If Obama can launch a war without Congressional approval, why not raise the debt ceiling too?

[NightWatcher]

I know, Libya wasnt a "war", but...... did he ever get Congressional approval to go in there?

Dont call it raising the debt ceiling then. Call it the Emergency Act To Not Be Royally Fucked Up Next Week and stop messing around and get it done.

[yellerpup]

1. He can.

But if he does, a lot of time will be wasted in trying to impeach him. Too bad we can't make use of all the hot air and turn it into real energy.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. There you go with logic and good sense:

Which is in abundant absence in DC right now.

[Renew Deal]

6. We'll see how you like that logic and good sense when Pres. Perry wants to liquidate Social Security

with the stroke of a pen. ;)

[Zorra]

3. Yes. Maybe an Executive Order in the name of national security? nt

[dennis4868]

4. huh?

what does one have to do with the other?

[NightWatcher]

5. they both require Congressional approval (war and debt raising), if he went to war without Congress,

what is stopping him from raising the debt limit without obtaining the approval of Congress first?

[dennis4868]

12. Really....

We did not get congressional approval for the Korean war, and Reagan and Clinton did not get congressional approval for their military actions...

[unblock]

7. unless a military action is a completely dodo-headed cock-up,

no congress will EVER impeach and remove a president for going to war without their say-so.

they'll whinge aplenty, but they'll never impeach for it. too many people would see it as unpatriotic, anti-war, anti-troops, or anti-military contractors (donors).

[KharmaTrain]

8. Be Careful What You Wish For...

Seems like people forgot about the Unitary Executive of the previous regime...bypassing the legislative and relegating the concept of checks and balance as a nice "exercize". If the President uses the 14th ammendment here...thus circumventing the legislative (and I would think would bring on a constitutional challenge)...or could be used as the presedence of a future rushpublican president to ram through all sorts of "emergency" legislation finding some lackey lawyer to come up with a "Constitutional justification".

[NightWatcher]

9. shrub did it for evil things, why not do it to keep us from going off a cliff (good thing)?

the next guy will use it for evil things (and hopefully a few good things), but why not use it now to prevent disaster and save SS and Medicare.

[KharmaTrain]

10. I'll Stick With Separation Of Powers...

Your "good things" (albeit I agree) doesn't mean SS or Medicare are saved. Here's the rub...while the debt limit could be waived through Executive order the Congress still holds the strings in issuing new debt...thus the government still couldn't borrow to keep things going and default will occur. It may not be August 2nd but without the ability to borrow this President can waive every ceiling in sight, the money won't be there and deeper cuts will have to be made as the interest on the existing debt and spending continue to pile up.

The problem is a dysfunctional House that still represents people...representatives voted in by their constituents. While I wish for some last minute deal (which I expect we'll be on a roller coaster of theatrics all week) the thought of some unilateral executive action no matter how good one may believe it to be sets a precedence that expands what many feel is an executive that has grown way too large over the last century.

Cheers...

[stklurker]

11. why not do it to keep us from going off a cliff

vehemently opposed... once you start down this slippery slope you cant get back.. the next repub could state a financial emergency and eliminate them...