4 ms·

The fact that we, as a nation, are still talking about the debt limit is proof that no one with any authority actually believes this theory. If everyone agrees

The fact that we, as a nation, are still talking about the debt limit is proof that no one with any authority actually believes this theory. If everyone agrees a gun is not loaded, no one cares who is holding it or where it is pointed.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The fact that we, as a nation, are still talking about the debt limit is proof that no one with any authority actually believes this theory. No, its proof that no one has thought that it the best choice given the then-current political situation was to test it. Given that Executive/Congressional relations rely on working relationships, and that a successful challenge (by the Executive, Congress would never be the party to challenge) rather than making a deal where it is possible has the potential to poison that relationship and sink a President’s legislative agenda, there is a strong incentive not topush the issue, irrespective of the merits, except in the worst conceivable pre-existing relation between a President and a faction holding the power to obstruct debt limit increases in at least one house. (This is a similar reason to why you see adherence to the War Powers Act even by administrations that have characterized it as an unconstitutional usurpation of inherent executive power on the part of Congress, that has only the legal effect – where it facially limits the President – of a non-binding request by Congress.)
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  > No, its proof that no one has thought that it the best choice given the then-current political situation was to test it. Yes, finally you understand what I’m trying to say. It is still true that no one thinks it is a good choice to interpret the law this way. Because if we do interpret it this way, the Republicans don’t get to demand policy changes in return for a limit raise. If we do interpret it this way, the Democrats don’t get to shout that the Republicans are holding a gun to the world economy’s head. Everyone with power still wants that particular gun to be loaded. The only folks who think this theory might be real are a few egghead professors and some C-grade political strategists.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Yes, finally you understand what I’m trying to say. It is still true that no one thinks it is a good choice to interpret the law this way. No, you are confusing legal interpretation with political calculations of whether to put the interpretation to the test. Not understanding the difference means not understanding why the evolving polarization between the parties making putting it to the test more likely.
    - snowwrestler 4y ago
      The parties are not polarized on this issue! They both believe the debt limit must be raised by Congress.
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        This simply isn't correct. Both parties may think that it is the path of least resistance to a particular political debate is to have congress raise the debt ceiling, but characterizing either party as having a solidified interpretation of the legal necessity of those actions is silly, it's not really a thing either party has taken a solid position on. As we saw in the Trump presidency, lots of things that are or were done as "norms" aren't necessary, and violating those norms was completely legal and, in some ways, extremely powerful and expedient for the Trump white house. (the most relevant of these being that Trump bypassed the appointments clause for many positions by having acting heads run certain institutions for months or years without senate confirmation)

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The fact that we, as a nation, are still talking about the debt limit is proof that no one with any authority actually believes this theory. No, its proof that no one has thought that it the best choice given the then-current political situation was to test it. Given that Executive/Congressional relations rely on working relationships, and that a successful challenge (by the Executive, Congress would never be the party to challenge) rather than making a deal where it is possible has the potential to poison that relationship and sink a President’s legislative agenda, there is a strong incentive not topush the issue, irrespective of the merits, except in the worst conceivable pre-existing relation between a President and a faction holding the power to obstruct debt limit increases in at least one house. (This is a similar reason to why you see adherence to the War Powers Act even by administrations that have characterized it as an unconstitutional usurpation of inherent executive power on the part of Congress, that has only the legal effect – where it facially limits the President – of a non-binding request by Congress.)

snowwrestler 4y ago
> No, its proof that no one has thought that it the best choice given the then-current political situation was to test it. Yes, finally you understand what I’m trying to say. It is still true that no one thinks it is a good choice to interpret the law this way. Because if we do interpret it this way, the Republicans don’t get to demand policy changes in return for a limit raise. If we do interpret it this way, the Democrats don’t get to shout that the Republicans are holding a gun to the world economy’s head. Everyone with power still wants that particular gun to be loaded. The only folks who think this theory might be real are a few egghead professors and some C-grade political strategists.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Yes, finally you understand what I’m trying to say. It is still true that no one thinks it is a good choice to interpret the law this way. No, you are confusing legal interpretation with political calculations of whether to put the interpretation to the test. Not understanding the difference means not understanding why the evolving polarization between the parties making putting it to the test more likely.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    The parties are not polarized on this issue! They both believe the debt limit must be raised by Congress.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      This simply isn't correct. Both parties may think that it is the path of least resistance to a particular political debate is to have congress raise the debt ceiling, but characterizing either party as having a solidified interpretation of the legal necessity of those actions is silly, it's not really a thing either party has taken a solid position on. As we saw in the Trump presidency, lots of things that are or were done as "norms" aren't necessary, and violating those norms was completely legal and, in some ways, extremely powerful and expedient for the Trump white house. (the most relevant of these being that Trump bypassed the appointments clause for many positions by having acting heads run certain institutions for months or years without senate confirmation)