Biden really should have seen this coming when it was embarrassing how many votes it took McCarthy to get speaker. That should have been the canary that the extremist were coming. He was there under Obama when the GOP sabotaged him and has misplayed this.
This doesn't make any sense. The president is both legally obligated to execute all laws and obligations passed by Congress. The president is not legally allowed to choose what to spend on. Not only does the constitution mandate the execution of ALL laws but the Supreme Court has affirmed this principle when it struck down the line item veto. If you allow the president to pick and choose what to spend on in this scenario, you've effectively recreated the line item veto which isn't constitutional. The credit card analogy is non-sensical. This isn't a credit card. The terms of your agreement with the card issuer offers you the flexibility to pay for items over time. The constitution grants no such authority to the president. It very explicitly requires that the president faithfully execute all laws and obligations with no allowance for picking and choosing how you do it.
in 2011 the media was on the side of dems and the public blamed the GOP for the crisis. Biden miscalculated that the media would rightfully call out the extremist MAGA but instead they've 100% sided with them. It's appalling that the media has failed so bad
How Biden gave McCarthy a 'victory' on the debt limit — while giving away absolutely nothing Perhaps Biden is playing McCarthy, to avert a Gov't shutdown in Sept
I just can’t go that far. From my perspective the “media” has called out the MAGA extremists but the extremists have a much simpler message to push…. “There is a inflation, we need to cut spending”. I’m not saying I agree with that message at all but it’s effectively simple.
Again, he cannot pick and choose what to spend on, they can prioritize the order in which obligations are met, such as: 1. Treasury Notes 2. Social Security Payments 3. Medicare Payments etc. The example of the credit card is a very easy to understand illustration of the debt ceiling. Tribe is wrong. Opinion | The Case for Violating the Debt Limit Is Dangerous Nonsense - The New York Times (nytimes.com) That is former 10th Circuit Judge and Current Stanford Constitutional Law Professor and director of their Constitutional Law Center, Michael McConnel on the same issue. You shouldn't need a law professor or Judge to tell you he is wrong though, the very text of the Constitution makes it obvious he is wrong.
Tribe is right. in this debate on the 14the amendment, Prof. Tribe schooled the former judge you are confused. you do understand that we're debating the 14th amendment to the US constitution, no??
He doesn't even pretend to make a legal argument. He is making a purely emotional argument (that it is little solace to the people not receiving their social security benefits that the validity of the debt is not being questioned). He conflates the budget with the debt, nonsensically (if the budget and the debt are the same thing, that would render the entirety of the debt limit language surplusage. Most importantly, he elevates a statute over the Constitution, which is backwards. His statement that the debt limit (31 USC 3101) is unconstitutional because it would make us deadbeats has no Constitutional basis. There is no provision in the Constitution that states the US cannot default. He equates prioritizing spending to a line item veto (which it is not, a line item veto would mean you would never pay for the authorized spending, vs prioritizing spending meaning you would pay as funds become available). His arguments are pure doublespeak. He says by adhering to the debt limit (which is Congresses control over borrowing) that the President would be seizing the power of the purse in violation of separation of powers, but by ignoring the debt limit (which is directly usurping the borrowing power of Congress) he would be abiding by Constitutional separation of powers. I am not. I just know how to read laws and understand the Constitution. This debate is clearly over your head. Yes, which is why I mentioned the text. The Amendments are part of the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 2 defines who has the power to borrow money (Congress). Amendment 14 Section 4 does not transfer that power to the President.
bluntly put, his arguments are too nuanced for you. Is there a better eg of blathering on the other end of the spectrum, a debate between two legal scholars on the 14th amendment
you're right. you know my background, my education, and my profession. thanks for putting me in my place
I find myself agreeing with it more than not. Usually Democrats are terrible negotiators who undercut themselves, stake out positions of weakness, and cannot find or recognize leverage. This time around Biden seems to have learned from his misadventures with the Tea Party. It's even more impressive when you consider that the President (especially Democratic ones) is almost by default in a position of weakness vis-a-vis the debt limit. Sidenote: Whoever came up with the debt ceiling deserves a shrine in the conservative hall-of-fame. Such a redundant, needless obstacle that serves no purpose beyond hamstringing Democratic presidents.
You post OPeds of Tunley and other braindead writers who havnt been right for decades yet you worship them as the bible. Are you seriously the one talking about someone else posting an opinion? Have you looked at yourself in the mirror ? These RWers have no shame on these forums.
