re: #60 ThomasLite

“it’s clear in practice and in long-standing general agreement in the legal community that this interpretation is as intended” however, certainly can be.

I’m sorry, but how? Can you name a case where that was cited as authority?

once again I agree ensuring creditworthyness is important; I agree it should be done somehow; I also agree your argument that any debts incurred in execution of law as enacted by congress should be backed in full, as a matter of course.

I’m not asking you to agree with that. I’m pointing out that that is the purpose of that clause.

do you agree however, that in the US separation of powers, giving the executive branch power to raise the debt ceiling could potentially upset a lot of checks and balances that are currently in play?

No. It upsets nothing at all. This is debt. It is not spending. This is paying off things congress already authorized, things where the bills are coming due.

Congress decided to buy a big fancy phone and get a premium data package. They decided they wanted a lot of other shit too. That costs money.

The debt ceiling would be raised in order to raise funds to pay for expenses that have already been incurred by congress.

There isn’t actually the legal option of saying that we won’t pay those debts.