[ad_1]
House Republicans seem determined to give President Biden a much bigger role than the founders intended.
The looming federal “debt ceiling crisis” is a false emergency intended to allow House Republicans to dictate spending policy to the rest of government by threatening debt default. Most commentary on the impending crisis focuses on the very real damage such a default would do to the U.S. and world economy, and the many frightening collateral effects (handing over world leaders to China, declining the dollar in international finance, position loss, rising interest rates)). But there is another aspect of this crisis that seems to be rarely considered.
If the debt ceiling crisis drags on, there will be a “catch 22” and whatever Biden does, he will be committing an unconstitutional act because Congress gave him no other option (by doing so). , would take the spending powers of Congress for themselves).
Consider the options Biden faces if Congress does not raise the federal debt ceiling and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen tells him all legal options have been exhausted. Biden has to choose between:
- refuse to spend the money Congress ordered him to spend
- generate income in a manner not approved by Congress
- Issue federal debt in excess of the statutory debt ceiling
Any of these options would unconstitutionally take away Congress’ budgetary powers. A president cannot refuse to spend (seize) money that Congress tells him to spend. Similarly, it is unconstitutional to earn income off the books, as seen in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. Unauthorized issuance of federal bonds again violates the powers of Congress.
Legal scholars believe that unauthorized federal debt issuance is the least unconstitutional response because it only violates one act of Congress, rather than selectively violating dozens or hundreds of federal laws. suggesting. Biden would also have constitutional grounds if he chose Option 3 and issued the debt. The constitutionality of the debt ceiling itself has not been established.
Some in Congress may want Biden to instead make the unpopular spending cuts needed to balance revenues and spending, but that’s a power vested only in Congress. A factional Roberts court, already keen to reduce executive power, may refuse to allow Congress to surrender core constitutional powers, taxation and spending to the president.
Even if the Supreme Court allowed it, a solution that would ultimately determine which parts of the government Biden would fund would represent a significant transfer of power from Congress to the president.
House Republicans want a big spending cut deal like the last time President Obama took the global economy hostage before that happens. But Democrats say they will never make such a deal again. Given the options between letting House Republicans decide the size of the government or having a constitutional showdown on the Supreme Court, Biden is expected to take his chances with the judges.
And given that it took House Republicans 15 votes and three days to win the chair when they were negotiating with each other, a major deal between Republicans and Democrats on spending cuts would likely be Biden’s. Is it likely to be done before facing a catastrophic default decision? Democrats control Congress and half of the presidency, making it unlikely they’ll accept anything of the kind Republicans in the House think.
Is this the modern meaning of American conservatism? Controlling spending and revenues from Congress and giving it to presidents, especially liberals like Biden?
Oddly enough, given the career paths of House Republicans, that seems a very likely outcome.
Patrick M. (Mike) Condray is a former member of the Federal Senior Administrators and retired Colonel in the United States Air Force, researching ways to preserve and improve democracy in the United States. George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia.
[ad_2]
Source link
