The Debt “Ceiling” is Unconstitutional

Article I empowers Congress with budgetary authority over the federal government, which it exercises by passing a budget and appropriations acts. That is where Congress determines how much money to spend.

The debt ceiling then tells the executive branch not to pay the bills that Congress already incurred through the budget and appropriations bills if those bills exceed the government’s existing revenue and credit. It is nothing more than a political lever that Republicans abuse whenever they want to pretend to care about fiscal responsibility. (They had no problem increasing the debt limit for Trump as he irresponsibly spent us into more and more debt.)

The debt ceiling should be eliminated. The administration should challenge it in court, SCOTUS should strike it down as unconstitutional, and America should move on dealing with real problems rather than these self-inflicted manufactured ones.

 

Given the political stuffing of the Supreme Court, this poor old country mouse considers nothing constitutional or unconstitutional until the Supreme Court has ruled on it. I've no idea what logic the Court majority will use to promote this or that ideological concept these days.

The slow destruction of confidence in our governmental institutions continues apace. The words and actions of those elected or appointed to the institutions seem to be as damaging as attacks by those on the outside.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

First, the debt ceiling does not prevent the federal government from paying its bills. It prevents new additional spending that incurs new bills. Secondly, if the ceiling were unconstitutional then why wasn't it abolished back when Senator Obama argued to extend the ceiling for GW Bush?

 

The national debt at this moment is $31.7 trillion. If you assume a percent interest of 3%, that means that nearly one third of our annual tax revenue is required just to keep up with the interest payments.

The debt is nearly $248,000 per taxpayer. We are drowning in debt and no one with a lick of sense would run their household this way.

We have to stop spending. I don't just blame democrats. I blame both parties.

This is an interesting page. I have it book marked.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (usdebtclock.org)

 

first, you are wrong. the debt ceiling prevents the payment of existing bills, and has no effect on budgets or appropriations, only payments.

i would support a balanced budget with dramatic cuts to defense but an increase in law enforcement on fraud, tax evasion, and telemarketing (which should be a capital offense.)

 

Hmm... If congress establishes a debt ceiling, congress has the right to do so under article 1. The executive are required to follow the budget. The executive don't have the power to overspend in any provision of article 2. There is nothing unconstitutional about congress defining a debt ceiling. Period.

 

Hmm... your statement is entirely non factual. I suspect you've been spending too much time on MSNBC again...

 

Right now, China could whip our butt and you want to make dramatic cuts to defense. We are already getting low on munitions because we are sending so much to the Ukraine.

I believe we should limit our involvement in foreign wars. However, our military is in bad shape already.

 

back on the ignore list for you.

 

the executive is responsible for paying the debts incurred by the congress' appropriations, isn't it?

 

of course china could "whip our butt." hell, trump surrendered to afghanastan. but our defense dept could blow up their continent in hours with existing weapons.

peace is much cheaper than the current policy of using million dollar cruise missiles to destroy nomad tents.

 

I thought you put me on ignore... Again, read the constitution. It's very clear on how all of this works. I invite you to become informed.

 

The executive branch can only spend what Congress approves therefore our debt has been approved by Congress. It is Congress who passes the bills that allocate spending and borrowing.

 

The government is not paying the bills- you and I are. They work for us- or, that is what they are supposed to be doing. Part of that duty is financial prudence, which obviously gets no consideration at all. We do not have responsible people in power- or they would place their duty to the citizens above their addiction to spending money and grabbing power to take more and more money from the citizens to feed it.

Debt ceilings are an effort to limit that abuse. The particular way they go about it may or may not meet legal policy- but the need for it is critical to the future of the nation, and of the people.

It would seem reasonable to expect government to operate on a specific and fixed share of the national income, and I would love to see an amendment to the constitution dictating that, with the need to surpass it in emergency needing approval by the voters. There has to be a limit. Prudent people manage their own financial affairs by living within their means. Those who cannot- become parasites looking for new sources of revenue they can get without earning it. Government owes us prudent and conservative financial management.

 

So you agree with me. Thanks

 

There is nothing unconstitutional in the least with congress, which has plenary control over spending and finance, saying how much money can be borrowed. The debt ceiling was raised 28 times under Democrat presidents in the last 50 years or so, 5 or 6 times under Obama IIRC, although there was a lot of gnashing of teeth prior.

 

Biden pulled us out of Afghanistan. If he did not agree with Trump that we should pull out, he could have stayed. I agreed that we should withdraw from Afghanistan.

Blowing up their continent means nuclear war. No one survives a nuclear war in the long run. China will whip us in a conventional war. It would likely not be on our continent, but any large scale war with China involving our allies will eventually involve us.

 

generally i (and most prudent people) agree with most of your post.

1. the emergency requiring the people to vote? can an election be organized in a timely manner to meet any emergency requiring action? or are you merely placing an impossible barrier?

2. i know that we think of different people when we speak of parasites (as your last paragraph). the banks and corporations seeking bail outs must be politely and firmly referred to your amendment for refusal. i have no problem with helping persons (excluding corporations) with the bottom layer of maslow's hierarchy of needs or with education (teach a man to fish ...) but i do draw a line somewhere before cosmetic surgery or gender affirming surgery.

 

Our unborn great great grandchildren are being stolen from. Defending egregious levels of irresponsibility and corruption is the same as supporting it.

 

I think you should tell someone about this. They've been doing it wrong all these years.

 

trump surrendered at doha. i agree with biden and with @kriman that the troops must get out, (and what i observed was an orderly withdrawal with minimum casualties.)

repub presidents (from lincoln and the sioux war through the p5+1 agreement, casually discarded by trump) tend to regard treaties and international agreements as optional. democrats take our alliances more seriously.

would trump have withdrawn from afghanistan? a question for a new op. but the answer is "only if there was something in it for trump." the same generals would have planned and executed such a withdrawal no matter who was president in 2021.

so no, i do not advocate nuclear destruction of asia and (as collateral damage) the earth)

there is a name for the troops bred to fight a land war in asia. we are the baby boom, and are now too old for that mission (which was beyond us even in our youth 50 years ago.) the only way to contemplate a war on that scale is nuclear, so give peace a chance.

 

That withdraw was a disaster which could have been avoided. They should not have abandoned the air base and used a civilian airfield with no security. They should have evacuated the civilians first and they should have destroyed or recovered all equipment and munitions. That advise was given to Biden by the military before he gave the orders to evacuate.

The question is whether China will give peace a chance.

 

I agree- The difficulty of having an election to approve an emergency funding presents a problem, no doubt. The point is actually to say that government must at some point stop spending like drunken kids with daddy's credit card, and be responsible to the people they work for. The only ways to do that is with limits that are enforced, and codes of ethics that carry reliable punishment. The how we do it is open to discussion, but the need for it is critical. We've got to find a way.

I've considered the potential of using a vote system that relies on the internet or phone systems to get public positions on such things fast. This too is too easily abused, and we don't have the will to raise the bar and consequences to clean up anything at this point.
We are dealing with an absolute plague of dishonor, an abandonment of honor and self-respect, and government is both part of it and tolerant of it. That makes any working solution very difficult to achieve- and all of us pay the price.

 

do not get me wrong. i think we need to increase the number of troops, by conscription if necessary. compare the withdrawal from afghanastan to any equivalent military defeat in history. i think you will find it was not nearly as bad as the withdrawal of hannibal from italy or napoleon or hitler from russia, or dunkirk. or baatan, or saigon, or the retreat of the russians or east india company from afghanastan.

my father was at the chosan reservoir; i learned about the red army from his nightmares. we left people and equipment there for sure.

in fact, few military operations proceed as smoothly as the afghan withdrawal, any "monday morning quarterback" who says they can do better makes me laugh.

the game must be over. time for the experts to suit up and tell you how they would have won if only ........

 

You would have to abolish the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 for this to happen. The act established the aggregate limit and has been used ever since. That act defined our debt ceiling through the ordinary and necessary clause of Article 1, Section 8. However, if you eliminate this bill, then each time there was a deficit, then Congress through the budget would have to also authorize the amount of debt to be sold in order to raise the additional revenue. That was more cumbersome by the time the 1980s to the present than it was in the past.