|
On July 28 2011 03:05 BestZergOnEast wrote:
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).
No, I am correct. Executive orders are not legislation and executive orders cannot be made that contradict the laws passed by Congress (and signed by the President). Period. Go read about the Youngstown Steel Seizure case if you doubt me.
|
On July 28 2011 03:14 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 01:54 xDaunt wrote: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.
In the interest of full disclosure, just know that you're talking to a lawyer.
You're comparing apples to oranges. There's a fundamental difference between 1) Congress enacting statutes that delegate administrative authority to the executive branch and 2) the executive branch being able to unilaterally overturn the laws of Congress, or, in other words, exercising powers that Constitution explicitly reserves for Congress. I don't mean to be an elitist, but anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the two should probably reserve comment.
You need look no further than the fate of the line item veto to understand why this 14th amendment argument is so stupid (not to mention dangerous).
|
On July 28 2011 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 03:14 TheFrankOne wrote:On July 28 2011 01:54 xDaunt wrote: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. In the interest of full disclosure, just know that you're talking to a lawyer. You're comparing apples to oranges. There's a fundamental difference between 1) Congress enacting statutes that delegate administrative authority to the executive branch and 2) the executive branch being able to unilaterally overturn the laws of Congress, or, in other words, exercising powers that Constitution explicitly reserves for Congress. I don't mean to be an elitist, but anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the two should probably reserve comment. You need look no further than the fate of the line item veto to understand why this 14th amendment argument is so stupid (not to mention dangerous).
There is obviously a world of difference between the two.
However let's say Congress enacted statutes that delegate authority to the executive and then enacted other laws that interfere with the ability of the executive to carry out its delegated and constitutional responsibilities. What should congress and the executive do in that situation?
I just don't see how the enumerated powers supersedes the responsibility to pay our obligations delegated to the treasury, a constitutional requirement under the 14th amendment. It seems like a Catch-22 to me with neither option being constitutional, default or ignoring legislation. Like I said I don't know which one is better but your argument seems to just ignore the powers that have been delegated to the executive and the responsibilities that would entail.
I have no idea what the line-item veto has to do with this discussion, were you just throwing that in there because it was ruled unconstitutional?
|
On July 28 2011 04:44 TheFrankOne wrote:
There is obviously a world of difference between the two.
However let's say Congress enacted statutes that delegate authority to the executive and then enacted other laws that interfere with the ability of the executive to carry out its delegated and constitutional responsibilities. What should congress and the executive do in that situation?
Congress can always expand, limit, or otherwise change the administrative authority that it grants to the executive branch by passing new laws. If Congress objects to the executive's interpretation of the scope of the administrative authority that Congress has granted, and if Congress passes a resolution, legislation, or other statement stating as such, then the courts will resolve the matter in Congress's favor (see the Youngstown Steel Seizure case). In terms of Congress limiting the executive's ability to fulfill his Constitutional duties, there really is no such thing. Ultimate authority rests with Congress, and it is the executive's job to enforce the will of Congress and uphold the law.
Given the prominence of the role of president in American politics today, people forget this fact. Article I powers are plenary, whereas Article II powers are quite limited. This is why it is unfair and rather stupid to give the president all of the credit or all of the blame for the state of affairs in the country. Congress is at least as responsible for the state of the country, if not more so, because Congress drafts the legislation that the president then executes.
On July 28 2011 04:44 TheFrankOne wrote:
I just don't see how the enumerated powers supersedes the responsibility to pay our obligations delegated to the treasury, a constitutional requirement under the 14th amendment. It seems like a Catch-22 to me with neither option being constitutional, default or ignoring legislation. Like I said I don't know which one is better but your argument seems to just ignore the powers that have been delegated to the executive and the responsibilities that would entail.
I have no idea what the line-item veto has to do with this discussion, were you just throwing that in there because it was ruled unconstitutional?
This is what courts are for. They look at statutes or constitutional provisions and harmonize the provisions therein. It's pretty obvious what a court would do with this 14th Amendment argument. It will look at the plain text of the 14th Amendment and read it in the most limited way possible: something along the lines of all that the 14th Amendment stands for is the proposition that Congress does not have the power to pass a law that absolves the federal government of its debts. Most importantly, the court would conclude that the 14th Amendment does not change or alter the fundamental relationship between Article I and Article II powers that I outlined above (ie, that Congress drafts the law and then it's up to the President to decide whether to sign them).
The reason why I referenced the line item veto is because the Supreme Court already decided this issue tangentially in that case. For those that forget, the line item veto was a law passed that allowed the President to review a spending bill, cross out certain provisions (ie pork), and then sign it into law with his edits. The Supreme Court found that this was an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority to the president. Only Congress can draft the law, and the President either has to sign it or veto it. He can't change it unilaterally. It has to come from Congress.
Invoking the 14th Amendment to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling violates this fundamental relationship between the executive and legislative branches. If anything, it's more egregious than the line item veto because it allows the President to unilaterally draft and pass legislation. Again, you can only change legislation (like the debt ceiling) by passing new legislation. No court is going to look at the 14th Amendment and its history and then conclude that there was any intent to fundamentally alter the way our government works.
This is why basically no one in the mainstream (other than Bill Clinton) is advocating using the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling.
|
On July 28 2011 00:05 _Major wrote:
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.
I don't think any reasonable person could disagree that the government needs to show improvements in service quality :-) However, it seems dangerous to me to insist that revenues not be increased before there is a demonstrable increase in quality. Of course, throwing money at a problem is no guarantee of effective solution; I would argue that it usually results in inefficient and wasteful bureaucracy. But cutting budgets at the levels now being discussed could cause serious harm to the long-term capabilities of departments to perform their delegated tasks.
Although there is a tendency to demonize all federal employees as incompetent buffoons, in my experience many of the lower level rank-and-file are essentially technocrats, who are quite good at doing their jobs. Serious budget cuts could lead to significant loss of expertise among federal employees, leaving us less prepared to make progress when revenues do again start to increase.
Regardless, I think this point is largely moot, since increased revenues raised from eliminating tax loopholes ought to be used directly on paying down the national debt, and not distributed among existing federal programs. Also, while it's certainly a reasonable position to treat the government as though we are "financiers who want to see returns on our investments," one should keep in mind that historically the greatest strength of government vis-a-vis the private sector is its ability to provide employment, stimulus, and infrastructure during periods of prolonged weak returns. The advantage is one of being flexible, even when money is tight elsewhere.
To treat the government as above all financial logic is foolish, to subject it fully to the private sector's constraints equally so!
|
On July 28 2011 03:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 03:05 BestZergOnEast wrote:
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). No, I am correct. Executive orders are not legislation and executive orders cannot be made that contradict the laws passed by Congress (and signed by the President). Period. Go read about the Youngstown Steel Seizure case if you doubt me.
Although, in the interest of being fair, you should also mention that the president can refuse to execute laws passed by Congress. A controversial and problematic third option.
|
On July 28 2011 06:39 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 03:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2011 03:05 BestZergOnEast wrote:
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). No, I am correct. Executive orders are not legislation and executive orders cannot be made that contradict the laws passed by Congress (and signed by the President). Period. Go read about the Youngstown Steel Seizure case if you doubt me. Although, in the interest of being fair, you should also mention that the president can refuse to execute laws passed by Congress. A controversial and problematic third option.
By "controversial" you mean it would be a coup, right?
|
On July 28 2011 06:42 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 06:39 Expurgate wrote:On July 28 2011 03:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2011 03:05 BestZergOnEast wrote:
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). No, I am correct. Executive orders are not legislation and executive orders cannot be made that contradict the laws passed by Congress (and signed by the President). Period. Go read about the Youngstown Steel Seizure case if you doubt me. Although, in the interest of being fair, you should also mention that the president can refuse to execute laws passed by Congress. A controversial and problematic third option. By "controversial" you mean it would be a coup, right?
No, it's happened a few times in the past. President Bush made the broadest use of signing statements, which describe the way that the executive branch will implement the law, although he's not the only one.
Check out Wikipedia article on signing statements, it's a controversial practice, but it's not exactly a coup.
|
On July 28 2011 06:58 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 06:42 aristarchus wrote:On July 28 2011 06:39 Expurgate wrote:On July 28 2011 03:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2011 03:05 BestZergOnEast wrote:
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). No, I am correct. Executive orders are not legislation and executive orders cannot be made that contradict the laws passed by Congress (and signed by the President). Period. Go read about the Youngstown Steel Seizure case if you doubt me. Although, in the interest of being fair, you should also mention that the president can refuse to execute laws passed by Congress. A controversial and problematic third option. By "controversial" you mean it would be a coup, right? No, it's happened a few times in the past. President Bush made the broadest use of signing statements, which describe the way that the executive branch will implement the law, although he's not the only one. Check out Wikipedia article on signing statements, it's a controversial practice, but it's not exactly a coup.
Just the fact that he wrote a signing statement doesn't mean he didn't follow the law. Generally his signing statements explained how he planned to "interpret" the law. And even then a lot of people thought they were blatantly unconstitutional. But if the president isn't following the law, the only excuse he has is belief that the law is unconstitutional (which was sometimes said in signing statements). If he's making that claim, then the people supporting the law can force it to the Supreme Court. If he is just blatantly disregarding the law, though, that is an outright coup.
|
One of the presidential prerogatives is to veto a law passed by the congress.
The problem here is entirely political. The congress has the constitutional attribute (attribution?) of increasing the debt limit(or not increasing it). Reps know the debt limit must be increased in order to keep paying the debt but the thing is they are using the debt issue to pass additional legislation which obama (and myself) considers to be pernicious for the state & general welfare. They also hold Obama responsible of this situation, so a "defeat" in congress translates into presidential weakness. Obama's political mistake was giving in to the Republican demands and pressure the first time this issue was debated in the congress during Obama's administration. Now you have a strong Republican block that thinks that if they put enough pressure into the president, they can get whatever they want.
This is just my political analysis of the situation.
|
Every countries of the world are in debt.
If one country pays his depth that means 2 things : He either made another country more poor or his own habitants.
How can this make sense ?
Well, Countries don't rule the economical system, the Federal Reserve does.
There is nothing right in this system and no countries will ever be able to pay their debt so I really don't see why we should pay attention to this unless it's for changing for a different monetary system.
|
^ No, it does not.
I believe you took zeitgeist seriously.
|
Diks raises a good point, the need for monetary reform. Paper money is unsustainable. The ability to print money is too tempting. That is why we should return to a gold standard, that would solve so many of our economic woes.
|
On July 28 2011 07:36 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Diks raises a good point, the need for monetary reform. Paper money is unsustainable. The ability to print money is too tempting. That is why we should return to a gold standard, that would solve so many of our economic woes.
Nope, it would create a really bad depression. If the economy is handled properly paper money is perfectly sustainable.
|
On July 28 2011 07:36 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Diks raises a good point, the need for monetary reform. Paper money is unsustainable. The ability to print money is too tempting. That is why we should return to a gold standard, that would solve so many of our economic woes.
In what way is the ability to print money too tempting? We currently have a huge political crisis over the national debt, and yet no serious politician has even mentioned printing money as a way out. In fact, inflation is pretty much the only economic problem we don't have right now.
|
On July 28 2011 07:25 ilovelings wrote:
^ No, it does not.
I believe you took zeitgeist seriously.
Well, I'm really not sure about the second part of my post, and if you have some information to direct me to, can you give me some links please ?
About the first part of my post. Saudi Arabia and Peru are the only countries that do not have any dept, so do you suggest all contries of the world are having depts to them ?
|
On July 28 2011 07:40 Diks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 07:25 ilovelings wrote:
^ No, it does not.
I believe you took zeitgeist seriously. Well, I'm really not sure about the second part of my post, and if you have some information to direct me to. Can you give me some links please ? About the first part of my post. Saudi Arabia and Peru do not have any dept, so do you suggest all contries of the world are having depts to them ?
Countries aren't in debt to other countries. They're in debt to private individuals/businesses. That's what happens when people buy treasury bonds.
|
On July 28 2011 07:40 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 07:36 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Diks raises a good point, the need for monetary reform. Paper money is unsustainable. The ability to print money is too tempting. That is why we should return to a gold standard, that would solve so many of our economic woes. In what way is the ability to print money too tempting? We currently have a huge political crisis over the national debt, and yet no serious politician has even mentioned printing money as a way out. In fact, inflation is pretty much the only economic problem we don't have right now.
Obama is printing shitloads of money. Inflation comes in the long run, and a little inflation is not bad.
Having a debt is not bad per se. The problem is that the US of A can no longer afford it. The availability of capital is very important for any economy.
|
On July 28 2011 07:44 ilovelings wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 07:40 aristarchus wrote:On July 28 2011 07:36 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Diks raises a good point, the need for monetary reform. Paper money is unsustainable. The ability to print money is too tempting. That is why we should return to a gold standard, that would solve so many of our economic woes. In what way is the ability to print money too tempting? We currently have a huge political crisis over the national debt, and yet no serious politician has even mentioned printing money as a way out. In fact, inflation is pretty much the only economic problem we don't have right now. Obama is printing shitloads of money. Inflation comes in the long run, and a little inflation is not bad.
I'm pretty sure the president doesn't have the authority to print money unilaterally. If you have a source for this I'd love to see it.
|
Not only would returning to a gold standard not cause a depression, it would actually help prevent future depressions. aristarchus, no one mentions it because it's already happening. Look at the price of food and gas. The federal reserve creates money by buying government bonds. They do this all the time. It is ongoing. The government MUST debase the currency (that is to say, rob everyone who holds money) in order to pay for the wars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
