3 ms·

> 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

> 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

> 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)