Debt Limitapalooza 2023!

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
First, as I previously mentioned there is nothing in the constitution that grants the Supreme Court the ability to rule laws unconstitutional. Absolutely nothing.

Regardless though, if you agree that the president can disregard actions he believes to be unconstitutional then we agree.
Article III does, but you refuse to accept that interpretation, or at least in this discussion, even though there is no other branch that the constitution gives judicial powers to. If you are arguing they don't have that authority, then you are saying that the SCOTUS's rulings are invalid, as they all must pass constitutional scrutiny, because the constitution is the very foundation that every law is built on. Well, actually, they are supposed to pass constitutional scrutiny, but as we have been seeing lately, that is not the case. Which is one reason our country is "falling apart" so to speak.

Without the SCOTUS having such authority, then there would be no way for the checks and balances between branches, to work. With no way to require congress and President to make constitutional laws, as there is no avenue for that to happen, per your argument, because there is no such authority granted in the constitution, to make such a ruling. There would be no way to hold the other two branches accountable to the constitution when making laws if it's not part of the judicial branch.

You have even argued about laws being unconstitutional, and about the SCOTUS Calvin balling rulings because they ruled in favor of laws, that you believe are unconstitutional.. if you seriously believe they don't have that authority.. then how can they be Calvin balling such rulings? What happens to your arguments if the SCOTUS does not have such authority? So, are you saying your past arguments about laws being unconstitutional and their rulings being Calvin Ball rulings just bullshit arguments then? You can't support them on striking down laws, or portions of laws, on constitutional ground if you don't believe they have that authority on a law being constitutional or not. So are you invalidating your own past arguments? It can't be both ways. (note: I am not saying I disagree with your past arguments, I am just pointing out that you are pulling the rug out from under yourself that those arguments where based on)

As for saying we agree: Considering that is not what you said, how can we agree? You said Biden should declare the law unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, not disregard it. (See below) He can disregard it and chose not to follow the law, but Biden does not have the authority to declare any law unconstitutional.. So can he disregard the law.. yes.. can he declare a law unconstitutional.. No!

This shit is so stupid. Biden should declare the debt limit unconstitutional under the 14th amendment and be done with it. If SCOTUS rules otherwise he should ignore them, stating that it would be a violation of his oath of office and the Constitution to follow their order. Biden is on the ‘no global economic catastrophe’ side and Republicans are on the ‘yes global economic catastrophe’ side. It’s an easy win.

What would Republicans do in the face of this? Nothing that matters. Cause a government shutdown? They are going to do that anyway. Impeach Biden? That will go nowhere. Elect to default next time they hold the presidency? Lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
Article III does, but you refuse to accept that interpretation, or at least in this discussion, even though there is no other branch that the constitution gives judicial powers to. If you are arguing they don't have that authority, then you are saying that the SCOTUS's rulings are invalid, as they all must pass constitutional scrutiny, because the constitution is the very foundation that every law is built on. Well, actually, they are supposed to pass constitutional scrutiny, but as we have been seeing lately, that is not the case. Which is one reason our country is "falling apart" so to speak.

Without the SCOTUS having such authority, then there would be no way for the checks and balances between branches, to work. With no way to require congress and President to make constitutional laws, as there is no avenue, per your argument because there is nobody with such authority to make such a ruling. Because there would be no way to hold the other two branches accountable to the constitution when making laws if it's not part of the judicial branch.

You have even argued about laws being unconstitutional, and about the SCOTUS Calvin balling rulings because they ruled in favor of laws, that you believe are unconstitutional.. if you seriously believe they don't have that authority.. then how can they be Calvin balling such rulings? What happens to your arguments if the SCOTUS does not have such authority? So, are you saying your past arguments about laws being unconstitutional and their rulings being Calvin Ball rulings just bullshit arguments then? You can't support them on striking down laws, or portions of laws, on constitutional ground if you don't believe they have that authority on a law being constitutional or not. So are you invalidating your own past arguments? It can't be both ways. (note: I am not saying I disagree with your past arguments, I am just pointing out that you are pulling the rug out from under yourself that those arguments where based on)

As for saying we agree: Considering that is not what you said, how can we agree? You said Biden should declare the law unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, not disregard it. (See below) He can disregard it and chose not to follow the law, but Biden does not have the authority to declare any law unconstitutional.. So can he disregard the law.. yes.. can he declare a law unconstitutional.. No!
I have asked repeatedly for anyone to quote me where in the constitution it says this and no one has. The reason for this is it doesn’t say that. I am not saying the Supreme Court does not have the power to strike down laws, I am saying the other two branches of government are not required to follow their decisions if they think those decisions violate the constitution. In fact if SCOTUS makes an unconstitutional order Biden is bound by his oath and the constitution to refuse to comply.

You seem to be hung up on word choice here and that’s not relevant to me. If Biden says he will not follow a law because he thinks it is unconstitutional that is him declaring the law unconstitutional. That’s just literally what it is. If it is easier for you that Biden ‘disregards’ it based on the executive branch’s interpretation of the constitution that’s fine.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
This is such a totally uncontroversial point I don’t even know why anyone is arguing against it. We all agree that in some cases the president has the authority to ignore the Supreme Court. This should be one of them.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
65,902
21,353
136
This is such a totally uncontroversial point I don’t even know why anyone is arguing against it. We all agree that in some cases the president has the authority to ignore the Supreme Court. This should be one of them.
No, I don't agree with that. Presidents choosing to ignore the Supreme Court is another indication that our system of government is broken. All three branches of government are driving outside their lanes. Four decades of craven, broken Congresses unwilling to carry out their Constitutional duties has broken the Presidency and the courts.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
I have asked repeatedly for anyone to quote me where in the constitution it says this and no one has. The reason for this is it doesn’t say that. I am not saying the Supreme Court does not have the power to strike down laws, I am saying the other two branches of government are not required to follow their decisions if they think those decisions violate the constitution. In fact if SCOTUS makes an unconstitutional order Biden is bound by his oath and the constitution to refuse to comply.

You seem to be hung up on word choice here and that’s not relevant to me. If Biden says he will not follow a law because he thinks it is unconstitutional that is him declaring the law unconstitutional. That’s just literally what it is. If it is easier for you that Biden ‘disregards’ it based on the executive branch’s interpretation of the constitution that’s fine.
You seem to believe what you are claiming is clearly spelled out in the constitution. (not even remotely)

If you believe your own words, than why have you changed your own argument from "declaring the law unconstitutional" to choosing to not follow a law because he believes it is not constitutional?

I am not arguing about the word choice, because that is NOT what you said.. Can the President use his independent judgment to chose not to follow a law.. Yep! (doesn't mean he has the constitutional right). But he CANNOT declare a law unconstitutional because he cannot over rule the SCOTUS, he does not have that authority. The only 2 ways their ruling can be over ruled is 1) The SCOTUS changes their ruling 2). Congress amends either the law, or the constitution, which the President can request they do.

The thing is, you are arguing semantics, because what your original argument, that the President can declare a law unconstitutional is not only false, it is not remotely supported in any interpretation of the constitution.

This is such a totally uncontroversial point I don’t even know why anyone is arguing against it. We all agree that in some cases the president has the authority to ignore the Supreme Court. This should be one of them.
Because ignoring the Supreme Court, or ignoring a law was not your original argument.. That wasn't the argument, and is a different argument all together. You have changed your argument to ignoring and choosing, because you know he doesn't have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.

No, I don't agree with that. Presidents choosing to ignore the Supreme Court is another indication that our system of government is broken. All three branches of government are driving outside their lanes. Four decades of craven, broken Congresses unwilling to carry out their Constitutional duties has broken the Presidency and the courts.
I agree..
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
No, I don't agree with that. Presidents choosing to ignore the Supreme Court is another indication that our system of government is broken. All three branches of government are driving outside their lanes. Four decades of craven, broken Congresses unwilling to carry out their Constitutional duties has broken the Presidency and the courts.
Ok so if SCOTUS rules tomorrow that John Roberts is the new president Biden should resign and Roberts is the new president? I assume the answer is no, meaning you agree with me.

If SCOTUS orders Biden to default they are ordering him to commit a blatant violation of the Constitution that he is oath bound to uphold. Should he violate the constitution because SCOTUS said he should?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
You seem to believe what you are claiming is clearly spelled out in the constitution. (not even remotely)

If you believe your own words, than why have you changed your own argument from "declaring the law unconstitutional" to choosing to not follow a law because he believes it is not constitutional?

I am not arguing about the word choice, because that is NOT what you said.. Can the President use his independent judgment to chose not to follow a law.. Yep! But he CANNOT declare a law unconstitutional because he cannot over rule the SCOTUS, he does not have that authority. The only 2 ways their ruling can be over ruled is 1) The SCOTUS changes their ruling 2). Congress amends either the law, or the constitution, which the President can request they do.

The thing is, you are arguing semantics, because what your original argument, that the President can declare a law unconstitutional is not only false, it is not remotely supported in any interpretation of the constitution.



Because ignoring the Supreme Court, or ignoring a law was not your original argument.. That wasn't the argument, and is a different argument all together. You have changed your argument to ignoring and choosing, because you know he doesn't have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.



I agree..
No. Ignoring it and declaring it unconstitutional are the same thing. He is ignoring it because it is unconstitutional, after all. My argument has always been exactly the same.

All three branches of government are equal - SCOTUS does not have the authority to order the executive to violate the constitution, as they are not in charge of the executive.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
Ok so if SCOTUS rules tomorrow that John Roberts is the new president Biden should resign and Roberts is the new president? I assume the answer is no, meaning you agree with me.

If SCOTUS orders Biden to default they are ordering him to commit a blatant violation of the Constitution that he is oath bound to uphold. Should he violate the constitution because SCOTUS said he should?
Show us a law that states this, as that is not ruling on a law's constitutional grounds, as no such law exists. you are trying to throw a legislative argument into the mix, which is not he job of the SCOTUS.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
Show us a law that states this, as that is not ruling on a law's constitutional grounds, as no such law exists. you are trying to throw a legislative argument into the mix, which is not he job of the SCOTUS.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

My question is very simple - is the president required to follow a SCOTUS ruling that replaces him with John Roberts? Yes or no? I am certain you think the answer to that question is no, meaning you agree with me that the president has the authority to ignore unconstitutional SCOTUS rulings.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
No. Ignoring it and declaring it unconstitutional are the same thing. He is ignoring it because it is unconstitutional, after all. My argument has always been exactly the same.

All three branches of government are equal - SCOTUS does not have the authority to order the executive to violate the constitution, as they are not in charge of the executive.
Bullshit! They most certainly do not mean the same thing.. Ignoring a law, and not following it, because HE believes it is unconstitutional is not a unilaterally decision that applies to everyone. Declaring a law unconstitutional is a unilateral decision that applies to everyone.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
Bullshit! They most certainly do not mean the same thing.. Ignoring a law, and not following it, because HE believes it is unconstitutional is not a unilaterally decision that applies to everyone. Declaring a law unconstitutional is a unilateral decision that applies to everyone.
Why on earth did you just make up the idea that 'declaring' something applies to the entire country while the executive 'ignoring' something does not? Especially in this case, as ignoring the debt limit would most certainly apply to the entire country, haha.

If Biden ignores the debt ceiling he will issue a statement as to why he is doing that - some might even call that a 'declaration'. They are exactly the same thing.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
65,902
21,353
136
Ok so if SCOTUS rules tomorrow that John Roberts is the new president Biden should resign and Roberts is the new president? I assume the answer is no, meaning you agree with me.

If SCOTUS orders Biden to default they are ordering him to commit a blatant violation of the Constitution that he is oath bound to uphold. Should he violate the constitution because SCOTUS said he should?
Your strawman question doesn't support your statement that "We all agree that in some cases the president has the authority to ignore the Supreme Court." If the Supreme Court violates the Constitution, the Constitution has been broken. A President choosing to ignore the Supremes would be outside of the Constitution as well as the Constitution would at that point be a dead letter. It goes back to the point that having a Constitution requires an expectation of good faith on the part of constitutional officers. We've lost that.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

My question is very simple - is the president required to follow a SCOTUS ruling that replaces him with John Roberts? Yes or no? I am certain you think the answer to that question is no, meaning you agree with me that the president has the authority to ignore unconstitutional SCOTUS rulings.
It's a bullshit question, and you know it.. You are throwing a hypothetical out there that has no possible way for it to every possibly happen, so you can claim.. "see I was right".. It's not a legitimate or honest question, as you know there is no realistic avenue for the SCOTUS to every give such a ruling.

Why on earth did you just make up the idea that 'declaring' something applies to the entire country while the executive 'ignoring' something does not? Especially in this case, as ignoring the debt limit would most certainly apply to the entire country, haha.

If Biden ignores the debt ceiling he will issue a statement as to why he is doing that - some might even call that a 'declaration'. They are exactly the same thing.
Because a declaration from the President is an OFFICIAL act.. it's not like some chump giving an excuse or explanation on to why they did something.

Every action of the Government, be it the President, Congress, or the SCOTUS effects us all.. That is a given. There is a big difference between a President defending a decision, or giving an explanation, that he ignored a law because he believes the law being unconstitutional. Directing others to take a specific action, in this case, for the treasury to pay our countries bills (he's not telling every citizen to pay the countries bills). VS a President Declaring a law unconstitutional, which would be an OFFICIAL declaration, that voids the law across the land. Because of who he is, and the power he has, the term declare cannot be used as loosely as you are trying to defend. It takes on a completely different and stricter meaning than ignoring something when it come from the President as a declaration.

No. Ignoring it and declaring it unconstitutional are the same thing. He is ignoring it because it is unconstitutional, after all. My argument has always been exactly the same.

All three branches of government are equal - SCOTUS does not have the authority to order the executive to violate the constitution, as they are not in charge of the executive.
ignore and declare have different means.. you think otherwise, grab a dictionary and look them up.

All branches are equal , but they all have different authority granted by the constitution, for checks and balances purposes and so one branch can't become to powerful. Nobody said the Judicial branch can order the President to violate the constitution.. But now, you are saying the SCOTUS ruling a law unconstitutional or constitutional, has become an order for the Executive branch to violate the constitution. Where did that come from? It seems you are trying to remove the checks and balances that are built into the constitution.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
It's a bullshit question, and you know it.. You are throwing a hypothetical out there that has no possible way for it to every possibly happen, so you can claim.. "see I was right".. It's not a legitimate or honest question, as you know there is no realistic avenue for the SCOTUS to every give such a ruling.
You really don't want to admit I'm right here, haha. The question was deliberately extreme so that the point was simple to articulate and understand.

We all agree that the president has the power to ignore SCOTUS rulings that violate the constitution. This is not a controversial idea.

Because a declaration from the President is an OFFICIAL act.. it's not like some chump giving an excuse to why they did something.

Every action of the Government, be it the President, Congress, or the SCOTUS effects us all.. That is a given. There is a big difference between a President defending a decision, or giving an explanation, that he ignored a law because he believes the law being unconstitutional. Directing others to take a specific action, in this case, for the treasury to pay our countries bills. VS a President Declaring a law unconstitutional, which would be an OFFICIAL declaration, that voids the law. Because of who he is, and the power he has, the term declare is cannot be used as loosely as you are trying to defend. It takes on a completely different and stricter meaning than ignore.
You made this up out of thin air.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
31,926
20,891
136
Can people here that lean right, why is not passing a clean debt limit increase an issue for you only when a Democrat is in the White House?
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
You really don't want to admit I'm right here, haha. The question was deliberately extreme so that the point was simple to articulate and understand.

We all agree that the president has the power to ignore SCOTUS rulings that violate the constitution. This is not a controversial idea.


You made this up out of thin air.
You are not arguing in good faith. It's a bullshit question.. something I would expect from a few particular people on this board, but not from you.

NO, I didn't pull anything out of thin air. Words and actions take on different meanings when they come from someone an official capacity, specially those of the President.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
31,268
13,041
136
You really don't want to admit I'm right here, haha. The question was deliberately extreme so that the point was simple to articulate and understand.

We all agree that the president has the power to ignore SCOTUS rulings that violate the constitution. This is not a controversial idea.


You made this up out of thin air.
If your hypothetical were to ever happen it’s not a matter of what can the president do, its a matter of whether our constitution based democracy is over. The only appropriate move if that were to happen would be the removal of the justices via congressional impeachment. If that doesn’t happen then at that point it doesn’t matter what the president does, the war is over and move will be power a power grab.

The founding fathers did discuss this issue but even Jefferson agreed that there needed to be a final arbiter of the constitution and laws. His concern, which is proving to be real, is that the Supreme Court would rule against the majority of the peoples wishes. The solution isn’t to weaken the courts power but for congress to put a check on them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
You are not arguing in good faith. It's a bullshit question.. something I would expect from a few particular people on this board, but not from you.
As usual on here people think I'm just fine until I disagree with them, at which point they decide I'm a liar. It's okay to be wrong sometimes!

NO, I didn't pull anything out of thin air. Words and actions take on different meanings when they come from someone an official capacity, specially those of the President.
Yes, you did.

The closest thing to what you're talking about is a presidential proclamation but those are not legally binding outside of the executive branch and they could never be used to invalidate a law. They could be used to say the president will not follow a law because he finds it to be unconstitutional but well, now we're back to my original point that declaring he won't follow a law and just not following a law are the same thing.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
9,601
4,377
136
Presidents can/have/should ignore SCOTUS decisions when they believe it's a ruling they deem unconstitutional. It's an unwritten check on the judiciary, just like judicial review is an unwritten check on executive/legislative.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
31,926
20,891
136
Constitutionality?
Pretty damn simple, most recently Congress passed a bill to spend this money. That's it. Case closed.
It is the President's duty to enact the law of the land, as expressed to us by the majority of Congress. Adhering to an older law regarding debt limit would be a violation of the President's duties.
If I'm not mistaken isn't the President required to uphold the Constitution not a particular law. People who enforce the law have discretion, like not arresting Rosa Parks for riding in the front of the bus. Southerners kinda failed that test.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
65,902
21,353
136
If I'm not mistaken isn't the President required to uphold the Constitution not a particular law. People who enforce the law have discretion, like not arresting Rosa Parks for riding in the front of the bus. Southerners kinda failed that test.
Rosa Parks getting arrested was essential to overturning an unjust law. One has to create a test case to get a law thrown out. Not enforcing laws law enforcement doesn't like without a test case is equivalent to jury nullification and is really bad precedent. Not enforcing a stupid law because law enforcement has higher priorities makes sense. Not enforcing laws because law enforcement doesn't like the law is not good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
As usual on here people think I'm just fine until I disagree with them, at which point they decide I'm a liar. It's okay to be wrong sometimes!


Yes, you did.

The closest thing to what you're talking about is a presidential proclamation but those are not legally binding outside of the executive branch and they could never be used to invalidate a law. They could be used to say the president will not follow a law because he finds it to be unconstitutional but well, now we're back to my original point that declaring he won't follow a law and just not following a law are the same thing.
I didn't say you a liar. But your question is dishonest and manipulative. You are trying to force one specific answer by using a loaded question based on an outrageous and impossible situation, or rather a question based on an untruth because there is no avenue for what you claim to happen. That's like you saying you can run and jump a long distance, with me disagreeing with you. And to "prove" you can't run and jump a long distance, I ask you a rhetorical question (just like your question) , "can you run and jump the grand canyon?" If you answer no, which is the only possible answer, then it must mean you can't run and jump a long distance, making it appear I was right. It's a forced answer based on bullshit and does not prove a thing.. As you where already told by another user, it's a strawman..

So.. now we are changing it up to Biden declaring he won't follow a law? What happened to Biden declaring a law unconstitutional? Completely two different statements that are completely different in meaning that do not mean the same thing. The fact that you keep changing your argument, saying different things that have different meanings, makes it appear, you are not arguing in good faith.. so, take your own advice.. it's okay to be wrong sometimes.

With that said, this where I am going to step out of this particular argument, and just say we will just have to agree to disagree, because we will just keep going around and around.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
I didn't say you a liar. But your question is dishonest and manipulative.
'I didn't say you are a liar, just that you are dishonest and do not argue in good faith.'

lol.

You are trying to force one specific answer by using a loaded question based on an outrageous and impossible situation, or rather a question based on an untruth. That's like you saying you can run and jump a long distance, with me disagreeing with you. So I then then I ask you a rhetorical question (just like your question) , can you run and jump the grand canyon? If you answer no, which is the only possible answer, then it must mean you can't run and jump a long distance. It's a forced answer based on bullshit and does not prove a thing.. As you where already told by another user, it's a strawman..
Definitely not. A lot of people here don't seem to understand what a straw man is. A straw man is when someone deliberately mischaracterizes another's argument to make it easier to defeat. I did not do that.

Using extreme scenarios is often helpful to clarify a point, and the point here was that the president can (and should!) defy unconstitutional SCOTUS orders. This is relevant because any ruling to keep the debt ceiling would be an unconstitutional order. You just don't like it because it means you have to admit I'm right and you're too dug in to back down. I understand you don't like that but that's your problem, not mine.

So.. now we are changing it up to Biden declaring he won't follow a law? What happened to Biden declaring a law unconstitutional?
As already stated those are the same thing. He would be saying he won't follow it because it is unconstitutional. How is this hard to understand?

Completely two different statements that are completely different in meaning and two different arguments. The fact that you keep changing your argument, saying different things that have different meanings, shows you are not arguing in good faith.. so, take your own advice.. it's okay to be wrong sometimes.
If you would like to quote what posts of mine you believe to be inconsistent then feel free.

My argument has remained exactly the same. In case it needs to be repeated it's this: Biden should declare the debt limit is unconstitutional and that he will not abide by it. If SCOTUS rules that he must he should ignore their ruling as that ruling would be ordering him to violate the constitution.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
16,729
14,815
136
What Biden should do is nullify the Constitution and say it's invalid post civil war because it's clear that the Constitution is broken and the southern states are a failed experiment and their existence is unconstitutional. Those states have proven to be too uncivilized for modern society.

Let them secede and make this country better again. Maybe even great.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY