- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,487
- Reaction score
- 39,816
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Not at all. And this isn't really a difficult concept, which is why I said it was difficult for me to believe that you were being serious.
My contention is that two laws are in conflict in a unique way. Which congress passed them, or when they were passed, is immaterial.
On the contrary - the most recent Congress has primacy. So, for example, if a prior Congress said that the top income tax rate would be 35%, and a new Congress said no, we are going to raise it, then, the President is free to enter into negotiations with Congress, but, he's not free to say "well, I like the earlier rate better, so, it wins".
Agreeably an imperfect example, but the pronciple that the President can't pick between Congresses is there.
One law (last year's budget) mandates the expenditure of federal dollars for specific purposes. Another law (the debt ceiling) prohibits that same spending. Which has precedent?
What Congress has done most recently. Which is why this is a pretty big deal. If it was simply an administrative matter that the Executive could override at will, this never would have become a debate in the first place.
The courts could get involved to settle this, but there's a wildcard at play as well. The 14th Amendment says that federal debt shall not be questioned. It seems to render any debt ceiling law unconstitutional.
No, because the debt ceiling does not determine our ability to pay roll over our debt, but, rather, our ability to do other things as well.
Courts would definitely get involved, but, I'd imagine more in a bankruptcy fashion, determining what among our non-creditors has primacy (if they can) under law for remaining funds. hopefully we never find out.