re: #59 Obdicut“it’s tradition” isn’t a legal argument.

not generally, no.
“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.

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.

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? or at least give the white house a lot more power than it has under the assumption that congressional approval is required to raise the debt ceiling (or as most sources I’ve found through google put it, congress has sole authority to incur debts on behalf of the US)?

please if I’m mistaken, enlighten me. this is turning out to be quite educative :)