[mmonk]

17. The language appears clear.

The debt ceiling is artificial actually.