What happens if President Obama directs the government to ignore the debt ceiling?
Suppose, on the day when the ceiling is actually reached, President Obama addresses the nation and says that his oath to protect both the constitution and the best interests of the country demands that he “suspend” (i.e., ignore) the debt ceiling. What happens next?
After all, there is some question about the constitutionality of the debt ceiling provision.
Will banks stop honoring government checks? Will international payments be uncollectable? Who will enforce that?
I first want to address the process question, separately from the politics and the optics.
Does someone bring suit? Does congress demand an opinion from the Supreme Court? Who argues it? Who decides it? If I remember my civics correctly, responsibility for enforcing any order lies in the executive branch, which is headed by the President. So if the President, acting in his formal capacity, orders that payments continue, how would such payments be stopped and by whom?
Is this a way to the call the GOP’s bluff?
the president doesn’t actually have the power to ignore duly-enacted laws. So if he starts directing Treasury to issue debt not in accordance with the debt ceiling, I’d think there would be some question as to whether the debt was valid. This is a variant of the “signing statement” issue that arose during the Bush years – but it’s quite a volatile one, since it’s hard to predict how the financial markets would react to something like this.
However, the question of how to get the validity of the debt ceiling into the courts is not straightforward. Congress cannot demand that the Supreme Court (or some other federal court) give an advisory opinion; they don’t and can’t do that. And it’s unclear who would have standing to sue over that question.
For reasons I have already explained, though, I think it would be a bad idea to venture down this path.
I agree it’s a bad idea.
Is it worse than defaulting?
Is it worse than caving?
The best idea is for the GOP to come to the table. If they won’t do that (and they give EVERY indication that they will not), which is worse?
I agree that this is a variant of the “signing statement”. I think it’s better than provoking the utter chaos that will follow a default.
and get away with it. Obama is subject to the separation of powers.
The President took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that clearly gives levy and appropriation powers to the Congress.
It would be like the CEO of a corporation announcing, to hell with the Board of directors, he’s issuing his own directives. Behaving as you describe might actually an impeachable offense (Opinion, David?)
We will take as read your reply that Republicans constitute an enemy, foreign or domestic.
… is whatever 50%+1 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate think it is. There’s no judicial review or other third-party oversight of impeachment. It’s a purely political process.
Congress is free to raise taxes to get us below the debt ceiling, and they’re free to change budgets moving forward.
But, POTUS has the ability to spend money which is in his budgets, and his executive folks have quite a bit of latitude to borrow and spend. Does the debt ceiling law trump other laws [like other portions of the budget, etc.]?
Only what the Congress allocates to the Executive. S/he can PROPOSE a budget, but Congress can say – that’s nice – and leave it to curl up and die on the Floor. All spending bills originate in the House.
POTUS can’t spend money which isn’t appropriated – so a refusal to raise the debt ceiling WOULD trump that in a way. The Executive’s ability to borrow and spend is constrained by what is actually in the coffers, and there’s no unlimited ability to borrow.
And before you scheme how to avoid this, consider that you are also giving PResident Cheney this power.
the monies that Congress has already appropriated toward executive branch functions. I’m not referring to a budget proposal.
Additionally, I’m not scheming nor proposing, and thanks for the reminder that Republicans can be president [I have a national debt to remind me of that].
If so, POTUS should simply stop spending.
Across the board. Military, medical, discretionary, everything – in an equal share.
Refusing to pay the military? Stopping social security checks? Turning off medicare? Defaulting on debt service of existing debts?
This is insanity. This is the grownup equivalent of a toddler’s temper tantrum. I can’t believe that anybody with a room-temperature IQ is proposing this.
Those who support this ridiculous nonsense deserve nothing but contempt.
US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 4:
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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
US Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
With the “debt ceiling” statute on the books now and in the past, Congress has gone against the plain text of the Constitution. And the Constitution trumps statutes.
Obama should ignore this illegal statute and bring it to the Courts.
A big part of the rulings of the constructionist judges is to never strike down bad laws or rule against local elites because to do so is activist.
If there is a Constitutional Crisis, so be it. Viva La Revolution.
All these GOP SOB’s care about is ruining the economy completely in order to get a GOP President. You don’t have to be pro-Obama to see that you don’t want people like that in charge of the nation, but we had “Citizens United” and the Baggers, and these people’s seats are purchased with campaign money.
Let the games begin.