Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
As usual, it is impossible to tell what Bill Clinton really means. And how do we say this politely -- Clinton is not the most reliable guide to constitutional meaning. But let's imagine he is saying that the president has the constitutional authority to go out and borrow more money without congressional consent. That goes too far, even for me, who thinks that the president has broad constitutional powers.
The Constitution does have a provision that says that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . .shall not be questioned." But all that means, I think, is that if the government cannot borrow any more money, paying back the debt has to come first in priority over other spending. It doesn't mean that the President (or any branch of the government) can simply borrow money in the absence of a law. As I understand it, the government has plenty of revenues coming in to pay interest on the debt; after that is done, it can pay off other accounts, like Social Security or soldiers' wages.
The reason the president cannot do what Clinton suggests are two fold. First, Congress alone has the constitutional authority "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." If the Constitution places a duty on the government, it is up to the branches that have the constitutional power to fulfill it. Here, it is only Congress, which I believe has an absolute power of the purse, which can continue to borrow and make spending decisions. If the Congress defaults on its constitutional obligations, then it is Congress's fault -- the president cannot assume Congress's constitutional powers to make things right.
Second, the president's broad constitutional powers extend, I believe, primarily to national security and foreign affairs. The Framers designed the president's powers to be somewhat undefined because it is the branch best able to handle sudden emergencies, like war. In foreign affairs, there can be a heavy cost to acting slowly or not at all, hence the vesting of a broad power in a single person. But in domestic affairs, where there is plenty of time to make decisions, and there is always the background of state law and governments, the Framers wanted Congress to be the leading branch. The heavy cost of acting because of so many legislatures, the Framers thought, was acceptable in domestic affairs because there was less likelihood of emergencies or great threats. The president's domestic role is primarily to use the power of the veto to restrain a Congress that goes too far.
So once again, Clinton, like Obama, is confusing the president's domestic and foreign affairs roles. At best, the president may have a power to choose the priority of accounts to pay up first from revenues that are still coming in, and that only because Congress -- as I understand it -- has passed no law setting out those priorities. But the president certainly has no power to borrow more money -- that is solely Congress's job.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
John, are you alluding to the fact that everything depends, as we were once told by President Clinton, on what one means by "is"? I am certainly confused by that issue, as was Martin Heidegger.
Edited on Jul 19, 2011 at 4:18pmMar '11
Re: Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
It all depends on the meaning of "is". Or, "was" - like, more than 100 years ago.
Edited on Jul 19, 2011 at 4:24pmOct '10
Re: Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
"...Congress alone has the constitutional authority "to borrow money on the credit of the United States."
I agree with you, John. And what is your opinion of the McConnell plan based on this same constitutional principle?
Jun '10
Re: Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
I never believed that the POTUS could steal the right of property of secured bondholders of Chrysler and have the bankruptsy court ignore 235 years of legal precedence and our Constitution. Now I really don't trust anything. Our social order is evaporating, which is exactly what any socialist would want.
Re: Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
And if it was a Republican administration trying to get away with these things?
Dec '10
Re: Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
Professor Yoo, your arguments seem to be both reasoned and irrelevant.
As an example, I listened to Kudlow (not a fan) explain to anybody that would listen, this past Sunday, that your argument would not work, because the cash flow is not there. Kudlow's argument is that the political and legal discussion about revenues in, versus checks out, has no basis in reality, as the actual cash flow crashes almost immediately.
I am not advocating his position, I am just asking, what if he is right? I am inclined to listen about the pure cash-flow argument, as we all should know, by now, that the federal government is only operating, since May, based upon robbing the last money it had left, the pensions of retired federal employees.
That is where we are, now. Geithner has already robbed the last of the reserves from the federal employee retirement funds that he began in May; those reserves are gone, next month. Where does the cash flow come from that pays to continue operating this government, absent a QE3 event?
I don't see anything left to rob to back government checks.
All they have left is selling land.
Aug '10
Re: Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
Professor Yoo, surely the context of that phrase Clinton quoted is relevant? The 14th Amendment, Section 4:
"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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
The 14th has been contorted to justify many things, but that seems straightforward: acknowledging responsibility for Union wartime borrowing as legitimate US debt, while denying responsibility for borrowing done by the Confederacy. We sometimes forget that existential changes to a state raise real questions about the identity of debtors--there were similar dealings around the Continental Congress' debts, and debt incurred under the Articles of Confederation.
I don't see any logical case to be made that any branch of the government can use this as cover for unilateral borrowing, much less an argument identifying a specific Presidential power.
Apr '11
Re: Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
He (Obama) also noted that the Senate's two top leaders have been cooperating on a measure that would allow him to raise the debt limit without a prior vote of Congress while also setting up a special committee to recommend cuts from federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare.
"That continues to be a necessary approach to put forward. In the event that we don't get an agreement, at minimum, we've got to raise the debt ceiling," he said.
AP
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Debt-hope-Obama-praises-Gang-apf-120819518.html?x=0
Nov '10
Re: Bill Clinton's Latest, Or Responding to Peter Robinson
It would take a fool to buy a bond or note of the USA issued under this alleged authority. There is a very good argument to be made that it is not a valid debt of the United States and that it cannot be repaid out of US funds.