Here's what I don't get- if both the federal budget and the debt limit are statutory law, how can both be legal? It seems they are sending contradictory messages to the executive as to how to administer laws. Spend this amount of money (over what is taken in) but don't borrow more than this amount of money. If the contradictory laws are of equal standing- why, as some claim, is the executive forced to ignore the budget law and heed the debt ceiling law? I don't think "Democrats invoking the 14th" is sound at all, but if the executive has to choose which of the contradictory laws to follow, and the fact that Congress (and the Pres) created a budget that increases borrowing beyond the debt ceiling, does the 14th amendment imply that that debt shall not be questioned. Why does it seem like the debt ceiling congress established is higher law than the budget congress passed?
Not that it is a higher law, rather, why agree to a budget that the line of credit will not cover? Growth just isn't going to happen with the current rules in place.
My guess is.. the no's on the current bill did not vote for the present budget. I've heard electors say that they are going to give Obama, in legislative form, what True Federalist is speaking of - seems to me at this point that is the next move.
Poll
