Below is a slightly modified version of my column in The Hill on the call of Democratic members for President Joe Biden to circumvent Congress and simply raise the debt limit unilaterally. It is more than a flawed constitutional theory. It is an abandonment of the core premise of our constitutional system that each branch would jealously protect its own institutional interests and powers. It is reminiscent of when Democrats applauded wildly when President Barack Obama told them that he was going to circumvent Congress entirely after it refused to approve his immigration and environmental legislation. They were applauding their own institutional obsolescence. I called it a constitutional tipping point and now Democrats are asking to be effectively stripped of their core power over the purse.
Here is the column:
Roughly 25 years ago, many of us were shocked by the discovery of a home full of bodies of dozens of people laying in bunk beds, wearing jumpsuits and identical black-and-white Nike Decade sneakers. They were the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult who, with their leader, drank a lethal mix of phenobarbital and vodka to gain entry to “Heaven’s Gate” with the passing Hale-Bopp comet.
Few of us could understand how rational people could believe their leader that it was necessary to shed their earthly bodies to gain access to an orbiting alien space craft. Few would buy such a pitch, but these people did. Some of the men even castrated themselves as a sign of their faith.
This week, Heaven’s Gate came to mind as I watched members of Congress line up to take a step that runs against every assumption of self-preservation in Madisonian democracy: They sought to make themselves nonentities. They called upon President Joe Biden to reject their very institutional existence, discard the separation of powers and unilaterally borrow and spend federal money.
At one event, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released a letter to Biden on behalf of himself and nine Democratic senators “to urgently request that you prepare to exercise your authority under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.” He was joined in this by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), among others.
Obviously, these are not Nike-wearing cultists, but that only makes their actions all the more inexplicable. These are rational leaders whose desire to nullify their own existence would have seemed entirely implausible to the Framers.
A presidential “power of the purse,” however, is a fiction, only marginally more credible than the Hale-Bopp comet’s power to whisk human souls away into space.
Their argument for it is based on Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states, “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.”
The drafters of this amendment did not want Congress to simply dismiss its obligations to pay off the Union’s debts from the Civil War. Although the amendment is not limited to those debts, it has nothing to do with debt ceilings set by Congress. Default, after all, is not a denial of the validity of debt, but rather a refusal or failure to pay debts in time despite their validity.
Courts have long left it to the political branches to work out such differences in what is often a game of chicken with default. Moreover, as University of Virginia law professor Saikrishna Prakash recently pointed out, there is more than enough federal revenue coming in each month for Biden to avoid default by paying the interest on the debt under existing federal law. That may cause temporary problems for other spending priorities — acute problems, even — but it hardly rises to the level of a constitutional crisis.
Instead, these senators are suggesting that a president does not need congressional approval to borrow and spend trillions of dollars, even though the Constitution explicitly grants both of those powers to Congress alone. They also claim that, by demanding budget cuts as a condition of permitting further borrowing, the House is violating the 14th Amendment.
Of course, the Republican-controlled House views it differently. It has agreed to raise the debt ceiling if Biden reduces future spending. Keep in mind that the House was responding to a crippling deficit that increased by nearly $1 trillion in the first seven months of fiscal 2023.
The House was also responding to billions spent without congressional approval or support. That includes hundreds of billions in student debt forgiveness that Biden knew he could not get through Congress. Instead, he ordered it unilaterally.
So who is obstructing the payment of the debt? The White House could conceivably find a judge willing to intervene in a classic budget battle to give President Biden such unconstitutional authority, but it is unlikely to be sustained on appeal. And that may not matter. President Biden has previously taken actions that he admitted were unlikely to “pass constitutional muster” but believed “at a minimum, by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time while we’re getting [billions] out to people.” Yes, he said that publicly.
Biden is not the first president to disregard legislative authority. But these members of the legislative branch are beseeching their leader to ignore them and their constitutional authority. Indeed, the most important power given to Congress under Article I is the “power of the purse.” It was the ultimate control over government. Whatever entanglements or commitments a president may seek, he must ultimately get the Congress to go along.
George Mason captured that intent when he declared that “no branch of government should ever be able to combine the power of the sword with the power of the purse.”
This purported 14th Amendment loophole would reduce the separation of powers doctrine to junk bond status.
Barack Obama previously rejected this theory and said that Congress had to give him the authority to raise the debt limit.
Despite the contrary views of Obama and a host of constitutional law professors, President Biden appears emboldened by the idea. He recently made a public promise to Democrats that, while he was willing to negotiate with the Republicans, he would not agree to “anything of any consequence.”
Biden said that his support for this novel theory is a familiar name: Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe. When Biden announced that Tribe assured him of that he could act unilaterally, some of his White House counsel must have crawled into tight fetal positions.
It was Tribe who previously advised Biden that his Administration could reestablish an national eviction moratorium that the majority of the Supreme Court clearly viewed as unconstitutional. (It allowed the moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to expire since it had only days left). Biden then cited Tribe in calling for CDC to reimpose the moratorium . Biden admitted that his White House counsel and their preferred legal experts told him that the move was likely unconstitutional. However, he listened to Tribe at the urging of then Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was found to be unconstitutional for obvious reasons.
Madison believed that, despite party or ideological affiliations, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” He established a tripartite constitutional system where checks and balances would prevent the concentration of power in any one branch or in any one’s hands.
Whatever ambition is exhibited in this latest effort, it is far removed from the institutional interests that Madison hoped would prevail over partisan interests.
Yet members are lining up for this opportunity to gut Article I, negate their own power of the purse and create an effective government not only by one branch but by one man. It is a remarkable moment. They would be destroying Congress by their own hand — and Biden didn’t even have to give them new pairs of Nikes.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.
Dear Prof Turley,
The notion of a Unitary Executive Authority is old hat. Your colleague, Prof John Yoo, also sought to empower the president to explicitly override the will of Congress. “He inserted the phrase “ unitary executive ” into Bush’s signing statements attached to legislation, in which the president reserved the right to disobey any parts of congressional statutes he disagreed with.”
The unitary execiutive is a constitutional fact, All that is – which the constitution is explicit about, is tht all executive authority is vested in the president.
That does not grant the presidenjt or the executive power to override congress. It merely means that congress can not grant a power to the executive
without placing that power under the control of the president.
There are only a FEW instances in which the Courts have allowed Congress to quasi circumvent that – most notably the Federal Reserve – Which still has a chair that must be appointed by the president as well as most of the board.
Regardless, SCOTUS has allowed congress almost no power to create executive power that is not subject to the control of the president.
Everyone in the executive is answerable o the president.
That is what the unitary executive means.
Signing statements are something entirely different. They have almost no legal meaning.
At best they can be used by the courts in the same way that legislative history is. They can be used to establish the original intent of a law where there is no conflicting legislative history. But a president can not change a law through a signing statement.
The president can sign a law or he can veto it. His assent is normally necessary for the legislation to become law.
The veto power and the power to negotiate with congress are the presidents power to change the meaning of a law – not signing statements.
Bush is neither the first nor only president to issue signing statements.
And it has become routine for presidents to act entirely outside the law. Biden is constantly refusing to follow US law.
US law provides as an example for the legal immigration of immigrants. Immigrating any other way is illegal and by law results in deportation.
Yet, Biden is not enforcing that law, nor did he seek to have congress change the law when he had democrats in control.
. Signing statements are
According to your unitary executive theory, Biden can choose not to enforce certain laws thru the use of prosecutorial discretion. He has sole pardon power. Therefore he can exercise prosecutorial discretion on certain issues.
He could technically pardon all illegal immigrants of immigration violations if he wanted.
Because DHS, and INS, and ICE are all under the executive authority of the president he can order them to exercise prosecutorial discretion.
By that theory DHS Secretary can’t be impeached by congress it seems.
“According to your unitary executive theory,”
It is not my theory. It is the text of the constitution.
Article II S1 first paragraph very first words
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America
This means ALL powers int eh constitution given to the executive are powers of the president.
It means all powers that congress gives the executive are vested in the president.
It does NOT mean the president can make up powers as he please.
It just means that all legitimate executive powers are presidential powers.
It means that No portion of the executive branch can act independantly of the direction of the president.
It is also why the PRS means that the president can dispose of presidential records as he pleases – because when congress delegated the management of presidential records to the executive branch it delegated that power to the PRESIDENT.
“Biden can choose not to enforce certain laws thru the use of prosecutorial discretion.”
That has nothing to do with the unitary executive. Nor does it have anything to do with pardon power.
But to the extent that prosecutorial discretion exists, it is a power of the president.
There is absolutely no power of DOJ, the AG, or a US attorney that is not presidential power.
That is how the constitution is structured. It is like the military – all decisions and authority flow from the top down.
That does not mean the president must make every decision, but it means that no portion of the executive can act absent a delegation of power from the president.
“He has sole pardon power.” Different power.
Nor is it “Sole”. It is probably constitutional for congress to pardon via legislation.
But the presidential pardon power is directly from the constitution.
“Therefore he can exercise prosecutorial discretion on certain issues.”
Again Pardon power and prosecutorial discretion are NOT the same thing.
The president and everyone else in the federal government swore and oath to uphold the law and constitution.
The president can pardon, he can commute – both must be done by executive order.
Absent pardoning or commuting, he is otehrwise obligated to enforce the laws of the lend.
He can not pardon – without pardoning. he can not commute without commuting.
Prosecutorial discretion is NOT a constitutional or legislatively created power.
It is a creation of the courts – like qualified immunity and laches, and standing.
The courts not the constitution or law define the breadth of prosecutorial discretion.
“He could technically pardon all illegal immigrants of immigration violations if he wanted.”
There is debate over that – whether the power to commute or pardon includes mass pardon’s or commutation.
There is a valid argument that he must pardon or commute individually.
I do not know how the courts would decide that if it arose.
It is my view that pardons and commutations must be specific.
And that prosecutorial discretion is both narrow and specific.
That a prosecutor can not say – I will not prosecute all cases of crime X,
But that a prosecutor can say I will not prosecute this specific case because it will be very time consuming and expensive and I am unlikely to get a conviction.
Those are my positions.
But the final authority on those questions rests with the Supreme court.
“Because DHS, and INS, and ICE are all under the executive authority of the president he can order them to exercise prosecutorial discretion.”
First – the president absolutely can ORDER DHS to pardon or commute the sentence of any person.
Arguably he can order DHS to not enforce a law. But doing so via prosecutorial discretion rather than pardon power or commutation would be an impeachable offense. Frankly as Democrats have made pretty much anything into an impeachable offense – pardoning or commuting could be an impeachable offense too.
The Pardons would still be valid.
Absolutely Biden can pardon a long long long list of illegal immigrants individually. There is ZERO doubt that is within his power to do.
And having pardoned them – that pardon can not be undone by congress, or anything short of a constitutional amendment.
Conversely to the extent that prosecutorial discretion exists it is ALWAYS reversable. The next President can undo it.
Or Congress can undo it by legislation – or both.
To an extent this was somewhat addressed in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
“By that theory DHS Secretary can’t be impeached by congress it seems”
That is completely separate and false.
One of the things that essentially came up with faux Trump impeachment uno and dos, is that impeachment is not likely judicially reviewable.
While Congress is SUPPOSED to only impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, there is no enforcement mechanism.
The supreme court can not step in and say – Congress impeached for a reason that does not meet the constitutional requirement of “high crimes and misdemeanors”
I would presonally prefer if impeachment WAS appealable to the supreme court – if Scotus COULD say – that is not a high crime of misdeameanor.
But that is not how it is. Regardless, under no circumstance can the courts intervene on congresses determination of facts with regard to impeachment – even if they are wrong.
The house can impeach anyone in the executive – for any reason they wish.
That is not how it should be. But it is how it is.
There is no “just following orders” exception.
The president can put those in the executive branch between a rock and a hard place.
Working for the federal govenrment is not a right.
If you are a govenrment employee asked to do something you beleive is unconstitutional or illegal,
You must either do it, or resign. There is not an ignore it option.
A good example is the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre, where Nixon ordered the AG to fire the Special Counsel and the AG refused and resigned.
I beleive Nixon received nearly half a dozen resignations before someone did what he asked.
That also was part of Nixon’s articles of impeachment.
Riddle me this, John. What happens to the illegal alien after his crime of illegal entry into the country is pardoned? Deportation would be off the table, right? Then wouldn’t that be ‘amnesty’, allowing him (or any/everyone else with a Presidential pardon) to go anywhere, do anything, you know, like they do now, anyway? Surely the States would then have ‘standing’ to sue the President for dereliction of duty at the minimum.
Yes a presidential pardon is MORE than amnesty.
Regardless the fundimental issue is can the president MASS pardon people.
I do not think so. But that is a question for the courts, and the electorate.
Pres. Biden could mass pardon illegal immigrants.
And he could be impeached for doing so,
and/or voters could toss him on his ass.
Overall the power to pardon has more positives than negatives
That does not mean there are no negatives.
There are lots of changes I would like to see to our immigration laws.
Anyone who joins the US military and is honorably discharged should be entitled to near automatic citizenship.
Certainly anyone who serves in combat or is wounded.
I would also completely eliminate nearly all government vetting and quotas for immigrants – aside for checking for terrorists, and criminals.
I would require every immigrant to be sponsored, and sponsorship would mean ENFORCABLE financial responsibility.
Given sponsorship that had teeth I would allow any person, organization or business to sponsor as many immigrants as they can prove capable of maintaining financially.
Let the NGO’s or churches or businesses or … decide whether they want immigrants for $hithole countries
But hold them to account.
You might be overthinking the question proposed. Apologies if I wasn’t precise. Put another way…does a Presidential pardon, given to a *non-citizen* to clear the crime of breaking immigration law(s), automatically give that illegal alien ‘legal’ status like a Resident Alien green card – effectively allowing the ‘pardoned’ criminal to stay in the country and bypass immigration/work visa policies while those waiting on the other side of the border to immigrate and/or work here are still required to wait ‘over there’? Heck, can the President even grant a pardon to a *non-citizen* before a violation of immigration law is charged or adjudicated?
I can’t imagine the Founders would agree and I certainly hope not because it would mean anyone running the border can stay without ever being scheduled a hearing…the Pardon would make any hearing moot.
“Put another way…does a Presidential pardon, given to a *non-citizen* to clear the crime of breaking immigration law(s), automatically give that illegal alien ‘legal’ status like a Resident Alien green card – effectively allowing the ‘pardoned’ criminal to stay in the country and bypass immigration/work visa policies while those waiting on the other side of the border to immigrate and/or work here are still required to wait ‘over there’?”
A Pardon clears that persons record of the crime pardoned.
In this case it does not automatically grant them a green card or legal residence status.
But it does remove significant bars to residence status/
“Heck, can the President even grant a pardon to a *non-citizen* before a violation of immigration law is charged or adjudicated?”
Yes, A president can Pardon a person for a crime they have not been charged with.
He can pardon them of a crime they may not have committed.
But he can not pardon them for Further Crimes.
“I can’t imagine the Founders would agree”
At the Time of the founding the US had open boarders immigration.
“and I certainly hope not because it would mean anyone running the border can stay without ever being scheduled a hearing”
There were no hearings in 1787. There were no restictions on immigration. No green cards.
Anyone could come here. But becoming a citizen required arriving prior to 1787 or being born here.
Geez, John, where did you get the impression I was asking about immigration laws in 1787? 🤨
“A president can Pardon a person for a crime they have not been charged with. He can pardon them of a crime they may not have committed.”,
I presume you’re referring to Ford pardoning Nixon since both were US citizens, as one example. Are you saying this also applies to foreign nationals (who aren’t here with a valid visa) – people in the country who broke *current* immigration laws to get here, and a pardon for breaking our immigration laws mean they can stay? If so, then what is their official ‘status’ according to current US law? Seems there’s no current precedent to confirm they can stay, hence the original question albeit (I admit), was clumsily asked.
“Geez, John, where did you get the impression I was asking about immigration laws in 1787? 🤨”
You specifically asked about our founders.
““A president can Pardon a person for a crime they have not been charged with. He can pardon them of a crime they may not have committed.”,
I presume you’re referring to Ford pardoning Nixon since both were US citizens, as one example.”
No I am refering to the constitutional power to pardon. There is a hisotry on this – not just because all presidents have issued pardons – often many of them.
But because Governor’s have pardon power too. So over 250+ years we have lots of examples.
“Are you saying this also applies to foreign nationals (who aren’t here with a valid visa) – people in the country who broke *current* immigration laws to get here, ”
Yes, The presidential pardon power applies to all alleged federal crimes committed by anyone anywhere, prior to the issuance of the pardon.
“and a pardon for breaking our immigration laws mean they can stay?”
No it merely means that they can no longer be prosecuted for the crime, nor can that crime be considered in regard to any other government actions.
It does not result in an automatic green card or residence – though other factors MIGHT in some cases weigh heavily.
As an example the courts might order DHS to produce a Green card for someone who has been here for years, without violating other laws – as they may have met other legal requirements for residency. Conversely those who crossed the Rio Grande yesterday can be deported, they just can not be prosecuted for illegally entering the US.
If you are going to argue “the rule of law” – then you must take the law and constitution as they are – left or right.
Biden is obligated to enforce US immigration law AS IT IS – whether he likes that law.
Whether the left likes that law. While there is a US constitutional pardon power – Biden can not act as if he pardoned people. He must actually pardon them.
There is also prosecutorial discretion – and while that is SOMEWHAT elastic, is it NOT broad enough to refuse to enforce the law.
Prosecutorial discretion is about specific CASES, not whole criminal statues. It is about prosecutors saying I do not have the resources to waste prosecuting a weak case. It is not about – I do not like this law. The Pardon power DOES provide a president he opportunity to gut a law. But they still must do so on an individal – not class basis.
I would impeach Biden, Myorkas, Garland and others for failing to enforce the law.
If Biden and Democrats do not like US immigration law – they can change it.
We can not have “the rule of law” When presidents, prosecutors, mayors decide they do not like specific laws and so will ignore them.
The oath of office requires following the law. Not following the law that you like.
Executives do not have the power to change or ignore law unilaterally. They do have a PART to play and SOME power in the process of changing law.
“If so, then what is their official ‘status’ according to current US law?”
I do not know, and that was not your original question. If someone has been pardoned – they can not be arrested or proseucuted for the crime they have comitted.
In this instance that does not AUTOMATICALLY qualify them for legal residence or a green card. For that you would need to look at the rest of immigration law, as well as individual circumstances.
Pardon’s are specific to crimes. A pardon does not change either the existing criminal law, nor other laws. It does not change the requirements for legal residence.
Only whether the illegal act that was pardoned can be prosecuted or used as a factor.
“Seems there’s no current precedent to confirm they can stay, hence the original question albeit (I admit), was clumsily asked.”
I think there is plenty of law, and I suspect it does not produice the same results for each person.
I suspect as an example that a person who has been in the US continuously for 9+months and not committed other crimes, may have some claim to be allowed to stay – but that would be for the courts to decide based on the actual law and the specific facts for each individual.
Conversely someone who was here for 9hours san still be deported immediately.
Just to be clear – I am not arguing what the law SHOULD be.
The Rule of law requires Government to follow the law AS IT IS. Civil disobediance is for Citizens. Those in govenrment swore an oath to uphold the law and constitution as they ARE not as they wish them to be.
If you can not do that – do not run for office. Do not seek employment with government.
A job in government is NOT a right.
Presidents can Pardon – individuals. They can use the power of Pardon to voice their opposition to a law. but they can not pardon a class of people.
Pardon;s are for individuals. They must name each individual.
I do not like our immigration law – I doubt you do either. I suspect we will agree on SOME aspects of what it SHOULD be and disagree on others.
But our immigration law exists. And to the best of the governments ability it should be enforced as written.
That is how we KNOW that if we change it to what we prefer that new law will also be enforced as written.
Thank you, John. I’m able to follow all that you’ve said and as usual, and not trying to be disagreeable…
“and a pardon for breaking our immigration laws mean they can stay?”
No it merely means that they can no longer be prosecuted for the crime, nor can that crime be considered in regard to any other government actions.
So if someone isn’t here legally but does have a pardon, what does US call their ‘status’ and what are they allowed, by law and lack of a better word, “to do” – are they still considered ‘illegal aliens’ as the code currently says, with the same restrictions every non-pardened alien is supposed to honor? (Granted, there’s clearly no honor for someone who starts their new life by ignoring immigrations laws. In fact, it says quite a bit about that person’s character and regard for ‘laws’, overall.)
Here’s where I can’t find anything that speaks conclusively. The closest I’ve found are these sites, but neither covers the person’s legal status to be in the country after being pardoned:
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/effect-pardoned-criminal-conviction.html
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/03/23/dhs-statement-connecticut-pardons-and-immigration
Seems if Biden were to suddenly start handing out pardons to illegal aliens like candy bars to kids (while sniffing their hair) on Halloween, one would think there’d already be an answer to ‘now what?’, if you follow what I’m saying.
BTW: One president, I believe it was Carter, did gave a blanket pardon to all Vietnam war, draft-dodgers without specifying named offenders.
I beleive that Carter was right to pardon draft dodgers. Though time must pass before we should do that.
At the same time – I still beleive it must be done by individual. not by crime.
We pardon people.
I am not looking to start anything with you either. I appreciate most of your posts.
My point is that we must follow the law – good or bad, whether we like it or not, That is what the rule of law requires.
Nor do we change the law by trying to persuade people or judges that the law means something other than what it narrowly says.
If we do not like the law – we change it by legislation or constitutional amendment.
I do not agree with our current immigration law – I favor a form of open borders. With few exceptions the limitations and critieria for immigration should be determined by those who take meaningful responsibility for the immigrants – not the government.
But that is NOT the law. So we follow the law until we are able to change it.
While your posts is wrong about numerous important details, The president has the power to pardon anyone of a federal crime.
If they do so that is FINAL. Whether the president can do so enmasse is completely different.
The president can also order the DOJ to excercise prosecutorial discretion – but that must be an order of the president.
And as with Pardon’s the president is accountable for that – by impeachment.
And those who follow such an order can themselves be impeached.
And the courts CAN decide that mass pardons are not constitutional, and they can limit the power of prosecutorial discretion – as can congress as it is not a constitutional power of the president.
A part of modern politics is getting your politics is to get your oponent to act egregiously.
If the act is egregious enough -0 congress may impeach – or voters may revolt against the president and/or his party.
If Biden were to mass pardon illegal immigrants – it is probable that – aside from stomping their feet Republicans might do nothing.
Expecting – probably correctly that Voters will meet out punishment.
No one as an example expects Hunter Biden to serve a day in jail.
The open questions are WHEN will Biden pardon Hunter – and how broad will that pardon have to be – will Biden pardon himself and his family.
All of what is going on in DC is political theater – but it is deadly serious and important political theater.
And it is about crimes and abuse of power – even if no one is ever going to jail.
In the same vein that Guam could tip over; It wouldn’t be unreasonable to believe Democrats are pro-choice because they heard the debt is $550k per person. So according to them, population growth is the cause of debt growth. 🤔 🤪 Unless that growth is done through illegal immigration. Then their logic is more bodies means the debt per person goes down.
Svelaz has posted about a dozen comments, not even half of 30, and you responded to at least one of them. Just ignore him. Don’t gripe about him. Don’t respond. You whine about it daily.
This was a response to hullbobby.
So at 11:00AM Svelaz ONLY had a dozen comments??? I replied because he had replied to my comment and of course did so with his usual DEM OPERATIVE talking points.
Hey “Anonymous”, why not ignore me rather than lecture me?! Now go and have another twenty comment thread with Svelaz as you both tell us all how much you hate Turley.
I almost always just scroll past whatever he writes, it’s not worth my time. Especially now he addresses me as “Upstate Farmer” so I know he isn’t even responding to me.
Oldmanfromkansas,
“Especially now he addresses me as “Upstate Farmer” so I know he isn’t even responding to me.”
I did not know that. But then again, I never read his comments.
Doesn’t he know you and I are two different people?
Upstate – I don’t know what he knows, but for some reason he addresses you in responding to my comments (I generally don’t read any farther than that). Perhaps he’s just following instructions from his DNC supervisor.
Oldmanfromkansas, upstatefarmer and you handles with a similar length and icons. Since you have Kansas on your handle it’s only natural to think “farmer” so sometimes I don’t pay attention and just conflate the two as the same. Also, you both have similar syntax when you post.
Since you have Kansas on your handle it’s only natural to think “farmer” . . .
Spoken like an effete leftist snob who knows nothing about farms or farming – and who can’t even read.
Svrelaz, “upstate” is likely a reference to “upstate south Carolina” which is what folks in the Carolinas reder to the area around Greenville/ Spartanburg. Not Kansas.
Hullbobby, we have clearly established the fact that you don’t know how to count or how to stop reading my comments. You need help man.
Well, they’ve abdicated their Constitutional role in just about every war we’ve gotten into lately. Isn’t this pretty minor compared to that?
This issue is the most absurd function of the United States Governments budgeting. It’s the same every time this issue arises (seems yearly) crying default and the harm that will come.
In any budget, debt is the critical factor whether there will be success or failure of any organization, Government included. Debt drives what, when and how the future will be addressed. If debt is greater than operating expenses will allow, then operations have to be addressed. Continuing to increase debt without increased revenue or reduced operations is total folly. Children are running our government, there are no Sugar Daddy’s available to pay the bill. Projections for the United States Budget FY 2023 in Trillions: Outlays $6.4, Revenues $4.8, Deficit $1.5 and debt held by public $25.8. The federal budget has to be rectified (balanced) period.
Same song and dance from republicans, when a democrat is in office, oh boy the nation has to be fiscally responsible, and they could care less when a republican is in the White House. Same song and dance again and again, republicans want cuts in SSI and programs people need, and give tax cuts to the top 10%. And then blame it all on the democrat in the White House. It’s not amusing anymore that Turley suddenly is worried about Presidential norms. Turley could care less when the Dear Leader was in office.
Fishy, Can the Executive ignore Article one powers?
Well, that depends on who you ask, if it’s Trump supporters then the President can do anything he wants, as long as it’s Trump.
fishy you failed to include at least one example
Same song and dance from republicans, when a democrat is in office, oh boy the nation has to be fiscally responsible, and they could care less when a republican is in the White House.
I will grant that some Congressional Republicans are more focused on maintaining their power than on fiscal conservatism. But it’s absolute BS to claim that Republicans share this flaw. Republicans writ large want fiscal responsibility at all times.
Neither Congressional Democrats nor Democrats writ large want fiscal responsibility. The “nice” Democrats want handouts for everyone who has stubbed a toe; the activist Democrats want to weaken the US economic system further by dividing Americans against one another; and Congressional Democrats – all Congressional Democrats, as far as I can tell – want to buy votes, just like those Congressional Republicans in vulnerable seats who abandon fiscal conservatism in favor of retaining their Congressional membership.
There’s some logic to these Congresspeople’s pragmatic but – in the case of the Rs – unprincipled stance on fiscal matters: they can convincingly claim that they have to stay in office, BAMN, so their votes are there when matters of real consequence come up. And the Rs can fairly convincingly claim that, like it or lump it, we are far beyond small-government conservatism and they are reduced to trying to chip away at spending at the thin margins. But Republicans writ large deeply resent the fiscal “compromises” made by our representatives that always, always seem to rachet toward the Giant All-Powerful Federal Government Democrats’ side.
“Republicans writ large want fiscal responsibility at all times.”
They don’t. Just look at how much the deficit increased under Trump when the Rs held both chambers of Congress.
What do you expect when they use alternative facts, Anonymous. They have a whole different bubble then the rest of the country.
Trump spent too much. However what he spent it on helped the nation and what the Democrats tied into the spending was mostly a waste of money.
Trump built up our defenses and military. That cost money, but he had to build up our defenses to have his A rated foreign policy and peace. Obama spent but provided little to maintain the military. We had trouble getting our navy activated in certain parts of the world do to the poor shape Obama left it in. Trump spent too much on Covid but some of that had to be spent because Obama depleted our strategic supply of equipment kept for potential epidemics.
With Trump’s spending on the military he had to permit wasted spending pushed by Democrats and Rino Republicans.
However, with spending he grew the economy which would have helped to make the debt disappear. Biden and Obama spent money by shoveling it into a hole which didn’t grow the economy.
What does one expect when the Democrats are ignorant of economics?
Svelaz is up to about 30 comments already and it is only 11:00AM. Can’t wait to ignore his next 170 comments.
Brilliant! (I wish I’d thought to say that.)
Hullbobby, it’s less than 30. I see you still have a math problem. You should consult with someone who can actually count before you post. FYI, you don’t ignore any of my comments. You read every single one. That’s why you keep whining about them. I KNOW you read them…every time. LOL!!
Leftists are their own religious cult. The part I don’t get is how their leadership is able to attract so many sheeple by claiming ‘we’re all gonna die tomorrow unless you pay more taxes and give us more political power to control your life today!’ Can someone explain how that siren song swoons so many otherwise intelligent, independent-thinking people?
At the center of this debt ceiling issue are We The People. And the optics tell us we’re not getting statesmanship on both sides of the debt ceiling bargaining to get to the center and an agreement. In the 50’s General Electric had a Vice President Lemuel Boulware who invented Boulwarism. Put down a best and final offer at the beginning of collective bargaining and bargain no further. Well, the NLRB found that is a failure to bargain in good faith. An unfair labor practice that derails the quest for industrial peace. We have an expectation, rightly, that our political branch leaders understand the imperative of good faith bargaining, but we’re not seeing it reported to us out of the Article ll branch. Boulwarism isnt going to get to the center on the debt ceiling. Good faith bargaining will. It isn’t just for industrial peace. It is how the political branches must operate. Mush!
Servicing the debt is already the largest single line item in the budget. The debt ceiling is a symptom of the problem. Out of control spending will destroy the government and the country.
Progressive clowns identify as activists. Action Uber Alles. Like typical stupid people, they are prone to act without thinking. Their action is not inexplicable, it is expected.
The English Civil War began when Charles I unilaterally imposed taxes.
Biden’s an anti-Constitution monster created by the Dims who was installed into office by a subservient press, a partisan FBI and a host of bad actors with ties to the so-called “intelligence community.” Oh this crowd has been around for years but now they’re saying the quiet part out loud and doing in sunlight what they always did in darkness before. It’s because they think they have won and can’t lose. They’d do well to dial it down a notch and heed the words of the poet: “Overconfidence is the limb you brashly drag yourself out on certain you cannot fall until the ground comes rushing to meet you.” Here’s to unsafe landings.
Both houses of Congress approved the debt limit when it was last enacted and every time it has been enacted in the past. Each time the President signed off on the legislation. The 14th Amendment at section 5 specifically grants Congress the power to enforce its terms. Congress has done so each time it has raised the debt limit. The President by signing the legislation agreed each time. Congress has not granted the President the power to unilaterally repudiate the legislation he has agreed to. So it would violate the legislation and the powers granted to Congress by the 14th Amendment if the President were to unilaterally try to repudiate the duly approved legislation all parties have agreed to.
I find the whole subject confusing but not worth the time to research because I know it’s all political theater
1. Could someone answer a simple question: What happens on June 1 that companies stop withholding income and FICA taxes from workers, paying their matching share of FICA, and stop paying corporate taxes. What happens on that date by which importers will stop paying custom duties. Etc. Etc.
Assuming, there will still be money coming in, why does the media say the government runs out of money.
Assuming that’s true, the Treasurer just has to decide which bills it pays and which it does not (just like anyone else who maxes out a credit card), right? There’s no requirement that she pay no bills is there?
2. I think it’s a great move on Biden’s part — now that he has given up on his no-negotiation stance — to include tax increase proposals in the negotiations. With the first three quintiles of us paying no income taxes (net of credits such as the EITC) and the seventh, eighth and ninth highest income deciles paying only 5% of all the income taxes raised, who cares if the remaining 10%’s ax gets gored a little more (of course most of them can afford to decrease their incomes to drop down into the eighth or ninth decile or legally shelter income to get there and then all you have is an even bigger debt)
Companies will not automatically stop withholding taxes from your paycheck. The government can’t legally spend money to pay for contracts, services, government salaries, yes that includes congressional salaries.
What is not being talked about is that if a default occurs DEFENSE contractors will not bet paid and they will start laying of workers because they get paid thru those contracts. Those layoffs will have a domino effect on businesses and workers ability to pay their bills. It will create a recession AND it will degrade the full faith and credit of the government meaning other countries will be more hesitant to buy treasury bills if they don’t have that assurance that they will get paid for their T bills. It will have an effect worldwide not just nationwide.
Republican nut jobs in the freedom caucus don’t understand what they are doing and all they are interested in is achieving their goals no matter what. What will happen is everyone will be looking at them when the damage is mounting and demanding THEY do something. What they will do is blame Biden instead. Because they won’t take responsibility for THEIR actions once they realize they screwed up big time.
So if “Companies will not automatically stop withholding taxes from your paycheck. why can’t the Treasurer use that money to “pay for contracts, services, government salaries,….”
Because the amount of taxes pulled every day is not enough so fully support everything. They can’t legally spend the money anyway until congress approves it.
Do you have a logic deprivation issue? So you take “the amount of taxes pulled every day” and you pay some bills (whatever bills you think the highest priority). There is no requirement to do nothing because you cannot “fully support everything.” For example, Congress has already approved the spending of FICA-withheld SS funds on SS payments.
“It has agreed to raise the debt ceiling if Biden reduces future spending. Keep in mind that the House was responding to a crippling deficit that increased by nearly $1 trillion in the first seven months of fiscal 2023.”
A reminder that the Republicans want to renew their previous tax cuts for the rich. This is not about fiscal responsibility.
The tax cuts increased revenues
Like Reagan’s Dubya’s and Trump’s. They ALL increased the debt.
Fishy, try for a second to think this through. I have hope for you.
Tax rates were cut and the amount of tax remitted increased.
A profit loss statement has 2 halves. All the income….and ….all the spending.
Now that I have taught you some highschool accounting, do you understand?
( I mean really, I can explain it for you, but I can’t understand it for you)
No, they didn’t.
Over the years money grows money. Something to think about.
A dollar to the government leads to how much revenue?
A dollar to private business leads to how much revenue?
You are ignorant of basic economics.
No they didn’t. They increased the deficit every year. Trump’s tax cuts had a sunset clause for the middle class. They will expire in 2025. It was just a means to give the richest more money while letting the middle class revert to their previous tax rate to pay for the expected deficits. You didn’t know that?
Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthiest was permanent. The tax cuts for the middle class was limited because eventually the deficits would have to be dealt with and that meant the middle class tax cuts would expire so they could keep those deficits in check.
“For five years, most Americans have seen lower income-tax rates and tapped a bigger standard deduction, but without congressional action before the end of 2025, the rules could still revert to levels set long before the pandemic blindsided households and inflation raged.”
Republicans are being real quiet about that pesky sunset provision they put in Trump’s Tax cuts in 2017. YOU will pay more in taxes come 2025 and lose a lot of deductions in the process. While corporations and the richest get to keep paying their lower rates. Guess what republicans. Want. Cut discretionary spending when YOUR taxes increase and deductions like child tax credits expire.
The poorest will pay more for less and they will get services such as medicaid and SNAP drastically reduced. That is what they want. Biden wants to raise taxes on corporations and the richest too. Meaning Everyone will get increased taxes instead of just the middle class.
No they didn’t. They increased the deficit every year,
Revenue. I said revenue.
I WANT the rich to get tax cuts and I am not rich! I have never worked for a poor person….ever! The rich use that money to hire people, or buy things that others make (increase employment), etc. The gov wants that money to give away to illegals and others that do not want to work, or more to the point, live lavishly as a politician.
LOL, the rich use the money to buy stocks to make more money. Why bother hiring more people when they can make more in the stock market. Corporations spend more money on stock buybacks than hiring more people. YOU are being taken for a ride because YOU are deemed too stupid to figure it out. Supporting them is like supporting the thief that is stealing your furniture by helping him carry it out to his van with a big stupid grin on your face. Yeah it’s THAT bad.
LOL, the rich use the money to buy stocks to make more money.
How do you make any money buying stocks???
Interesting the trolls show up attacking who ever they have been told to attack…but never get close to the nub of the question. Will Biden violate the Constitution to moot the law concerning the Debt Limit of this Nation?
This is not about the debt. This is about violating Article One enumerated powers.
Iowan2, Biden is very skeptical about using the 14th. All they are saying is that theoretically it’s an option. Turley is insinuating falsely that Biden is seriously considering it. Republicans are getting very uncomfortable with the current impasse. Because they KNOW that if we do default the blame will lay squarely on their shoulders and they will have a hard time explaining and making excuses for their failure. They could, like before pass a clean bill just raising the debt ceiling. But they stupidly chose to use it to blackmail the president without any leverage of their own thinking they have leverage. Biden knows this and he can literally leave them hanging and exposed them to the blame that will surely come if they do not budge or change their demands.
Joe Biden is skeptical, Joe Biden doesn’t know what day it is.
take back the power and money
-Impeach entire Cabinet, President and VP
-Cut 50% of Fed gov
-Move 75% of DC to Heartland
If a man can be a woman, a President can be a tyrant.
There’s a lot of obscurity in nuance. The left hides their lies in nuance. They use nuance to ambush and destroy meaning. Once meaning is gone, tyranny takes over. Easy peasy.
Our trolls claim Trump was a big spender, so Biden gets to blow up the Constitution. Last I looked, profligacy and illegality are not equivalent.
They further claim the GOP is “hostage taking.” I guess that’s true for the same reason everything is “racist?”
Anyway, the hostage owes his creditors $31 trillion, so maybe the ransom should be paid—if that’s even still possible.
The Democrats and their Deep State are easily the biggest threat to democracy.
Democrats are FASCISTS….who will use private and public power to destroy opponents and STEAL!
You’re surprised that Bernie Sanders “was joined in this by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), among others.” What gets little notice in all the recent media coverage is that Biden has given in on his earlier demands and no-negotiation stance because Schumer must have told Biden he lacks the votes of Manchin, Sinema and likely a few more other nominal Democrats to hold the line on that stance.