January 9, 2013

Which law does Obama have to break to please the GOP?

Jon Walker, Firedog Lake - The laws surrounding the federal debt the limit are logically inconsistent, the legislative equivalent of “this sentence is a lie.” If we assume the trillion dollar platinum coin solution or moral obligation coupons are not viable, what Congress has done with the debt limit in conjunction with other laws is to force the Executive branch into breaking the law. It has made it logically impossible for the President to dutifully follow all of the laws still in effect.

Several laws passed by Congress legally require the Executive branch to give different entities money at specific times. Congress has also set a borrowing limit which would theoretically prevent the Executive branch from getting the money it is still legally required to give out. There is basically nothing in the relevant legislation regarding how to deal with this conflict, and the President literally can’t do both. He must break some laws, and the question then becomes which laws should he break.

The President could ignore just the debt limit law and continue to fulfill all the spending laws. Or, the President could fulfill the debt limit law, but that would require ignoring multiple other laws which would force the President to randomly pick who does and does not get paid.

I think everyone involved in this potentially enormous and important fight — including the President, the Treasury Secretary, Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, etc. — should be forced to answer this simple question: If Congress creates a legalistic catch-22 that forces the government to break its own laws, which law do they think should be broken, and why does that one takes precedence?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, like the old philosophical question: "Is it possible for god to microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?"