4 ms·

Following the debt limit rule is clearly more illegal than following the budget. With following the debt limit, the president would essentially get sole discret

by mint2 3y ago

Following the debt limit rule is clearly more illegal than following the budget. With following the debt limit, the president would essentially get sole discretion as to what programs to fund or cut. That would essentially take all power away from congress. Congress passed the budgets that got the debt, the president can’t pick and choose what to fund as some run around of all the laws and separation of power we have.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Following the debt limit rule is clearly more illegal than following the budget. Not sure where you get that. While there is case law suggesting that budget spending is generally mandatory with certain exceptions, the Constitution itself does not expressly dictate that – it prohibits spending non-appropriated funds, but does not explicitly prohibit refusing to spend appropriated funds. You could make a textual argument that spending funds in violation of laws passed by Congress is “more illegal” than not spending funds directed in those laws. > With following the debt limit, the president would essentially get sole discretion as to what programs to fund or cut. I can see why that might be undesirable from a particular set of values, but I don’t see that that makes it “clearly illegal” in the only sense that matters, which is, “indisputably what the Supreme Court would rule should a dispute come to it.” > That would essentially take all power away from congress. No, because Congress could always pass a debt limit increase (even over a Presidential veto) that eliminated the conflict and took that power away from the President. > Congress passed the budgets that got the debt, the president can’t pick and choose what to fund as some run around of all the laws and separation of power we have. By the same token, Congress passed the debt limit, and the President can’t pick and choose what limits to ignore as some end run around all the laws and separation of power we have.

by mint2 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Following the debt limit rule is clearly more illegal than following the budget. Not sure where you get that. While there is case law suggesting that budget spending is generally mandatory with certain exceptions, the Constitution itself does not expressly dictate that – it prohibits spending non-appropriated funds, but does not explicitly prohibit refusing to spend appropriated funds. You could make a textual argument that spending funds in violation of laws passed by Congress is “more illegal” than not spending funds directed in those laws. > With following the debt limit, the president would essentially get sole discretion as to what programs to fund or cut. I can see why that might be undesirable from a particular set of values, but I don’t see that that makes it “clearly illegal” in the only sense that matters, which is, “indisputably what the Supreme Court would rule should a dispute come to it.” > That would essentially take all power away from congress. No, because Congress could always pass a debt limit increase (even over a Presidential veto) that eliminated the conflict and took that power away from the President. > Congress passed the budgets that got the debt, the president can’t pick and choose what to fund as some run around of all the laws and separation of power we have. By the same token, Congress passed the debt limit, and the President can’t pick and choose what limits to ignore as some end run around all the laws and separation of power we have.