You want to know why all those analogies that sound like “I manage my finances/pay my debt/etc. so why can’t the government?” don’t work?
Because you can’t do this.
Seriously, I think that’s a fantastic idea. It’s at least constitutional.
Tag Archives: Congress
Don’t even think about it
The worst possible thing Obama could do right now is use the argument that the 14th Amendment makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional to end this mess. It’s bad because it would be unconstitutional, it would upset the separation of powers, it would ignore the historical and statutory precedent for the debt, and it’s probably best we just show people how crazy the Tea Party is once and for all. Continue reading
I am concerned not only with the stupidity of this letter but the broader implications that at least 50% of the people where you live voted for you
The Republicans in charge of the various national security committees know how to write.
We are concerned that the lack of a comprehensive military detention system will continue to have numerous detrimental results, including: incentivizing lethal operations over law of war detention; the loss of critical detainee-provided intelligence; forcing the United States to be wholly dependent on foreign governments to hold and provide access to detainees; and, as in Warsame’s case, bringing terrorists to the United States
The implications are that 1) we can “do more” to gather intelligence from detainees so long as they are not on US soil; 2) we never want to rely on other countries for help; 3) for the love of god, please don’t ever let a detainee set foot on the continental United States. Continue reading
Filed under IMHO, National Security
Obama had you two moves ago
Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution in today's paper.
The debt default negotiations are being called a game of chicken.* The classic example is two crazy teenagers on opposite sides of a stretch of road gun their engines and drive straight for one another. Strictly by definition this means that whoever flinches first is a wuss and thus loses, unless both flinch (everyone is a wuss/loses/lives) or both don’t (everyone is brave/wins/dies).
Politics is often called a zero-sum game. Strictly by definition this means that there is one loser and one winner no matter what happens. But people are affected positively and negatively by playing (unless we’re talking nuclear warfare) creating a Heisenberg principal of politics. Thus, just because you aren’t losing as badly as another player doesn’t mean you aren’t still hurt (Pyrric Victory) and just because someone won more than you did, doesn’t mean you are in bad shape.
Right now, the game is set up like chicken. Obama can “flinch” – compromise his party’s position on entitlements – to strike a deal. Or he cannot and either the GOP “flinches” – compromise their Party’s position on revenue increases – or they won’t and the United States will default for the first time in its history. The outcomes, however, are no longer the same as chicken. Now, Obama probably wins and the GOP probably loses no matter what happens. Continue reading
New poll shows 47% of Americans have no idea what they are talking about
A new poll shows that 47% of Americans believe that the government spending too much is a more pressing issue than the potential for a debt default.
I wish they had a follow up question, “So, if defaulting isn’t as important then what consequence of government spending are you so concerned about?” Continue reading
If a missile falls in Libya and there isn’t a Republican firing it. . .
” As in the case of the no-fly zone patrols and periodic airstrikes in Bosnia before the deployment of ground troops in 1995 and the NATO bombing campaign in connection with the Kosovo conflict in 1999—two military campaigns initiated without a prior declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization—President Obama determined that the use of force in Libya by the United States would be limited to airstrikes and associated support missions; the President made clear that “[t]he United States is not going to deploy ground troops in Libya.” Obama March 18, 2011 Remarks. The planned operations thus avoided the difficulties of withdrawal and risks of escalation that may attend commitment of ground forces—two factors that this Office has identified as “arguably” indicating “a greater need for approval [from Congress] at the outset,” to avoid creating a situation in which “Congress may be confronted with circumstances in which the exercise of its power to declare war is effectively foreclosed.” Proposed Bosnia Deployment, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 333.”
Authority to use Military Force in Libya, Official Opinion of Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, April 4, 2011, available at: http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/authority-military-use-in-libya.pdf
Obama invaded attacked cooperated with other countries to enact force upon military targets in Libya to oust unsettle vaguely encourage the retirement of Moammar Gadhafi. His weapon of choice was bombs and missiles. A lot of missiles. There was question as to whether Obama had the authority to use military force in the first place. The Office of Legal Counsel – a presumably non-partisan office in the DOJ – issued an opinion, quoted above, that said all was kosher. Few quibbled with that. Under the War Powers Resolution, however, he has 60 days to play G.I. Joe before the Congress needs to officially approve.
It’s been 60 days. Congress is getting antsy. Continue reading
