| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| TNR: The Debt Ceiling: Why Obama Should Just Ignore It |
| 2011-06-26 |
| The philosopher-kings over at The New Republic (which is still deeply admired by both its subscribers) recommend that The One just ignore that silly debt limit thing. With a Republican-controlled House demanding large cuts in present and future spending in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, the possibility that the federal government will have trouble financing and issuing new debt is becoming more frighteningly likely each day. Uh, dudes, you're conflating two points here: one if whether the gummint can legally issue new debt; the other is whether the gummint can find someone to buy the debt at a price we can afford. When it comes to Congress's ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts An expert is a guy with a briefcase more than 100 miles from home note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics not one of whom has ever examined a witness in court or written a contract told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme "Extreme" meaning "something that would provoke a major Constitutional crisis and imperil the legitimacy of the US government" it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. A debatable point but (1) voters have standing to vote and (2) Congress has standing to impeach The One. So: go ahead, make my day. But even if standing could be established and the Obama administration gets taken to court, some legal experts all of whom apparently have a lot of time on their hands, being untroubled by things like clients willing to pay for their services note that an additional argument of surprising strength could be made: The government cannot legally default on its debts. Well that's peachy news for all holders of US debt. I guess it all depends on correctly fixing the dollar/wampum exchange rate. Of course, Epps admits, a move like this would represent a major assertion of executive power. Sort of like blowing off the War Powers Act. "The Code? You're pirates. Hang the Code, and hang the rules! They're more like guidelines anyway!" |
| Posted by:Matt |
| #7 "More frightenly likely each day" > given now ... * DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > US POLITICIANS DEMAND TO KNOW IFF THERE IS ANY GOLD LEFT IN FORT KNOX [+ other US Gold Depositories] | RON PAUL CHAIRS CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION ON US GOLD RESERVES. US#14.0Trilyuhn-n-rising US Debt versus US$300.0Bilyuhn of potentially MISSING? US Gold??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-06-26 21:57 |
| #6 What odds President Obama would be able to talk the Secretary of the Treasury and the directors of the Fed into going along with such shenanigans? None of those august personages are sworn to obey all orders from the chief executive, even those which endanger the Republic. The New Republic writer and his experts ignore the fact that the chief executive of a free society does not have the powers of dictators and tyrants. I would suggest that merely trying to do such an end-run would be enough to guarantee that Mr. Obama doesn't get reelected -- he hasn't many Independents left, after all. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-06-26 21:44 |
| #5 They're advising the president to ignore the Constitution and the first thing they think is "would anyone have standing to sue"?! These idiots have been fellating the trial lawyers for too long. It's not an issue of being sued. It's an issue of being impeached or forcibly ejected. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2011-06-26 21:36 |
| #4 You mean new bond/notes/bills could be issued to pay for accumulating interest on existing debt, but NOT to cover any new spending? Including interest for the "trust funds" there is way too much wiggle room for back door shenanigans. Around $500 Billion/year? This should guarantee 100% voter turnout. |
| Posted by: My two cents 2011-06-26 20:54 |
| #3 The government most certainly can default. Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment says, "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." What that means is that 1) the debt Congress authorizes is valid 2) the President can't authorize debt and 3) debt, once created, has to be serviced (notice that the Amendment doesn't give Congress the right to stiff anyone). So Congress certainly could default. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-06-26 19:40 |
| #2 Hey, Mr. S. Welcome back. |
| Posted by: Matt 2011-06-26 17:59 |
| #1 Hello Matt. :) As usual, yes. All that and a traveler. |
| Posted by: S 2011-06-26 16:43 |