Debt Limitapalooza 2023!

[Fanatical Meat]

Amazing ...beans are political now.

Edit: @blackangst1 sorry I quoted you in error

 

[fskimospy]

Because Biden doesn't have the authority per the constitution to rule a law unconstitutional. That authority is only granted to the judicial branch.. Sad, but true. All Biden can do, on the subject of constitutionality is take it to court. A President can Veto a bill rather than signing it into law, and can claim it's unconstitutional, as his reason for the Veto, but that is the extent of it. Anything else is just words without any authority.

That is not true. Like, at all.

 

[Dave_5k]

That is not true. Like, at all.

More explicitly, based on multiple Supreme Court rulings, the President has the authority to decline to follow laws that he believes are unconstitutional, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in Myers (1926), and subsequent cases. More recently (Freytag v. Commissioner, 1991), this was upheld again - including the statement from the Justices agreeing "the president has the power... even to disregard [laws] when they are unconstitutional"

While the White House is extremely hesitant to do so, Biden theoretically has the authority to direct the Treasury to ignore the debt ceiling if he believes it is unconstitutional (or, if he believes Congress's actions are making unconstitutional doubt about the validity of the public debt)

The Debt Limit and the Constitution: How the Fourteenth Amendment Forbids Fiscal Obstructionism | Duke Law Journal

Abstract The statutory debt limit restricts the funds that can be borrowed to meet the government's financial obligations. On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment's Public Debt Clause mandates that all the government's financial obligations be met. This Note argues that the Public Debt...

dlj.law.duke.edu

 

[NWRMidnight]

That is not true. Like, at all.

You are welcome to show us where it states where in the constitution that the President can declare a law unconstitutional, which is unilateral..

More explicitly, based on multiple Supreme Court rulings, the President has the authority to decline to follow laws that he believes are unconstitutional, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in Myers (1926), and subsequent cases. More recently (Freytag v. Commissioner, 1991), this was upheld again - including the statement from the Justices agreeing "the president has the power... even to disregard [laws] when they are unconstitutional"

While the White House is extremely hesitant to do so, Biden theoretically has the authority to direct the Treasury to ignore the debt ceiling if he believes it is unconstitutional (or, if he believes Congress's actions are making unconstitutional doubt about the validity of the public debt)

The Debt Limit and the Constitution: How the Fourteenth Amendment Forbids Fiscal Obstructionism | Duke Law Journal

Abstract The statutory debt limit restricts the funds that can be borrowed to meet the government's financial obligations. On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment's Public Debt Clause mandates that all the government's financial obligations be met. This Note argues that the Public Debt...

dlj.law.duke.edu

There is a difference between declining to follow a law believing it unconstitutional, and declaring it unconstitutional. Declaring a law unconstitutional is a unilateral ruling, which is not a power of the President. The President has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional, that authority falls to the judicial branch, specifically the SCOTUS.

You are correct that he can choose not to follow it however.

 

[KMFJD]

We need to pay down our debt to zero. The only way to do it is to shut down the government to get concessions so it can be used as cover by dems to agree to what they know needs to be done - across the board spending cuts over all programs.

You're free to cut the IRS an additional check to help pay of the debt

 

[fskimospy]

You are welcome to show us where it states where in the constitution that the President can declare a law unconstitutional, which is unilateral..



There is a difference between declining to follow a law believing it unconstitutional, and declaring it unconstitutional. Declaring a law unconstitutional is a unilateral ruling, which is not a power of the President. The President has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional, that authority falls to the judicial branch, specifically the SCOTUS.

You are correct that he can choose not to follow it however.

You’re welcome to show us where in the constitution that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, haha.

 

[ivwshane]

You’re welcome to show us where in the constitution that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, haha.

Article III section 2

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Broken clock… Blind squirrel… applies here.

Why shit on a wonderful moment?

 

[pmv]

Article III section 2

Who gets to interpret what that means?

In fact, where in the Constitution does it say who determines what the constitution means, and in particular where does it say who gets to determine what the bit that says who gets to determine what it means, means?

(And then, where does it say who determines what the bit that says who gets to determine what it means, means, means?)

 

[fskimospy]

Article III section 2

Can you quote the passage for me?

 

[fskimospy]

Who gets to interpret what that means?

In fact, where in the Constitution does it say who determines what the constitution means, and in particular where does it say who gets to determine what the bit that says who gets to determine what it means, means?

(And then, where does it say who determines what the bit that says who gets to determine what it means, means, means?)

There is absolutely nowhere in the constitution that says the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. The Supreme Court took that power for itself early on and it’s a norm in the US but there is no constitutional basis for it.

 

[ivwshane]

Can you quote the passage for me?

Clause 1 Cases or Controversies
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2 Supreme Court Jurisdiction
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Which is of course preceded by section 1:

Section 1 Vesting Clause
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Now if you’d like to redefine what judicial power means then have at it but it’s pretty clear.

 

[fskimospy]

Which is of course preceded by section 1:


Now if you’d like to redefine what judicial power means then have at it but it’s pretty clear.

So in other words we agree that it’s nowhere in the constitution and that’s just how people have interpreted things.

So back to my original point - the constitution says just as much about the president getting to declare things unconstitutional as it does about the Supreme Court.

 

[fskimospy]

All three branches of the US government are tasked with interpreting the constitution. If the president genuinely thinks that the Supreme Court is directing him to act in violation of the constitution, as an elective default would be, it is not only his option but his duty to refuse.

 

[pmv]

Which is of course preceded by section 1:


Now if you’d like to redefine what judicial power means then have at it but it’s pretty clear.

Doesn't seem that clear to me. It doesn't clearly say "the Supreme Court can strike from the law books any laws passed by the legislature that it deems to be in conflict with this Constitution".

Just looking it up, it struck me that this comment by Madison hasn't aged well, given recent events.

If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't seem that clear to me. It doesn't clearly say "the Supreme Court can strike from the law books any laws passed by the legislature that it deems to be in conflict with this Constitution".

Just looking it up, it struck me that this comment by Madison hasn't aged well, given recent events.

Presumably we would all agree that if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that the constitution demanded John Roberts become president that Biden can and should ignore his ruling because the Supreme Court just ruled in violation of the constitution. Ruling that the US must default is an equally plain letter violation of the 14th amendment and so it should be similarly ignored.

 

[pcgeek11]

Broken clock… Blind squirrel… applies here.

Great post! Thanks for the useful information. It means so much.

 

[pcgeek11]

Why shit on a wonderful moment?

It's OK we all know why...

 

[ivwshane]

Doesn't seem that clear to me. It doesn't clearly say "the Supreme Court can strike from the law books any laws passed by the legislature that it deems to be in conflict with this Constitution".

Just looking it up, it struck me that this comment by Madison hasn't aged well, given recent events.

So when it says: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution“.

What exactly do you think that means?

Second question: are you an originalist where the exact words had to be written to derive meaning and intent from the constitution?

Third question: if you answered yes to #2, which framers or supported documents of the constitution are you using as your basis to support the claim that the constitution was written to be rigidly interpreted?

 

[pmv]

So when it says: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution“.

What exactly do you think that means?

Second question: are you an originalist where the exact words had to be written to derive meaning and intent from the constitution?

Third question: if you answered yes to #2, which framers or supported documents of the constitution are you using as your basis to support the claim that the constitution was written to be rigidly interpreted?

I have no idea what it means. Clearly it requires an expert class to interpret what this stuff means - and given the way that expert class, like all expert classes, inevitably has its own agenda, it just makes me wonder if there's any great benefit in having a written constitution in the first place.

I'm not an "originalist" I'm a "Constitutions are greatly over-rated"-ist. The very fact you have invented terms like "originalist" to describe which particular school of Constitutional-interpretation people subscribe to, shows how little benefit Constitutions are. You still end up with different factions arguing for different things.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no idea what it means. Clearly it requires an expert class to interpret what this stuff means - and given the way that expert class, like all expert classes, inevitably has its own agenda, it just makes me wonder if there's any great benefit in having a written constitution in the first place.

I'm not an "originalist" I'm a "Constitutions are greatly over-rated"-ist. The very fact you have invented terms like "originalist" to describe which particular school of Constitutional-interpretation people subscribe to, shows how little benefit Constitutions are. You still end up with different factions arguing for different things.

Originalism is one of the dumbest legal doctrines ever created. It is essentially judging based on an Ouija board.

 

[ivwshane]

I have no idea what it means. Clearly it requires an expert class to interpret what this stuff means - and given the way that expert class, like all expert classes, inevitably has its own agenda, it just makes me wonder if there's any great benefit in having a written constitution in the first place.

I'm not an "originalist" I'm a "Constitutions are greatly over-rated"-ist. The very fact you have invented terms like "originalist" to describe which particular school of Constitutional-interpretation people subscribe to, shows how little benefit Constitutions are. You still end up with different factions arguing for different things.

Very true. I’ll rely on precedent myself and the will and needs of the people.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

 

[NWRMidnight]

All three branches of the US government are tasked with interpreting the constitution. If the president genuinely thinks that the Supreme Court is directing him to act in violation of the constitution, as an elective default would be, it is not only his option but his duty to refuse.

Nope.. Go read Article I (Legislative Branch) , Article II (Executive Branch), and Article III (Judicial Branch) of the constitution. It's a Checks and Balance system, and only 1 is give the a authority and responsibility to interpret the laws, and declare them unconstitutional, which is the Judicial Branch. To make it simple: Legislative Branch makes the laws, Executive Branch enforces the laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets the laws

All Branches are responsible for upholding the constitution, where we have the "HOPE" they understand and know the constitution. History has shown the courts strike down laws both the Legislative, and Execrative Branch has passed, "believing" they are constitutional, or that should be our belief, but now days, it's very questionable. Now, we have seen the SCOTUS over step their constitutional Authority in some of their rulings, specially this last couple years, with their rulings basically being legislation. Which is where the Legislative branch is supposed to use the checks and balance's built into the constitution to remove those justices... But because it serves the goals of to man of them, they don't!

You are correct, the President can refuse to follow a law, believing it is unconstitutional, but that is not the same as ruling a law unconstitutional, that is outside his power granted in the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Branches of the U.S. government | USAGov

Learn about the 3 branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. Understand how each branch of U.S. government provides checks and balances.

www.usa.gov

 

[fskimospy]

Nope.. Go read Article I (Legislative Branch) , Article II (Executive Branch), and Article III (Judicial Branch) of the constitution. It's a Checks and Balance system, and only 1 is give the a authority and responsibility to interpret the laws, and declare them unconstitutional, which is the Judicial Branch. To make it simple: Legislative Branch makes the laws, Executive Branch enforces the laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets the laws

All Branches are responsible for upholding the constitution, where we have the "HOPE" they understand and know the constitution. History has shown the courts strike down laws both the Legislative, and Execrative Branch has passed, "believing" they are constitutional, or that should be our belief, but now days, it's very questionable. Now, we have seen the SCOTUS over step their constitutional Authority in some of their rulings, specially this last couple years, with their rulings basically being legislation. Which is where the Legislative branch is supposed to use the checks and balance's built into the constitution to remove those justices... But because it serves the goals of to man of them, they don't!

You are correct, the President can refuse to follow a law, believing it is unconstitutional, but that is not the same as ruling a law unconstitutional, that is outside his power granted in the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Branches of the U.S. government | USAGov

Learn about the 3 branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. Understand how each branch of U.S. government provides checks and balances.

www.usa.gov

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.