Hot new idea: What if Obama just ignores Congress on the debt ceiling?

posted at 3:50 pm on June 25, 2011 by Allahpundit

Yeah, why not? That’s perfectly in keeping with Obama’s M.O. when the legislature gets in his way. Can’t get Congress to move on cap and trade? Make the EPA do something. Don’t want to beg Congress to authorize war in Libya? Send in the Air Force and forget about it.

Annoyed that Congress has refused to raise the debt ceiling because you can’t reach a deal on deficit reduction? Just keep selling Treasury securities and apply the proceeds to paying interest on the debt, then dare the House and Senate to do something about it.

[M]embers of Congress have tried before to sue the president for diminishing their legislative and appropriating power and have typically failed. In 1997, for instance, a small group of congressmen sued Office of Management and Budget director Franklin Raines, arguing that the 1996 Line Item Veto Act diluted their voting power as members of Congress. But seven justices of the Supreme Court disagreed, and did so largely by drawing from an earlier opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia that denied environmental groups standing to challenge the government’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. In the majority opinion, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that because the congressmen had not shown that their injury was “particularized,” and that the action of the President had not affected the congressmen in a “personal and individual way,” they did not have standing to sue.

In the case of members of Congress suing the current administration over the debt ceiling, the issue of standing would likely fall the same way. Louis Fisher, an expert on the separation of powers who worked at the Congressional Research Service for over twenty five years, wrote in an email that “case law is quite clear that a member of Congress, even if joined by a dozen or two colleagues, cannot get standing in court to contest a constitutional issue.”…

But even if standing could be established and the Obama administration gets taken to court, some legal experts note that an additional argument of surprising strength could be made: The government cannot legally default on its debts. Former Reagan official and maverick conservative budget wonk Bruce Bartlett has suggested as much by invoking Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” Although there has been little litigation or discussion of this section, it could be read to imply an absolute firewall against statutory limits on paying or devaluing the debt.

Now there’s a campaign platform I’d like to see in time for the 2012 election: “The Constitution lets me run up as much debt as I want and there’s nothing your representatives can do to stop me.” Unchecked executive power and runaway spending — a magical combination. Reminds me of critics of the War Powers Act who claim the statute is unconstitutional because the president has inherent authority under Article II to wage war, especially in cases of national emergency. (Never mind Congress’s power to declare war under Article I.) Supposedly, the argument goes, because defaulting on the debt would also constitute a national emergency, the president has inherent power to prevent that default from occurring. For how long, though, is anyone’s guess under this theory; the War Powers Act tries to balance legislative and executive interests by letting the president respond to a true military emergency for 60 days without needing approval, but under the TNR/Bartlett theory, presumably he could keep piling up debt in perpetuity. Sounds like a plan. I’d be morbidly curious to see the public’s reaction if he tried it. Opposition to raising the debt ceiling is overwhelming — 19/47, according to a Gallup poll taken last month — but another poll taken a few days later showed 56 percent saying that default would be “disastrous” for the economy. If talks with the GOP broke down and he did take emergency action to stave off a default, I bet he could get away with it if he emphasized that it was an emergency stopgap measure until negotiations resume and that he was committed to trillions in spending cuts as part of any deal. Can’t wait.

Here’s Krauthammer paying tribute to yet another example of Obama doing what he wants to do even if you don’t like it. Click the image to watch.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sounds good.

What if the states follow suit and just ignore Obama and the rest of his corrupt cabinet?

If Obama can act like Congress doesn’t exist, well we can surely do the same for him and the federal government.

darwin on June 25, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Why not? He is ignoring other laws and no one is holding him accountable.

kmarie on June 25, 2011 at 3:54 PM

He don’t need our stinking laws.

/UmChelle

P.S. Starting to worry about CK lately; health wise. I hope he’s alright.

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Can the ‘I’ word be implemented?

Yeah right

darwin-t on June 25, 2011 at 3:56 PM

dollars not billions…

golfmann on June 25, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Hot new idea: What if Obama just ignores Congress on the debt ceiling?

Yeah, why listen to the people’s Representative when you can just Dictate what you want?

Colbyjack on June 25, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Sounds good.

What if the states follow suit and just ignore Obama and the rest of his corrupt cabinet?

If Obama can act like Congress doesn’t exist, well we can surely do the same for him and the federal government.

darwin on June 25, 2011 at 3:53 PM

As much as I’d love to thumb the nose at the snotrag in the white house, we cannot allow ourselves to devolve into lawlessness. This is what the left is fomenting and this is what they seek. Do not give them what they seek. Starve them by following the Constitution and the rule of law. This reckless, lawless, leftist goon will be out in less than a year and a half.

And so will his precious unions.

Good riddance. Nice experiment; we’ll never dip our toes in that sh*t again, now will we?

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 3:58 PM

impeachment vote is drawing nearer…

golfmann on June 25, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Holy WOW! What or who can stand between the Won and anything he and his minions dream up? If a group of congressmen even posing as ordinary citizens do not have standing, who does? The Montana State SC just gave standing to Trout Unlimited in law suits against private property owners because they have invested in the waters on the private property. We are losing ground everywhere.

Kissmygrits on June 25, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Fine with me as it seems a majority of Americans need to have their skulls smashed open to understand that constantly hitting yourself with a sledge hammer is a bad idea.

Leftist human garbage want to see their utopian dreams realized, well get ready, because it’s coming and when it does, they will be shell shocked. Screw ‘em.

Bishop on June 25, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Opposition to raising the debt ceiling is overwhelming — 19/47, according to a Gallup poll taken last month — but another poll taken a few days later showed 56 percent saying that default would be “disastrous” for the economy.

Why dance around the real question by referring to polls? A US default on debt would be disastrous for the US economy, period. Recall that many experts predict a global recession resulting from the default of Greece on its debt. A US default would be 100 times worse.

In any event, the self righteousness from some people is absurd given their cheerleading just 4 years for the Bush spending increases and tax cuts that put the US in this hole in the first place.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/06/23/guest-contribution-what-happens-if-u-s-defaults/

bayam on June 25, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Pharaoh don’t need no stinkin’ congress!

Hening on June 25, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Who would have standing?

marinetbryant on June 25, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Bishop on June 25, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Don’t hand to them what they seek. Keep the eyes open and don’t fall into the trap they’re trying to set.

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Failing to raise the debt ceiling WOULD NOT result in an automatic default. We would only default if the Treasury Secretary decided not to use the 2+ trillion in tax revenue to pay our debts.

Why is this basic point so difficult for people to get?

BadgerHawk on June 25, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Why dance around the real question by referring to polls? A US default on debt would be disastrous for the US economy, period.

bayam on June 25, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Why would the US default? Just because we don’t raise the debt celing doesn’t mean we can’t pay our obligations.

darwin on June 25, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Sounds good.

What if the states follow suit and just ignore Obama and the rest of his corrupt cabinet?

If Obama can act like Congress doesn’t exist, well we can surely do the same for him and the federal government.

darwin on June 25, 2011 at 3:53 PM

If we can get half or more of the states to publicly state that Obummer doesn’t matter, we might have a fighting chance, and I do mean that very literally. That’s what it took last time.

If not? Batten down the hatches and prepare for the absolute worst.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 25, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Zero is thumbing his nose at congress because Harry Reid blocks everything necessary to stop him.

The electorate however hates what FailBama is doing and his clown posse will take a bath in the next election.

Having said that, we have a crew of limp d*cks in the GOP that also need to go.

No spine, no brains nothing. They are too affable. They golf and laugh it up with that cretin!

It’s disgusting.

dogsoldier on June 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM

If talks with the GOP broke down and he did take emergency action to stave off a default, I bet he could get away with it if he emphasized that it was an emergency stopgap measure until negotiations resume and that he was committed to trillions in spending cuts as part of any deal.

There’s only one way he wouldn’t get away with it. And that’s if the House Republicans put a stop to it. And I can only think of 2 things they can do: 1) shut down the entire government or 2) begin impeachment proceedings. Both are extreme measures, but what choice do they have when we’re dealing with a borderline dictator here?

Doughboy on June 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM

State budgets could trim about 3B each if you use E-Verify before issuing food stamp swipe cards and if you start charging the Medicaid recipients for their ambulance rides to the hospital for the sniffles.

There’s a starting point.

Any Fed Gubmint employee that is unionized needs to make a choice. Stay unionized and be fired, or keep your job and serve.

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM

I predict that at some point in the future we’re going to need to have a vote on just what reason Obama will be impeached and removed from orifice, we won’t be able to do them all.

Colbyjack on June 25, 2011 at 4:06 PM

What Would Hugo Chavez Do?

El_Terrible on June 25, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:02 PM

I’m not handing anyone anything, but let’s face it, the number of freeloading, grifting, looters in this country are outnumbering those who aren’t, and they have their hands out demanding ever more stuff.

Pinheads like bayam show up here and pontificate about how terrible it would be to default, yet he completely misses the point of this article: PBHO making his own rules as he goes along.

Leftists will always rationalize such illegality by saying, “Hey, it’s the right thing to do” or in this case “Yeah but if PBHO doesn’t make his own rules, we will all DIE!”

If the legitimate processes of the federal government result in default then so be it.

Bishop on June 25, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Annoyed that Congress has refused to raise the debt ceiling because you can’t reach a deal on deficit reduction? Just keep selling Treasury securities and apply the proceeds to paying interest on the debt, then dare the House and Senate to do something about it.

Quick time-out, here. Doesn’t this implicitly assume that the interest on the debt can only be payed by selling more bonds? Why can’t it be payed with tax revenues?

Count to 10 on June 25, 2011 at 4:08 PM

If he tries this, I’ll be burning up the phone lines to my elected officials demanding impeachment and removal.

OhioCoastie on June 25, 2011 at 4:09 PM

So the president can create a national emergency … And then declare unlimited power to deal with the emergency he created. Lovely.

Actually, that is exactly what they were doing with that whole operation gun walker thing right? Pump a bunch of guns into Mexico and then declare an “emergency” and enact all kinds of fun new gun bans.

Never waste a crisis, right? Even if you have to create one yourself.

bitsy on June 25, 2011 at 4:09 PM

The assumption of that piece is that Obama and company want to avoid a default. That is fatally-flawed.

Alternate prediction – they’ll do a one-time stiff of Treasury securities holders, then not fund stuff like national defense and border security so the welfare state remains fully-funded.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2011 at 4:09 PM

If he has these options to go around Congress than a default would be entirely his fault then, right?

Mark1971 on June 25, 2011 at 4:10 PM

If the legitimate processes of the federal government result in default then so be it.

Bishop on June 25, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I pretend I’m a Boy Scout.

/Be Prepared

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Wait, let me get this straight. The Line Item Veto Act which was ruled unconstitutional due to Presentment Clause is the example being used to say this would be constitutional?

What?

ButterflyDragon on June 25, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Why can’t it be payed with tax revenues?

Count to 10 on June 25, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Derrrr. Because 44% of the Citizenry is on welfare and pays no tax? And because you need to add another 16% who are retired and pay no tax? And because for each single mother who gives birth without the baby daddy gets a $2300 tax credit when she pays no taxes to begin with because she doesn’t work?

/Revenue.

Guffaw

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:13 PM

This is a ridiculous claim for executive power.

Yes the Constitution does say that the public debt cannot be questioned.

That just means that the government must pay the public debt first. Our current revenues are more than sufficient to do this.

However, the remainder of the revenues are not sufficient to fully fund the government as given under the budget passed by Congress.

The President can therefor determine how to spend the remaining revenue money (within the budget constraints set by Congress).

What that essentially means is that by not raising the debt limit Congress forces budget cuts, but give the President unilateral power to determine where those cuts will be.

Sackett on June 25, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:10 PM

I try but I don’t even know what to do anymore. My house is long since paid off, I’ve got hoards of this and that, and I know the right people to know.

But every day it seems like something new pops up that some douchebag in DC decided would be a peachy keen idea, and then I’m off to the store again.

Bishop on June 25, 2011 at 4:15 PM

What if Obama just ignores Congress on the debt ceiling?

Then when the bottom falls out and it all comes crashing down…………HE……OWNS….IT!!!!

pilamaye on June 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM

What that essentially means is that by not raising the debt limit Congress forces budget cuts, but give the President unilateral power to determine where those cuts will be.

Sackett on June 25, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Valerie Jarrett. You’re such a dumbass

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Congress allocates a form of executive earmarks. Congress could cut off Brack’s discretionary funding as a payback and to save money!

JAW on June 25, 2011 at 4:20 PM

But every day it seems like something new pops up that some douchebag in DC decided would be a peachy keen idea, and then I’m off to the store again.

Bishop on June 25, 2011 at 4:15 PM

I was traumatized in a Wal Mart today. The sheer stupidity of the government teet class is … (can’t say it on here).

The only thing I buy now is the simple bear (sic) necessities. Make like a Boy Scout and Be Prepared.

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:20 PM

This is a ridiculous claim for executive power.

Yes the Constitution does say that the public debt cannot be questioned.

That just means that the government must pay the public debt first. Our current revenues are more than sufficient to do this.

However, the remainder of the revenues are not sufficient to fully fund the government as given under the budget passed by Congress.

The President can therefor determine how to spend the remaining revenue money (within the budget constraints set by Congress).

What that essentially means is that by not raising the debt limit Congress forces budget cuts, but give the President unilateral power to determine where those cuts will be.

Sackett on June 25, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Needs to be re-posed… for posterity and um, all dat.

/Geeze oh Petes.

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Hell, he ignores every other thing that’s inconvenient, whether it be legal, constitutional or otherwise.

I think I’ll just repost my earlier rant for good measure:

I want to see a thorough accounting of the “stimulus” money well before November ’12. We already know that the union votes are bought and paid for; we need to turn over all of the rocks to see the slimy underside.

Of course it’ll never happen. At least not before we’ve been frogmarched down the socialist garden path, if these goons have their way. We’ve got to hold ALL of these shady bastards accountable come election time; federal, state, and local.

As for the unconstitutional crap that has already been foisted upon us, it’s time to take a page or three out of their playbook:

Drill, baby, drill. Sue, baby, sue.

And drill.

And investigate the wholly illegal shadow government that Jugears has put on the public dole with the Czar Expansion Project and Constitutional End-Run Administration.

There are so many places to start, it’s hard to pick one that should have the highest priority.

Flouting the Constitution is a pretty big deal.

Then again, so is ignoring a judge’s contempt finding.

Then there’s the wholesale three-card-monte game being played with the huge LIE that GM and Chrysler paid off their obligations when in fact it was just a re-shuffling of the federal play-money deck.

And on, and on, and on…

Too big to fail? My ass.

There is no law too big to break for this goddamn bunch of thugs. The proper ending of this chapter of American Political History would rightly be massive prosecutions and wholesale convictions of the lying, cheating, truth-bending, hypocritical socialism-mongering Alinsky/Ayers whores.

A casual glance at the people Ojugears has surrounded himself with tells a pretty sad tale, especially if you can stand to listen to five minutes of their bull excrement.,

hillbillyjim on June 25, 2011 at 3:40 PM

hillbillyjim on June 25, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Now there’s a campaign platform I’d like to see in time for the 2012 election: “The Constitution lets me run up as much debt as I want and there’s nothing your representatives can do to stop me.” Unchecked executive power and runaway spending — a magical combination.

Allahpundit, first off, don’t joke like that. Bad jokes have a way of becoming reality these days. Fully 30-40% of voters would be a-ok with this as long as it is their guy.

And second… About that 2012 election… We have a national emergency scheduled for October 2012.

bitsy on June 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Congress kept trading away its power and authority so that it could avoid tough votes and decisions.

Until Congress stands up as an institution and affirmatively checks executive power, by passing laws that cut a scythe through the administrative state and by repealing entitlements, the Executive will continue to get away with these kinds of shenanigans.

Revenant on June 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

What that essentially means is that by not raising the debt limit Congress forces budget cuts, but give the President unilateral power to determine where those cuts will be.

Sackett on June 25, 2011 at 4:14 PM

OMG! Sackett, I think I know you!!! Is this you on Facebook?

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:28 PM

“fundamentally change America”…

d1carter on June 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM

I’d like to pretend that Obama doesn’t exist. He already pretends that I don’t exist.

Seems fair. But, I guess I don’t have standing.

SlaveDog on June 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Until Congress stands up as an institution and affirmatively checks executive power, by passing laws that cut a scythe through the administrative state and by repealing entitlements, the Executive will continue to get away with these kinds of shenanigans.

Revenant on June 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

With so many “progressives” in Congress we may be waiting a long time. The states stand a better chance of defanging the government.

Ignoring the royal edicts from Washington is the best, and fastest way to take their power.

darwin on June 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Presidouche Obamanure’s forcefield against Constitutional limitation is his pigment. Just sayin. All this layering of analysis about where the excercise of power is and should be is great stuff, but were Barry a pasty white cracker, it would’ve been curtains for him when he lanced the Chrysler shareholders out of their rightful property.

It would be nice if Herman Cain called him out for it. But until Obama is removed and exposed, it will become worse everyday. He’s stuffing the powder keg until the inevitable impulses of nature bear their fangs.

Western_Civ on June 25, 2011 at 4:31 PM

bho is going to push everything he can to see if any gob of cells in dc stops him. bho thinks he is so above anything our Republic has ever had that he can do whatever. WELL, bho you better get a grip, if dc won’t stop you voting citizens will. That is if we voting citizens aren’t under some crisis where bho takes complete control of our nation. Will we allow this? We had better do something and fast to stop bho and team.
L

letget on June 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Hot new idea:

Brand-spanking new golf course on Mars?

Yes We Can.

We’ll let Biden be his permanent caddy, if he promises not to try to add.

hillbillyjim on June 25, 2011 at 4:33 PM

What if Obama just ignores Congress on the debt ceiling?

impeachment????

RealMc on June 25, 2011 at 4:33 PM

OT: Hugo Chavez has not been seen or heard from since June 12, two days after undergoing surgery in Cuba’s wonderful health care system. Since Chavez normally interjects himself into Venezuelans’ lives repeatedly every day Venezuelans are starting to celebrateworry.

What could Barry do for his friend that might improve his condition?

Are the Florida Keys still tied down?

rwenger43 on June 25, 2011 at 4:35 PM

An imperious president like we’ve never seen and a doltish doormat congress that defies belief. The November elections were supposed to change things? What a joke.

rrpjr on June 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM

What if Obama just ignores Congress on the debt ceiling?

impeachment????

RealMc on June 25, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Eh, impeachment is so last year.

I personally enjoy seeing him continue to implode, live on TV every day.

/Just my personal preference, that’s all.

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:37 PM

bayam

If we want economics advice from the peanut gallery, we’ll go this guy.

xblade on June 25, 2011 at 4:37 PM

I want to see a thorough accounting of the “stimulus” money well before November ’12.
hillbillyjim on June 25, 2011 at 3:40 PM

What a great campaign issue for a Republican. Therefore it will never be used.

Did anybody also hear that IBM offered Obama a program designed to track all federal waste and fraud, and that it was refused?

rrpjr on June 25, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Congress keeps giving the office of the president unchecked powers thinking that such power is in the national interests.

When it comes down to it, however, politicians don’t have the backbone to do the right thing. At the end of the day, Congress will make us all slaves in our own nation.

madmonkphotog on June 25, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Are the Florida Keys still tied down?

rwenger43 on June 25, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Heh. Yeah, we’re about to all flip over like Guam Democrat

And, FYI the Keys are many islands not a set of car keys.

And This is your theme song!

Lick me boots

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Failing to raise the debt ceiling WOULD NOT result in an automatic default. We would only default if the Treasury Secretary decided not to use the 2+ trillion in tax revenue to pay our debts.

Why is this basic point so difficult for people to get?

BadgerHawk on June 25, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Because every talking head, cable and radio host, politician, democrat and republican “strategist” and the moneychangers all spout the same tripe.

BH, most reasonable people understand that defaulting on the debt means that we do not make the interest payments on our Treasury bills and bonds. It is almost impossible to default given the tax revenues the Government takes in annually.

Someone needs to express it in simple terms (maybe via Facebook?) to the increasingly dumbed-down populace: the credit card is maxed out and we don’t have the ability to spend more unless we can convince the card issuer to raise our limit. If they don’t, then we can’t spend anymore until we pay it down. However, our card will remain in good status as we make minimum payments to keep it current.

By accepting the false premise that the debt ceiling and default are interchangeable, we already lose the argument.

singer on June 25, 2011 at 4:43 PM

If the House isn’t the one with the right to appropriate funds, then we might just as well toss wipe our backsides with the Constitution, because it’s worthless.

Isn’t Obama much like the charismatic dictator, who a certain segment loves, and then when it all collapses, his supporters say “I didn’t know”.

Paul-Cincy on June 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM

“Hot new idea: What if Obama just ignores Congress on the debt ceiling?”

Sure, why not. He pretty much ignores Congress on everything else. Congress has allowed itself to be rendered virtually irrelevant!

GFW on June 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Did anybody also hear that IBM offered Obama a program designed to track all federal waste and fraud, and that it was refused?

rrpjr on June 25, 2011 at 4:39 PM

I have an Excel spreadsheet that has all stimulus dollah’s accounted for. Want it? It’ll make you cry, but if you want it, I will send it.

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM

I personally enjoy seeing him continue to implode, live on TV every day.

/Just my personal preference, that’s all.

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Not to pick on you personally, but I am fed up with this attitude. While people play politics and speculate on how bad all this is for Osama Obama’s reelection campaign and his party, he is still getting away with the destruction of our nation.

Until conservatives shed the namby-pamby notions of people like Ed Morrissey and demand impeachment, the Traitor-in-Chief will have his way. This is not tiddlywinks: it is our economy, security and Constitutional rights that the Chicago Jesus is p*ss*ng on.

MrScribbler on June 25, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Hey Everybody…!

… I’ve got a GREAT idea.

Let’s elect Barack Hussein Obowma as President of the United States…!

… Who’s with me?!?!

/

Seven Percent Solution on June 25, 2011 at 4:47 PM

impeachment is sounding better and better..

unseen on June 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM

If talks with the GOP broke down and he did take emergency action to stave off a default, I bet he could get away with it if he emphasized that it was an emergency stopgap measure until negotiations resume and that he was committed to trillions in spending cuts as part of any deal.

As David Weber and John Ringo have said, the only thing more permanent than “temporary measures” are “emergency” measures. And once The One has that in place, He has no incentive to “negotiate” anything. (See ObamaCare.)

Congress kept trading away its power and authority so that it could avoid tough votes and decisions.

Until Congress stands up as an institution and affirmatively checks executive power, by passing laws that cut a scythe through the administrative state and by repealing entitlements, the Executive will continue to get away with these kinds of shenanigans.

Revenant on June 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Congress stood up to Nixon, and showed him the door. They seem uninterested in standing up to The One. I suspect because Nixon was seen as a “conservative”. (Which he most assuredly was not; between wage-price freezes and creating the EPA, etc., he was a classic “Rockefeller Republican”, which is another way of saying “stealth progressive”.) Whereas The One is seen as a “true progressive”.

Which probably explains why he acts so much like Mussolini, who was also defined as a “progressive” back in the 1920s and ’30s, before he went to war against Ethiopia (for reasons he was never able to adequately explain).

To see where this could all end (and sooner than you might think), I’d suggest reading Come Nineveh, Come Tyre by Allen Drury.

clear ether

eon

eon on June 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM

This is hilarious. Congress is the only one with the power of spending. The 14th amendment sec 4 had nothing to do with public debt created by any branch other than congress. The federal debt ceiling is utterly redundant, since Congress already has the sole constitutional power to authorize any federal spending. Even if Congress were concerned about the remote possibility of the Treasury borrowing a lot of cash just for the fun of it and piling it in the White House basement (since there’s no way it can be spent on anything without explicit permission from Congress.

It sounds as if they’re looking for the constitution to protect the FRB, but the FRB has nothing to do with our government it is solely it’s own entity which the constitution does not protect.

xler8bmw on June 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM

If any other of our presidents
had doubled the National Debt, which
had taken more than two centuries
to accumulate, in one year,
would You have Approved?

If any other of our presidents
had then proposed to Double
the debt again within 10 years,
would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents
had criticized a State Law that
he admitted he never even read,
would you think that he is
just an ignorant hot Head?

If any other of our presidents
joined the country of Mexico and sued a
State in the United States to force that State
to continue to allow Illegal Immigration,
would you question his patriotism
and wonder who’s side he was on?

If any other of our presidents
had pronounced the Marine Corps
as if it were the Marine Corpse,
would you think him an Idiot?

If any other of our presidents
had put 87,000 workers out of work
by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on
offshore oil drilling on companies that have
one of the best safety records of any industry
because one foreign company had an accident,
would you have agreed?

If any other of our presidents
had used a forged document as the
basis of the moratorium that would render
87000 American workers unemployed,
would you support him?

If any other of our presidents
had been the first President to need a
teleprompter installed to be able to get through
a press conference, would you have laughed and said
this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is
really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If any other of our presidents
had spent hundreds of thousands of Dollars
to take his First Lady to a play in NYC,
would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents
had reduced your retirement plan holdings
of GM stock by 90% and given the
unions a majority stake in GM,
would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents
had made a joke at the expense
of the Special Olympics,
would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents
had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive
and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown
had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift,
would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents
had given the Queen of England an
IPod containing videos of his speeches,
would you have thought it to be a
proud moment for America ?

If any other of our presidents
had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia ,
would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents
had visited Austria and made reference
to the nonexistent “Austrian language,”
would you have brushed it off
as a minor slip?

If any other of our presidents
had filled his Cabinet and circle of
Advisers with people who cannot seem
to keep current on their Income Taxes,
would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents
had stated that there were 57 states in
the United States , wouldn’t you have had
second thoughts about his capabilities?

If any other of our presidents
would have flown all the way to Denmark
to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics
would benefit him walking out his front door in his
home town, would you not have thought he was
a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk?

If any other of our presidents
had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to
“Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador
when it was “The 5th of May” (Cinco de Mayo),
and then continue to flub it when he tried again,
wouldn’t you have winced in embarrassment?

If any other of our presidents
had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel
to go plant a single tree on Earth Day,
would you have concluded he’s a Hypocrite?

If any other of our presidents’
Administrations had okayed Air Force One
flying low over millions of people followed by
a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing
widespread panic, would you have wondered
whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If any other of our presidents
had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest, with more people killed
or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you
want it made into a major ongoing Political issue
with claims of racism and incompetence?

If any other of our presidents
had created the positions of 32 Czars
who report directly to him, bypassing
the House and Senate on much of
what is happening in America ,
would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents
had ordered the firing of the CEO
of a major corporation, even though he
had no constitutional authority to do so,
would you have approved?

So, tell me again,
what is it about Obama that
makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can’t think of anything?
Then you’d better start worrying.
He’s done all these things in 28 months —
and you have less than 19 months
to come up with an answer.

Every statement and action in this email
is factual and correctly attributable
to Barrack Hussein Obama.
Every bumble is a matter of record
and completely verifiable.

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Has anyone here seen the pictures of N. Ceausescu? I mean the last ones taken of him. Looked to me like some folks do not like to be dictated to.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on June 25, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Thanks. I’m maxed out on outrage right now, but I’ll take note. Have you sent a copy to your congressman, or would it matter if you did?

rrpjr on June 25, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Count to 10 on June 25, 2011 at 4:08 PM

As tax cheat Geitner said that would cause the Federal government to shrink. We can’t have that can we (/s)

chemman on June 25, 2011 at 4:53 PM

D-I-C-T-A-T-O-R . . . the only other reason would be that he’s blatantly stupid and just doesn’t give a damn. Thank you enlightened voters, you really stuck it to us this time.

rplat on June 25, 2011 at 4:55 PM

“Laws? Rules? Rules are for sheep.”

–Oblahblah

iurockhead on June 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM

I would say it would be articles of impeachment time.

crosspatch on June 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM

“It’s good to be king!”

PattyJ on June 25, 2011 at 4:57 PM

And Bush was supposed to be King George? Isn’t it amazing to see the hypocrisy emanating from liberals?

TheRightMan on June 25, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Down with the King!

FloatingRock on June 25, 2011 at 5:00 PM

If he does that, impeachment would be in order, but the GOP wouldn’t dare.

flataffect on June 25, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Isn’t it about time for him to just disband the senate and have himself declared Caesar?

Blacklake on June 25, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Cowboy UP !!

ted c on June 25, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Can the ‘I’ word be implemented?…

darwin-t on June 25, 2011 at 3:56 PM

What do you mean? Obama implements the word “I” as the subject of virtually every sentence he utters!

Blacklake on June 25, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Congress stood up to Nixon, and showed him the door. They seem uninterested in standing up to The One. I suspect because Nixon was seen as a “conservative”. (Which he most assuredly was not; between wage-price freezes and creating the EPA, etc., he was a classic “Rockefeller Republican”, which is another way of saying “stealth progressive”.) Whereas The One is seen as a “true progressive”.

Which probably explains why he acts so much like Mussolini, who was also defined as a “progressive” back in the 1920s and ’30s, before he went to war against Ethiopia (for reasons he was never able to adequately explain).

Nixon’s threatened impeachment (or Clinton’s impeachment)wasn’t really Congress standing up and asserting its power. Congress should be passing the regulations that the administrative state issues — rather than take responsibility for this regulation, Congress passed the authority to the executive.

Congress has the reponsibility to coin money — rather than take responsibility for this decision, Congress created the Federal Reserve to do it for them.

Our Republic was created with the idea in mind that Congress would be quick to assert its power over the President. In the modern era at least, Congress is more concerned with being reelected than actually asserting its Constitutional perogatives.

It doesn’t matter who is president. Congress should take responsibility for every regulation the EPA passes, because they passed the enableing legislation. Congress should take full responsibility for the debauchment of the currency for the same reason. And the debt explosion. And the increasing executive perogatives and privileges. All so that small men (and women) can maintain their fiefdoms for a larger portion of their lifetime.

With so many “progressives” in Congress we may be waiting a long time. The states stand a better chance of defanging the government.

Ignoring the royal edicts from Washington is the best, and fastest way to take their power.

darwin on June 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Maybe it will come to that. I would rather the people decide that the federal government has overreached on a broad scale and elect representatives committed to paring it back.

Revenant on June 25, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:51 PM

So true…

But what I find sad is the refusal of our Congressional representatives to call him out on it.

We have a GOP House that refuses to defund the Libya war despite Obama’s flagrant abuse of the War… I guess the Speaker is afraid he will not be invited to any more golf matches…

TheRightMan on June 25, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Hot new idea: What if Obama just ignores election results?

Speakup on June 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM

What do you mean? Obama implements the word “I” as the subject of virtually every sentence he utters!

Blacklake on June 25, 2011 at 5:05 PM

I think darwin-t is referring to impeachment.

TheRightMan on June 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Yeah, why not? That’s perfectly in keeping with Obama’s M.O. when the legislature gets in his way. Can’t get Congress to move on cap and trade? Make the EPA do something. Don’t want to beg Congress to authorize war in Libya? Send in the Air Force and forget about it.

But don’t call him a dictator, monarch, socialist or marxist.

His narcissistic arrogance will be punished, as it always is.

Schadenfreude on June 25, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Leftist human garbage want to see their utopian dreams realized, well get ready, because it’s coming and when it does, they will be shell shocked. Screw ‘em.

Bishop on June 25, 2011 at 3:59 PM

The sooner, the better!

Schadenfreude on June 25, 2011 at 5:10 PM

One word: Impeach

BetseyRoss on June 25, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Key West Reader on June 25, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Permission to share, word for word, cap’n ??

Like, EVERYWHERE ???
(with credit)

pambi on June 25, 2011 at 5:24 PM

“Only ONE US President has withstood impeachment in the last 50 years. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your place in history, be some where else!!”

- Attorney General designee Delenn (November 10, 2012, on the announcement that Obama refuses to leave office)

*True B5 fans will get this. ;-)

itzWicks on June 25, 2011 at 5:24 PM

I wonder how come no one’s proposing bills to avoid the problem by insuring that we’ll always pay the interest on the debt even if we don’t raise the debt ceiling from different revenue sources.

If the revenue source is politically unpopular (Social Security, higher taxes on everyone) or harmful to Congress (their salaries and the salaries of all non-essential workers), Congress would probably come up with an alternative.

But it still avoids the worst case scenario of the country being unable to pay the Interest, in a possibly unconstitutional manner.

Mister Mets on June 25, 2011 at 5:24 PM

The many questionnaires and polls I receive from various conservative sits and emails offer the same roster of concerns I’m asked to rank as the most serious “facing the country” (e.g., “Economy,” “Jobs,” “Energy,” Terrorism,” etc.,). But I never find a selection for “Loss of My Freedoms,” or “Imperial Presidency” or “Abuse of Power” or “Constititional Integrity.” Never. So I choose “Other” and write it in.

A collapsing economy concerns me. But my freedoms matter more. Assuring the latter is, I believe, necessary to fixing the former.

rrpjr on June 25, 2011 at 5:29 PM

If he ignores Congress on appropriations, then he’s ignoring the Constitution and is no longer president. Congress must impeach and convict him, or they are not longer Congress.

Crawford on June 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM

I wonder how come no one’s proposing bills to avoid the problem by insuring that we’ll always pay the interest on the debt even if we don’t raise the debt ceiling from different revenue sources.

Because its a political football. The debt ceiling will be raised, its just a question of how much and for which concessions. The Dems want tax increases as part of the compromise and the repubs want spending cuts, but no matter what the compromise will be, the debt ceiling will be raised.

We’re lying to ourselves at this point regarding the total outstanding and future-projected debt. The welfare state is unsustainable and will collapse. There is not, at yet at least, the political will to take the actions necessary toward moving to a solvent future. For the cynical, members of Congress are just trying to eke out another term and want to delay the reckoning. For those more optimistic, members of Congress just dont, as an institution, believe that such drastic reforms are necessary. I tend to believe that these people are, at best, in denial.

Revenant on June 25, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Ah, Dr. ‘K’ criticizing ‘der Fuehrer’. I recall not long after the election Dr. ‘K’ assuring everyone that Obama wasn’t a “socialist”. Now Dr. ‘K’ seems to be figuring it out. All that brain power only lags behind we prols by two years and a few months. Welcome to the party, Chuck. Doh.

JimP on June 25, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Article 1 section 8 power to borrow money was intended to be short term debt to be repaid when the states remit their payments. This was never intended to grant the power to issue debt currency.

It was also, never to incur debt for entitlements.

xler8bmw on June 25, 2011 at 5:47 PM

TheRightMan on June 25, 2011 at 4:57 PM

The press is willing to let him be king or dictator. I’m sure a number of them would embrace it.

gitarfan on June 25, 2011 at 5:51 PM

unseen on June 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM

indeed….

crickets chirping loudly from the left….makes my blood boil and if a gop president even so much THOUGHT about doing anything this dude has done, the howling that would ensue…

cmsinaz on June 25, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Not raising the debt would be far less disastrous than having a community organizing, socialist as the sitting US president with zero experience in any leadership position.

dthorny on June 25, 2011 at 5:54 PM

just saw drudge with chavez in critical condition….dear leader maybe losing his mentor?

cmsinaz on June 25, 2011 at 5:58 PM

If all spending originates in the House, and Congress doesn’t pass a law authorizing spending, then how can the president spend even a nickel he wasn’t specifically authorized to spend?

Even if he can just borrow money to spend, then Congress could not be thereby obligated to spend the money. Otherwise, they don’t have the power of the purse at all.

Any executive act that involves spending money that Congress has not authorized would inherently involve making a promise that the nation was not bound to honor. Is the president really authorized to make commitments that the nation does not have to honor?

It should be obvious that this goes in a very bad direction very fast.

tom on June 25, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2