There's no part of the Constitution that requires Congress to approve borrowing. We could abolish the debt ceiling tomorrow if we wanted.
uh, no, it's article 1, section 8.
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
I was wondering when you were going to pop in and tell me I was wrong.
You made the claim, now back it up, post your own links.
A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.
uh, no, it's article 1, section 8.
Here's a quick one:
A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.
End of story.
Sorry, to be clearer I meant that there's no part of the Constitution that prevents Congress from delegating that authority.
the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale
Link to source?
Please cite your sources.
And please provide a true and correct context in which the source is being cited.
A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing. It will be a powerful cement of our Union. It will also create a necessity for keeping up taxation to a degree which, without being oppressive, will be a spur to industry, remote as we are from Europe, and shall be from danger. It were otherwise to be feared our popular maxims would incline us to too great parsimony and indulgence. We labor less now than any civilized nation of Europe; and a habit of labor in the people is as essential to the health and vigor of their minds and bodies, as it is conducive to the welfare of the state. We ought not to suffer our self-love to deceive us in a comparison upon these points.
Sorry, to be clearer I meant that there's no part of the Constitution that prevents Congress from delegating that authority.
true, and congress has delegated a lot of authority. but to eliminate the debt ceiling laws may be completely abdicating the authority to another branch, which congress can't do.
LOL.
All of a sudden the guy who doesn't want to cite a single source to back up his ideas now wants citations and context.
Unlikely. Basically the only powers that Congress can't delegate are those that are exclusively legislative in function. So while it could delegate borrowing authority to the president, it couldn't delegate the authority to write the law that does that.
There's no part of the Constitution that requires Congress to approve borrowing. We could abolish the debt ceiling tomorrow if we wanted.Originally Posted by Fern View Post
IIRC, the Constitution requires that Congress approve borrowing. I don't think Congress can ignore that or delegate it to the President. I suppose they could just go ahead and authorize a crap ton of debt, but the politics for that would be very very bad.
Fern
The only responsible thing to do now is to abolish the debt ceiling. We've already crossed the Rubicon in a sense where one political party has found that holding the nation hostage over it is to its political advantage. It's only a matter of time before the Democrats follow their lead on it, and then we will have a yearly financial crisis.
This is no way to run a country.
Sorry, to be clearer I meant that there's no part of the Constitution that prevents Congress from delegating that authority.
Cracks in your armor are showing.
My opinions are just that, my opinions. I do not have to cite a source to backup my opinion.
And your link to libertyfund is timing out.
Cracks in your armor are showing.
My opinions are just that, my opinions. I do not have to cite a source to backup my opinion.
Needless to say, presumably you are now aware that the founders did not think the way you thought they did.
"[A] national bank ... was not essential to the work of the Federal Government ... This was ... only a measure for carrying out the interests of wealthy men with those of the government."
From William Graham Sumner's Alexander Hamilton
Everyone's entitled to their own OPINIONS, but nobody is entitled to their own FACTS, and we've been showing you, over and over and over that factually, you are wrong on what the debt ceiling is, you are wrong on basic economics and wrong on consensus of the founding fathers on debt, basically wrong in anything factual. And IMO, an opinion not based on facts is worthless.
"Sorry, to be clearer" Bwuahaha. You were wrong and can't admit it. How much f'ing clearer could you have been in your post?
Now, my real question is - where is it in the Constitution that says Congress can't delegate their spending authority?
Because we all know that the President can't have the line item veto. That's unconstitutional.
I just wanna how come you're sooo positive that Congress can delegate borrowing. And, BTW, to whom do you suggest they delegate this power?
Fern
I never stated my opinion as fact, when I do I will provide a link to back it up.
Prove it - I provided links and part of the Constitution.
The founding fathers clearing intended the government to control the money.
As it stands right now, congress must approve any borrowing.
So now you're moving the goal posts. Does this mean you admit you were wrong about their position on debt?
The nation was supposed to be ran with no debt.
which is why congress was given the ability to borrow money
"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation.
Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison,1789. ME 7:455
Glass houses, Fern old buddy:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2342543&page=12
You said Congress could not delegate that power to the President. That was wrong. Do you know why the line item veto was unconstitutional? Because it was the President exercising a legislative function, it had nothing to do with spending per se. Under current nondelegation jurisprudence Congress only needs to designate an 'intelligible principle' for its delegation of non-legislative power.
Congress has the ability to print money,
congress has the ability to tax,
congress has the ability to borrow.
Shouldn't borrowing be a last resort?
Shrug. Not sure what that link is supposed to show.
What does "legislative function" mean precisely?
Looks to me like a function of the legislative branch is to approve debt. You seem to be claiming that approving debt is not a legislative power. Explain how it isn't since the Constitution seems to specifically grant it to Congress.
Fern
sometimes you find something that's a good idea to spend money on that will make you money in the future but you don't have the money right now coming in from revenue sources. borrowing is generally preferable to printing money in that situation.
no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence