|
Yeah, Jefferson was so against empire he would reference the Romans as a model. He was actually advocating for powerful militias "to make every man a soldier, and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared."
Essentially he was advocating a cellular structure for the army. Professional soldiers would exist under the control of decentralized leaders, subject to a draft from the federal government, failing that mandatory service for all.
Jefferson had no apparent qualms with empire from your quote or the rest of your article.
"our men are so happy at home that they will not hire themselves to be shot at for a shilling a day. Hence we can have no standing armies for defence, because we have no paupers to furnish the materials."
His problem with standing armies was one of equality and exploitation, again, nothing to do with military strength or avoiding empire.
His backup plan from your article:
He noted that such a system of universal service "was proposed to Congress in 1805, and subsequently; and, on the last trial was lost, I believe, by a single vote only. Had it prevailed, what has now happened [in the War of 1812] would not have happened. Instead of burning our Capitol, we should have possessed theirs in Montreal and Quebec. We must now adopt it, and all will be safe." (Though the article fails to mention it, Jefferson set the US on a course to war with Britain while reducing the army, bad move)
A universal draft is his preference over a voluntary army, Jefferson's true qualm was with voluntary armies exploiting a "pauper class" or so the article you provided claims. Even said these "paupers" should receive free college education. (like a damn socialist)
You make it very, very hard to admit you are right when the only source you've posted relates to a slight tangent and undermines several other points of yours.
|
|
|
On July 27 2011 04:28 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Yes of course I realize what I'm saying (how could I not), even though it is clear that you do not. I don't quite understand how I could personally negate the impact that slavery had on the American economy. You must be a foreigner, your english not strong. And no, I don't justify slavery. I oppose slavery. People didn't "move to the factory" (you don't live in a factory you work in it) to "own land". They may have colonized America for that purpose, but that's a completely unrelated discussion so I'm not sure why you would bring that up. Yes, America was much freer than Europe, and so many people left Europe to go to America.
Were American cities built on the back of "exploited foreigners" and slaves? Well slaves maybe. GUess what, so were Russian cities, built on the backs of serfs (and poorly at that). Slavery has been a problem in the human race for a long time. The greek city states were built on the backs of slaves. So what? Why is this relevant? I am against slavery.
Imperialism is not a by product of laissez-faire, it is a byproduct of the interventionist state. When I say 1776-1914 the reason I end at 1914 is because that is when you see the rise of American imperialism, specifically the Wilsonian idea that America must make the world safe for democracy. Of course I am an opponent of imperialism, which is of course the actions of GOVERNMENT and not the market.
The American Government's job is to protect private property and liberty. And you are right, they are not doing their job, they are in fact the largest and most aggregious violators of property rights. They are quite simply nothing less than a criminal organization.
This is relevant because you are falsely propping up a period in time, 1776-1914, as being the glory days of laissez-faire policies, when returning to those policies aren't something that even you are willing to do. By your own admissions you are "opposed to slavery" and you believe it's the "government's job to protect private property and liberty".
In 1870, 12.7% of the population was black and ~15% of the 50 largest cities' populations were unnaturalized citizens (immigrants), 85% of which were between 15-59 (i.e. of working age). From these numbers we can figure that at least 25% of the people in the country were contributing towards the economy and the tax base who were not protected by the same rights granted to American citizens, and who were not permitted access to most of the services provided by the government. Let me be explicit, the US government only had to pay in full for 3 out of every 4 men during this time; I'm not even factoring in the exploitation suffered by working women.
Compare that to 1990 where the equal rights of all women and ethnic citizens were enforced by the Federal government and only 11% of the 50 largest cities' populations were immigrants, 75% of which were between 15-59 (ie. of working age). In this climate the US government has to pay in full for 9.2 out of 10 people with the same relative revenue.
Is this starting to make a little more sense for you fiscally? Laissez-faire policies can't take credit for the unprecedented growth during these eras, when there were considerably more people contributing to the economy and the tax base than the country had to provide for. To think that it would achieve the same results in a reversed dispersement situation is completely unfounded.
Furthermore, it is because of these pressures to keep a significant part of the workforce as indentured servants that we continue to dable in imperialism. I don't have the energy to break this down for you; suffice to say that no one is ready to pay 1-to-1.
Immigration Populations - http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab19.html
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab07.html
Populations by race -
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf
|
Just thought I would pop in here to play a little game I like to call "Let's compare pages"
The OP asks How exactly do Americans look at their own debt, and compare it to the current crisis in Europe?
The first post on this page is about Jefferson's approach to the military.
Don't mean to flame but how in all nations did we get here?
|
I just bought my first gun monday to prepare for the inevitable fallout. I know that sounds a little crazy but the country is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
|
On July 27 2011 13:42 Dub_doubt wrote:
I just bought my first gun monday to prepare for the inevitable fallout. I know that sounds a little crazy but the country is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Guns aren't going to fix our problems, this is a discussion thread not a fear mongering thread.
I hope the two parties can come to some type of deal in the middle. I don't think cutting social programs or taxing the rich is going to change much down the line. I just want to see serious politicians make a good bill and pass it through both houses.
Also not worried much about the debt, I'm worried more about revenue and growth of the economy to get us out of a recession.
|
Props to TheFrankOne and _Major for maintaining a fact-based, moderate position in this thread. Minor props to BlackFlag, for stamina in such a vitriolic discussion.
Since economic threads so often degenerate into rabid arguments about capitalism, could we steer this back towards the OP's intent?
I'm growing annoyed with obstructionism in Congress personally. It's obvious to all economically literate people that the debt can only be addressed through a combination of increased revenue and decreased spending. The Economist suggests that the appropriate ratio of the above factors in historically successful debt treatments is about 15% - 85% respectively. This is close to what is being proposed by the Democrats; their plan clocks in at 13% - 87%.
Also, I can't understand the demand for a balanced-budget amendment. While I appreciate the desire to rein in spending and promote fiscal responsibility, we also need to acknowledge that the government will often face situations where spending must unexpectedly increase. In keeping with the standards of mainstream economic policy, as well as the threat of having to fight an unexpected war, the balanced-budget amendment sounds like a seriously overwrought solution where a simpler one has not yet been found.
|
http://americanreviewmag.com/blogs/Would-a-Treasury-default-be-unconstitutional
An interesting take on the constitutionality of a default. Specifically
This argument relies on a section of the 14th Amendment, reading in part: "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."
This was originally intended for war debts but a 1935 amendment seems to support the stance that it applies to all public debt. The article itself argue that Obama could in theory just ignore congress and raise the ceiling by himself.
Given that it appears unconstitutional to default, why would republicans, the supposed defenders of the constitution, even contemplate it?
Perhaps this is  but it interesting none the less.
|
On July 24 2011 04:15 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Don't really know how other guys are keeping track of it, but in my opinion, the EU debt crisis is a lot worse than our debt crisis here.
A lot of people get the false assumption (it's sorta the fault of Republicans who exaggerated) that a default on US debt on August 2nd would cause some type of death bringing financial fall out that we've never experienced before.
It's not necessarily like that. If America fails to bring about some type of balanced budget or whatever by August 2nd, it only means that certain payments, like SS checks and payments to soldiers would start to dry up and stop. Now, of course, that's bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as countries in the Eurozone who can't pay back bond investors and have already had their credit ratings (like Italy) downgraded to junk status.
Is the debt a serious issue? To me, not really. What's more of an issue is what's causing the debt. Actual debt really doesn't do much since China will continue to buy it for the forseeable future. What is dangerous then is the possibility that America can't garner enough capital to pay back on interest payments or bond holders when the time comes.
Not really. The EU debt crisis may mean that the Euro goes under, but then all the countries will still just go back to their former currencies. America doesn't ahve a backup plan like that. Also, France, Germany, Britain, Sweden are owed a lot from other countries etc, so their budgets aren't that bad. Italy, Greece and portugal on the other hand may be boned so to speak. But really, do you want to compare the american debt to the greek and italian one?
What can happen if you by august 2 don't have a solution? Well, first of all, the payments would stop to a number of government workers. That's not good for them. Second, theres the problem of the rating agencies, who would probably give your american bonds a lower rating. That means investors loose faith in your currency. You may have the most used currency in the world at the moment (used to buy oil etc), but that may very well change thanks to your debt. It would also mean that interest rates on your loans would go up, may be by several points. That in turn would mean that you will most likely default on your loans, and the debt would spiral out of control for a while. That means probably hyperinflation (think thirld world currencies, where you pay 20 000 for a coke) and a very very bad time for everyone.
China might be buying your bonds for now, but even they will not buy anything that proves to be worth nothing. They have after all shown to have a very good business sense. And why would China continue to support the united states unreasonable spending? They can very well sell their products over the entire world, they don't need the american market, especially when you pay with a currency that's worth next to nothing. And that's just one of the scenarios, there are some even more grim. So yeah, it's kinda important that you resolve the debt problem. 
|
Actually, China needs the american market. America is the #1 buyer. If due to government default, the private consumption declines, China is also pretty fucked.
|
On July 27 2011 14:49 Expurgate wrote: Props to TheFrankOne and _Major for maintaining a fact-based, moderate position in this thread. Minor props to BlackFlag, for stamina in such a vitriolic discussion.
Since economic threads so often degenerate into rabid arguments about capitalism, could we steer this back towards the OP's intent?
I'm growing annoyed with obstructionism in Congress personally. It's obvious to all economically literate people that the debt can only be addressed through a combination of increased revenue and decreased spending. The Economist suggests that the appropriate ratio of the above factors in historically successful debt treatments is about 15% - 85% respectively. This is close to what is being proposed by the Democrats; their plan clocks in at 13% - 87%.
Also, I can't understand the demand for a balanced-budget amendment. While I appreciate the desire to rein in spending and promote fiscal responsibility, we also need to acknowledge that the government will often face situations where spending must unexpectedly increase. In keeping with the standards of mainstream economic policy, as well as the threat of having to fight an unexpected war, the balanced-budget amendment sounds like a seriously overwrought solution where a simpler one has not yet been found.
Thank you Expurgate. I personally feel that the government needs to begin modernizing its services and show improvement in quality due to these changes before they should be asking for any revenue increases. Addressing the symptoms but not the problems only kicks this down the road;one of the biggest problems is wasteful spending.
Every new year will bring new challenges and new expenses that we have to factor in. If our government has no intention of laying out a reasonable plan to invest into modern technology advances, and stay competitive while keeping costs low, to compensate for these bumps in the roads ahead, then they are disrespecting our position as financiers who want to see returns on our investments.
TLDR: I hope they continue the course of cutting spending through the elections next year and keep tax increases off of the table. I think by that time both sides will be able to explain how their cuts have translated into efficiencies in certain sectors, and then they would be able to articulate to the public how any add'l funding would improve the quality of these leaner departments. I really have no knowledge of the EU crisis. I assume that we're in a better position because the complexities involved with dealing with multiple countries most likely dwarfs having to fix things for one country.
|
On July 27 2011 15:05 Probulous wrote:http://americanreviewmag.com/blogs/Would-a-Treasury-default-be-unconstitutionalAn interesting take on the constitutionality of a default. Specifically Show nested quote +This argument relies on a section of the 14th Amendment, reading in part: "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." This was originally intended for war debts but a 1935 amendment seems to support the stance that it applies to all public debt. The article itself argue that Obama could in theory just ignore congress and raise the ceiling by himself. Given that it appears unconstitutional to default, why would republicans, the supposed defenders of the constitution, even contemplate it? Perhaps this is but it interesting none the less.
The only people in the US who are arguing that the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to raise the debt ceiling are the hardcore leftists/socialists. Very few people take the argument seriously because it ignores the rest of the Constitution. Obama would get impeached if he even tried to exercise that power.
|
On July 28 2011 00:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 15:05 Probulous wrote:http://americanreviewmag.com/blogs/Would-a-Treasury-default-be-unconstitutionalAn interesting take on the constitutionality of a default. Specifically This argument relies on a section of the 14th Amendment, reading in part: "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." This was originally intended for war debts but a 1935 amendment seems to support the stance that it applies to all public debt. The article itself argue that Obama could in theory just ignore congress and raise the ceiling by himself. Given that it appears unconstitutional to default, why would republicans, the supposed defenders of the constitution, even contemplate it? Perhaps this is but it interesting none the less. The only people in the US who are arguing that the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to raise the debt ceiling are the hardcore leftists/socialists. Very few people take the argument seriously because it ignores the rest of the Constitution. Obama would get impeached if he even tried to exercise that power.
Meh, not exactly "only" the hardcore leftists/socialists. Unless you consider Clinton hardcore leftist. More "the party who controls the executive."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-usa-debt-legal-idUSTRE76P79C20110726
Please explain further what part of the constitution it ignores. After all the debt ceiling is not in the constitution but the 14th amendment is.
On July 27 2011 14:49 Expurgate wrote:
Props to TheFrankOne and _Major for maintaining a fact-based, moderate position in this thread. Minor props to BlackFlag, for stamina in such a vitriolic discussion.
Since economic threads so often degenerate into rabid arguments about capitalism, could we steer this back towards the OP's intent?
I'm growing annoyed with obstructionism in Congress personally. It's obvious to all economically literate people that the debt can only be addressed through a combination of increased revenue and decreased spending. The Economist suggests that the appropriate ratio of the above factors in historically successful debt treatments is about 15% - 85% respectively. This is close to what is being proposed by the Democrats; their plan clocks in at 13% - 87%.
Also, I can't understand the demand for a balanced-budget amendment. While I appreciate the desire to rein in spending and promote fiscal responsibility, we also need to acknowledge that the government will often face situations where spending must unexpectedly increase. In keeping with the standards of mainstream economic policy, as well as the threat of having to fight an unexpected war, the balanced-budget amendment sounds like a seriously overwrought solution where a simpler one has not yet been found.
Thanks, and I agree with this wholeheartedly, though I am worried about cutting too deep right now.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-growth-forecast-looks-unrealistic-after-gdp-fall-2326432.html
After implementing their austerity plan, the UK is trudging along in their recovery and growth.
|
On July 28 2011 01:40 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 00:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 27 2011 15:05 Probulous wrote:http://americanreviewmag.com/blogs/Would-a-Treasury-default-be-unconstitutionalAn interesting take on the constitutionality of a default. Specifically This argument relies on a section of the 14th Amendment, reading in part: "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." This was originally intended for war debts but a 1935 amendment seems to support the stance that it applies to all public debt. The article itself argue that Obama could in theory just ignore congress and raise the ceiling by himself. Given that it appears unconstitutional to default, why would republicans, the supposed defenders of the constitution, even contemplate it? Perhaps this is but it interesting none the less. The only people in the US who are arguing that the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to raise the debt ceiling are the hardcore leftists/socialists. Very few people take the argument seriously because it ignores the rest of the Constitution. Obama would get impeached if he even tried to exercise that power. Meh, not exactly "only" the hardcore leftists/socialists. Unless you consider Clinton hardcore leftist. More "the party who controls the executive." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-usa-debt-legal-idUSTRE76P79C20110726Please explain further what part of the constitution it ignores. After all the debt ceiling is not in the constitution but the 14th amendment is.
The argument ignores the enumerated powers of Congress and the President under Articles I and II of the Constitution. Congress has the power of the purse; the President does not. Congress has the power to drafted legislation; the President does not. The debt ceiling is a legislative creation, and the President does not have the power to unilaterally reverse legislation once it becomes law. It really is that simple.
The plain text of the 14th Amendment does not change that dynamic. It merely states that the federal government must honor (ie pay) its debts. Do you see the term "debt ceiling" anywhere in there? I sure don't.
|
On July 26 2011 20:40 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 20:10 TheDraken wrote:On July 26 2011 19:42 BlackFlag wrote:On July 26 2011 19:16 Casta wrote:I want to comment on a little of your post. On July 26 2011 18:42 TheDraken wrote:
... It's ridiculous that there are high school dropouts living with the delusion that healthcare, comfortable retirement, and education are all birthrights. No human is born with the promise that someone else is obligated to keep them alive. They are luxuries earned through years of labor during a person's middle years. As we say in economics, there's no such thing as a free lunch. ...
I live in a country where healthcare, comfortable retirement and education is something granted by the state to every citizen. I like the perspective that everyone can become anything if they got the brains and not only the ones with the rich parents and a thick wallet. Also if you are poor and suffer a terrible accident you will still get patched up and get ready to contribute to society. Of course some are taking advantage of the system, but the overall gain is greater if such a thing would be measured imo. I understand that not having these safety nets guaranteed sparks a lot of people to work harder, but the ones not capable of the pressure just gets left behind and will eventually become unused potential or even criminals in a modern society. It is a human right. And before Industrialization these "services" were guaranteed by "the family" (which is much bigger than the core family.) With Industrialization these large families dissolved and the state had to implent social programs who overtook the social role "family" had before Industrialization. It's the duty of a country to guarantee welfare for everyone. If it doesn't, you can go right back in the 19th century and look how nice urban life was for the broad masses. But that's propably cool for "economists" because wage-slaves are good for "the economy" (What an abstract term, because "the economy" is everyone. It's you, me, my friends and that drug dealer across the street. "The economy" isn't something that's cut off from the rest of society. Society is build on "the economy" and vice versa.) There's a huge difference between making someone in your family pay for your "rights" and making some successful stranger pay for your "rights". If the family fails to provide the safety net for its members, it's not the job of the state to forcefully establish a surrogate "mommy" for all of those children with fail parents. You didn't understand my post. You don't seem to care why there's even a need for social nets, but that's pretty normal for all you neo-liberals, right? No care about history (where clearly is shown what happens without business regulations and social safety nets) and no care about your fellow human being, only profitzzzzzzzz. Also you don't seem to mind, that in our complex society NOBODY achieves something by himselve. He uses the infrastructure, which is built by others, he uses money, which is borrowed by others, he uses the working capabilites from other people, he uses ressources stolen from Africa. You don't achieve something by yourself, hard work per se, gets you nowhere. We live in this world together, and that's why people should care and "pay" for others, because they don't achieve anything alone. But have fun in corporate America when the violence of the getthos reaches your suburb, because people don't take it anymore and poverty spreads and credits won't uphold the system. Then people will see how the country got raped since reagan.
See, you're slowly teasing out the point I'm trying to make to you, but somehow you've managed to turn it around and try to use it as an argument against my own.
You say nobody achieves things alone. I agree. You say it's based on the labors of other people that allows a man to succeed. I agree. You say we stole things from Africa. Unrelated, but I agree. So you tie all these together to somehow try to convince me that we should still give government handouts to people who are poorly connected and are not bringing in money for themselves? Hell no. The only reason I would help a man out and give him food to stay alive is if he helps me out in return... perhaps once in a while just for charity if I think he's truly just fallen on hard times and he can't help it. If he isn't willing to get up and do some work and produce value for a society by cleaning toilets or something, the economy won't really notice if he's gone. At its most basic the economy is a tool for survival, and a man cannot expect to drain its resources without compensating it in some fashion.
People will argue that factory workers labor much harder and longer than even someone like a doctor or lawyer. But how much value do they create to a society? It's not about how much work someone does, it's about how efficiently they can create value. While the factory worker can spend 100 hours laboring away, he has only 50,000 screwdrivers to show for it. The doctor puts in 100 hours, he has extended perhaps 50 lives. Even if each of his patients only lives 4 days longer (~100 hrs), and they are all factory workers, those factory workers can go off and produce a total of 2,500,000 screwdrivers. Surprising. The doctor created more value for the economy in 100 hours than a factory worker did in 100 hours.
So when someone complains they work really hard but get paid very little for it, I have little sympathy. The education system in this country allows people to obtain an education for very cheap (a person can take out loans and pay them back later with little upfront cost), and give themselves the knowledge to conduct a job with greater efficiency than someone without education. There is nothing stopping a person from becoming a doctor short of time and effort. You don't put in the effort, you don't get paid for it. That simple. If a person doesn't have enough food to eat, they most likely haven't been putting in the work to contribute to the economy, or they've been inefficiently contributing.
On the topic of the wealth gap leading to violence, that's fine. Corporations own the US government. Violent citizens who threaten the property and welfare of corporations will always go to jail. If people choose to cheat the system and try to obtain value from the economy without putting anything into it, they can go enjoy their free handouts in a prison cell. A man that wants to do nothing for other people but still get fed can get it, but it will cost him his autonomy and freedom. Heh, maybe that's why the US has a ridiculous number of people in prison lately. So many lazy people trying to cheat the system.
To answer more to the OP though, the problem with the deficit comes down to Americans not wanting to pay for stuff they've taken. So now people in government are cutting them off and making sure they contribute in return. If they don't like it, tough. If they want to try to revolt, let them. The beauty of having the most powerful police state in the world is that you don't have to worry about your citizenry getting away with things they shouldn't.
|
You are a sick and egoist man.
|
The longer this goes on, the more that I'm in favor of the debt ceiling staying where it is. Neither the Democrats nor the Republican leadership (Boehner) are offering plans that have significant cuts. The Boehner plan apparently only cuts $1-7 billion this year. Seriosuly. WTF is that? Harry Reid basically has no plan according to all credible sources, and his "cuts" are almost all from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya ending, which is going to happen anyway.
All of the ratings agencies, most recently S&P, have come out and said that the US must reduce spending in addition to raising the debt ceiling to avoid a credit rating downgrade. Our leaders aren't even trying. I'd rather just get it over with and eat a credit rating downgrade now instead of letting Washington screw things up even more, which is what they're doing.
|
just my theory.... clinton took a really large barrel and filled it with gun powder, then George bush took another one and filled it as well. then a long came this president called obama and he grabbed a match and then some rich oil CEO's that make billions and billions every quarter handed obama something to light his match with...
|
xDaunt, you are correct and you are incorrect. You are correct that is how the constitution is worded, but the President can and does draft legislation all the time (executive orders), and decides how money is spent (i.e. submits to congress we need x dollars for the war).
|
On July 28 2011 01:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 01:40 TheFrankOne wrote:On July 28 2011 00:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 27 2011 15:05 Probulous wrote:http://americanreviewmag.com/blogs/Would-a-Treasury-default-be-unconstitutionalAn interesting take on the constitutionality of a default. Specifically This argument relies on a section of the 14th Amendment, reading in part: "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." This was originally intended for war debts but a 1935 amendment seems to support the stance that it applies to all public debt. The article itself argue that Obama could in theory just ignore congress and raise the ceiling by himself. Given that it appears unconstitutional to default, why would republicans, the supposed defenders of the constitution, even contemplate it? Perhaps this is but it interesting none the less. The only people in the US who are arguing that the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to raise the debt ceiling are the hardcore leftists/socialists. Very few people take the argument seriously because it ignores the rest of the Constitution. Obama would get impeached if he even tried to exercise that power. Meh, not exactly "only" the hardcore leftists/socialists. Unless you consider Clinton hardcore leftist. More "the party who controls the executive." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-usa-debt-legal-idUSTRE76P79C20110726Please explain further what part of the constitution it ignores. After all the debt ceiling is not in the constitution but the 14th amendment is. The argument ignores the enumerated powers of Congress and the President under Articles I and II of the Constitution. Congress has the power of the purse; the President does not. Congress has the power to drafted legislation; the President does not. The debt ceiling is a legislative creation, and the President does not have the power to unilaterally reverse legislation once it becomes law. It really is that simple. The plain text of the 14th Amendment does not change that dynamic. It merely states that the federal government must honor (ie pay) its debts. Do you see the term "debt ceiling" anywhere in there? I sure don't.
The problem here is that Congress has delegated much of their authority relating to money to the treasury and therefore the executive. The 14th amendment states that the US is constitutionally obligated to pay its debts and the Executive branch has been delegated fiscal responsibility by Congress through various legislative acts. The treasury is not currently able to fulfill its fiscal obligations due to a separate legislative act. (the debt ceiling) You see the problem here right?
The fact is that by strengthening the executive branch Congress has muddled much of their enumerated powers. Congress itself has changed the dynamic of enumerated powers, additionally the 14th amendment arguably gives the treasury wide latitude to pay obligations incurred by the US even if it is in violation of the debt ceiling.
While I am not sure what would be actually legal/constitutional, things are not as simple as you are trying to make them out to be. There is a reason people say the Executive is stronger than its ever been.
@allred: please do not compare the fiscal responsibilities of Clinton and Bush as equivalent, additionally, please do not make such painful and unreasonable analogies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
