In recent days some of the left have been saying that the President of the United States could just take his magic robo-pen and with a wave of his hand increase the debt ceiling without the act of Congress.
I hope this explains away this myth.
I saw a nice Senator from Iowa try to make the case for the President to use an exective order to raise the debt the debt ceiling and quoted this case. PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U. S. 330 (1935). You can find the full text f this case here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/330/case.html
Clearly in the U.S. Federal Constitution the power of the purse is entrusted with Congress. The U.S. Constitution has enumerated powers, and that's all you have. If it is not in the Constitution Congress nor the President can have said power.
I quote from Perry v. United States:
"The CONGRESS, as the instrumentality of sovereignty, is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. The powers conferred upon the Congress are harmonious. The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations......
---The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned." While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation............
----We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, insofar as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power." (e.g. the Constitution is superior)
- IF Congress did a resolution or law that said for the President to X with the debt limit and borrowing, it would be found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
- IF the President executed an executive order to raise the debt ceiling, that order would be found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
This is notwithstanding that the Perry case's fact pattern is about liability and that congress cannot just legislate away it's obligations.
Definition of LIABILITY
: something for which one is liable; especially : pecuniary obligation : debt —usually used in plural
: one that acts as a disadvantage : drawback
THE DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
The duties of the President are ministerial and discretionary.
The President may by executive order remove per se an official in an inferior office but the same must be consented by the Senate.
MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U. S. 52 (1926)
The President cannot obliterate or change laws by way of executive order only Congress can. The President is obliged to obey.
"Very different is the duty of the President in the exercise of the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and, among these laws, the acts named in the bill. By the first of these acts, he is required to assign generals to command in the several military districts, and to detail sufficient military force to enable such officers to discharge their duties under the law. By the supplementary act, other duties are imposed on the several commanding generals, and these duties must necessarily be performed under the supervision of the President as commander-in-chief. The duty thus imposed on the President is in no just sense ministerial. It is purely executive and political."
MISSISSIPPI V. JOHNSON, 71 U. S. 475 (1866)
Thus, the President, acts more of a manager within the confines of the laws passed by Congress along with the Constitution and is sworn to uphold the same ( aka ministerial acts and discretion as noted in law). The President does not create law nor change law by way of Executive Order; President "manages" current law and Executive orders must be consistent with the law and constitution. Why? There is no Constitutional provision for Executive Orders... (didn't know that did ya?)
To back up my point per Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Admits Executive Order Can't Change Law ....
SooOo please stop this 14th Amendment crap... !