This is another in a series of diaries designed to prompt discussion on the failure of the United States Congress to do its job. That is exactly what is being illustrated by the current kabuki theater concerning the debt limit. The Congress jointly resolved a budget for the rest of this year and that budget was signed into law by the President. And it was KNOWN at the time that, according to SUPPOSED current laws that the debt limit would have to be increased in order to EXECUTE that budget. That is what the "executive branch" of the government is for. It is there to insure that the laws of the Congress are enforced.
But what happens when the congress passes laws that contradict one another? What happens when it is not possible to enforce all the laws because the enforcement of one violates the other? And if the Congress has the power of the purse, and that power is pursued through the budget process then the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional and should be ignored.
Then there is the LEGAL question concerning the validity of the laws passed by the congress or by any legislative body. Legislation is not typically repealed. It is more typically overwritten. The newer laws trump the older laws. This is important because the ceiling law was passed last year by the OLD legislative session and the budget was passed by the new legislative session
Pay attention:
The laws of the previous legislature CANNOT BIND the current legislature. Each succeeding legislature has the same power of repeal and amendment to the laws as the previous legislature. Laws made by the new legislature are NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY bound by previous legislation. The only bindings on the legislative acts are constitutional provisions.
Sources ( 1, 2, 3). It is important to make my position clear here: I am not saying that acts of the legislature, duly signed into law by the president do not remain in effect until subsequent acts of the legislature contradict them. But I AM saying that the passage of the latest budget and the signing of it into law DID contradict the law passed by the previous legislature concerning the debt limit. No other interpretation that would stand the test of constitutionality is possible. When the congress passed the current budget it committed itself to that level of spending regardless of the debt limit imposed by the previous legislature.
The president is failing to enforce the laws of the Congress when he does not issue an executive order to ignore the "debt limit" passed by the PREVIOUS congress.
Article II Section 3 -- "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
So the president is COMPELLED by the Constitution he swore to uphold to issue executive orders upholding the latter budget appropriations in spite of the former "debt limit". He must rule by executive order until the congress (by joint resolution) gets its shit straight. And the War Powers Act THEN compels him to surrender such rule when the Congress FIXES the mess it has created by joint resolution. He cannot VETO a joint resolution of THE CURRENT CONGRESS that satisfactorily resolves the contradictory laws. But it is upon the Congress to supersede the executive order. And until they do then he MUST ignore the "debt limit".
Having posted here before I am acutely aware of the moonbat tendency to take issue with anything that was not "thought up" by the head moonbats or the moonbat self. And I predict that I will be hide rated for pointing out the facts (including the rejection of opinions not duly blessed and published by moonbat central). Yet the FACTS I present are not going to change because of some emotional concerns over civility and tenderness. For those of you who actually have something of substance to offer, your comments and disagreements are most certainly welcomed. I LIKE it when I am wrong. That means I get to learn something.