Reply #61: Um...you're missing something here.... [View All]

Congress may not use its' control of borrowing power in this way. Period.

This is incorrect: accordingly, the Congress must publish, ratify and have signed into law, legislation that authorizes the borrowing. To be clear, enacting legislation that authorizes spending does not entail the authorization to borrow. The are separate and apart, requiring separate legislation, separate votes, separate signings.

Once a bill is passed that creates an obligation of funding from the Treasury or once we've borrowed the money, those debts may not be questioned by Congress. That means the President has the power to pay those debts and they're obligated to provide the funds for all past debts and legislative obligations. They might say they refuse to borrow money for any future debts or obligations (and they can say that and frankly perhaps they should...but the onus to hold themselves to that lies with them alone and solely through the legislative process) or they might bring bills to de-fund previous pieces of legislation (which they do have to specify by name, may not be done in blanket terms and must consist of unfunded mandates. Something like Social Security or the Postal Service can't be defunded as they funding-means was stipulated when passed and was not funded with borrowed funds.), but the requirement lies with them to rein in spending only through the legislative process. Having failed to do that, they're not allowed to interfere in the powers of the executive by saying that "well we passed it and we can't repeal it so we're going to refuse to borrow the money to pay for it." That kind of procedural malarkey is a violation of the separation of powers. That's what the Questioning Clause of 14 means.

Once it leave their chambers and arrives in the Oval Office and is signed...they're on the hook for the expenditure.