Debt Deal: Further Destruction of Constitutional Government

The "Budget Control Act of 2011" (BCA 2011), a product of bitter infighting and undoubtedly back room deals and favors was finally passed by both houses and then, on August 2nd, 2011 – President Obama signed the act into law.

Trumpets sounded and bells were ringing throughout Washington D.C. Politicians patted themselves on the back and praised the oft coveted “bi-partisan” process. The Peoples’ calls for smaller, leaner government that threatened to “default” the United States Treasury was averted. Lobbyist, politicians, and the rest of Foggy Bottom can, if only for the next couple months breathe a sigh of relief.

The People on the other hand have been shown that they are merely no longer citizens but taxpayers. Their lot in life is to fund and provide revenue to an endless money pit that has been created by their own representation that reside in the hollowed halls of Congress; quite ironic, comical and sad in one fell swoop is it not!

As with seemingly increase, bills emanating from Congress have been needed to pass to be able to find out exactly what we have been signed up for. So much for the calls from our president on pressuring Congress to have the People the ability to review bills so they may lobby and petition their representatives educated and informed. It has been that only after bills have been passed do we find deep within the piles of paragraphs, legalese, references and amendments do we get the ability to educate ourselves on the powers we have bestowed upon what is becoming more of a Master than a Representative.

Courtesy of Herbert Titus and William Olsen, we get a glimpse of how the People have yet again been deceived that the process worked and that our “Bi-Partisan” Representatives have saved the day! Within BCA 2011 we find Title III. This title is aptly named “TITLE III—DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS”. In their article, "The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order", Titus and Olsen highlight this title of the act on how it transfers Legislative powers to the Executive and turns Constitutional order on its head.

The article explains how under this title of the BCA 2011, Congress abdicates its Constitutional authority found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2; “to borrow Money on the credit of the United States” Citing strict Constitutionalist St. George Tucker and Joseph Story who noted that borrowing money is connected with raising revenue. What this is to say is that in the United States of America, “Congress -- vested with the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts," -- kept a tight rein on borrowing, and authorized each individual debt issuance separately.”

Of course, with the need for more and more revenue due to wars, social programs, entitlement programs and every other desire that the Government has devised, a new way to define debt was needed. Titus and Olsen point to 1917 and World War I as the catalyst to the current system of a debt ceiling being modus operandi for Federal Government spending; aggregated “limits on the total amount of bonds that can be issued.”

I do have to say, deciphering these bills is not easy. There are cross-references to paragraphs and other bills, laws and regulations which make thorough investigation and research tedious. Title III of this Act changes the rules of the game in this regard. In section 3101(A), “Presidential modification of the debt ceiling”, Congress has abdicated their responsibilities of being the purse strings. In this section, it gives the President that authority to raise the debt limit if he so much believes that the Treasury will come within $100,000,000 dollars of the limit prescribed by Congress.

The catch here is that the president only needs to certify that we are at that point and can only be stopped by a “Joint Resolution of Disapproval” by Congress. If such a resolution is not declared, the Treasury Secretary is authorized, via the president, to borrow an additional $900,000,000 dollars. It gets better, I promise.

If Congress does not disapprove of the certification (I have to applaud this political maneuvering, sophistry and chicanery for its sheer beauty; [-- if not disapproved means that the $900 billion was allowed to be borrowed]), the president, under authority of section 3101(B), and we have again come within $100 billion of the $900 billion that was previously allowed above, the Treasury (unless Congress disapproves) can then borrow $1.2 trillion ($1.5 trillion if a “balanced budget” amendment has been submitted to the States.)

Titus and Olsen state it beautifully. (Emphasis added) “[T]he President and Secretary of the Treasury are constrained only by the possibility of a congressional resolution of disapproval which, itself, is subject to veto by the President.” We have reversed the bill making process etched into the Constitution. Article I, Section 7 states “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” This is the process we have been operating under.

This section of the new law that the President has enacted, with the help of a willing Congress has turned this process around and reversed Constitutional authority. This title of the Budget Control Act of 2011, should be immediately challenged by the People for its unconstitutionality. Anything less would make the People complicit in the act of destroying the once great Constitutional Republic that was the United States of America.

The real question comes to this, are we going to sit by and allow two separate, but equal branches of our establish government meld together and usurp Constitutional order and authority?

and with the "commitee of thirteen" the bills WILL pass congress, making them law.

the question still stands.. Is congress signing over their power of spending and cutting constitutional at all?
but apparently that doesnt matter, because of this "crisis" that could be averted if you let a select few companies fail rather than bailing them out. so what now? now that we have bailed out failing companies, when that money couldve bailed out the country in our present circumstances, what are those companies doing to help?


oh yeah, giving themselves unthinkable bonuses.
why do companies fail in the first place? it couldnt possibly be shady business practices.. its that they dont have enough money...BRILLIANT

so i ask.. is this a cause or a symptom of something bigger? something that might grant someone the label of "conspiracy theorist?" the proof is all around us, so its impossible that its just a thory anymore. now that its affecting everyone its almost too late

reply to post by GenerationXisMarching


You make a good point, in which the author's of the linked article (The basis of this post) expounded on. That being Title IV "JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION". This is the section that creates the "Super Congress" as it has been dubbed.

Once again, a legislative act that upsets the Constitutional authority AND goes against what Madison wrote about in Federalist 51.

Great thread!

You have de-mystified the onerous passages contained within the 2011 budget control act and exposed it for the Unconstitutional fraud that it is. Thank you.
The gravest danger lies not in the increased debt we shall inevitably accrue but in the political shell game process that will become law by executive fiat.
In essence, the US will create a near copy of the old Supreme Soviet where a handful of oligarchs will essentially control the Nations' business while appointing the President as dictator-in-chief. And thank you too, Dick Cheney - here's the unitary executive you dreamed about become reality.

From the authors

The 74-page Budget Control Act of 2011 was not written over the weekend. Yet it was posted on the House Rules Committee website with no fanfare, only hours before it was to be voted upon, breaking the pledge of the House Republicans to provide at least 72-hours advance public notice. Contrived crisis, appeals to fear, emergency litigation, and suspension of Constitutional order -- these are the indicia of abuse of power, leading to tyranny.

Like the Patriot Act, this was written long before our supposed "crisis" came along, waiting in the wings for the right moment to be thrust in to the spotlight to save the country from disaster ( a disaster that they created but hey, that's not important - even Gabby Giffords showed up to cast her vote for.. I'm not blaming her, I doubt any of us could understand the contents of this bill without a team of lawyers dissecting it)

This bill effectively bypasses representation by the people and hands the power over exclusively to a dirty dozen, chosen by their respective parties and not by the people.. They have disenfranchised the very people who are supposed to be the ones where the power to govern is ultimately derived from.

Were the people to rise up against this oppression they would call it insurrection. That would be most incorrect as the insurrection has already occurred in the back rooms of Congress and the White House.

Taking back what a thief has taken is not stealing, it is restoration of rightful property, The highest government offices in the land are the property of the people of the United States.
How far will the thieves run before America awakens to find their future stolen?

Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching
and with the "commitee of thirteen" the bills WILL pass congress, making them law.

See, this is the beauty of this silly Debt Deal bill. Congress doesn't need to pass anything unless they want to block the president from stroking (HT: Quagmire) his pen and raising the limit on his authority. What makes it even more beautiful (I really hope you are understanding the sarcastic disdain when I use beautiful) is that even if Congress were to present a resolution and bill -- get it passed in both House and Senate -- the President can veto it (and with the small possibility to obtain an override) do what he has been spouting -- bypass Congress and administer Government via the Executive.

the question still stands.. Is congress signing over their power of spending and cutting constitutional at all?

They abdicated their responsibilities of being the purse strings of the Treasury. The Treasury Department is an Executive level department -- so via basic separation of powers, wouldn't it be prudent to never allow the Executive such power and control over the Treasury?

oh yeah, giving themselves unthinkable bonuses.
why do companies fail in the first place? it couldnt possibly be shady business practices.. its that they dont have enough money...BRILLIANT

so i ask.. is this a cause or a symptom of something bigger? something that might grant someone the label of "conspiracy theorist?" the proof is all around us, so its impossible that its just a thory anymore. now that its affecting everyone its almost too late

This is a symptom. The causes are much more nefarious and much more sinister. The wholesale destruction of a Republican form of Government has been underway since the 17th Amendment and continues on today with this Debt Deal.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

The People on the other hand have been shown that they are merely no longer citizens but taxpayers.

Forgive my pedantry, Brother, but no truer words have spoken such falsehoods. I am fairly certain you know what I mean by that remark. Consider Section 7701 of the United States Code:

(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

And consider Section 1313 of the United States Code:

(b) Taxpayer Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.

The term "taxpayer" has been statutorily defined, not once, but twice! It is profoundly tautological in its repetition, just as tautological as Abbot and Costello's Who's on First routine, and with both, it is imperative to remember that tautology is always true.

What is the truth of both of these statutorily defined meanings of "taxpayer"? The truth is that this term only applies to those who are subject any Internal Revenue Tax. The question, then, becomes who is liable?

The Pandora's Box of which we call "the tax code" does not clearly establish how the vast majority of people currently paying the so called "income tax" became liable for the tax to begin with. In order to be liable for this tax, one must be subject to the Internal Revenue laws, and most people would be hard pressed to point to any clear passage within the tax code to show how they are actually subject to these most imprudent and oh so odious revenues laws that deign to keep an income tax in perpetuity.

The only reasonable answer is to starve the beast that has so in-graciously bitten the hand that fed it. If most people are not even subject to the "applicable revenue laws" and therefore not liable for this odious tax, then why are they paying it?

Clearly many love paying this tax, and even those who admit it is an imprudent tax only offer up lame methods of taxation obviously intended to replace the revenue currently being raised.

As Chief Justice Marshall once said:

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Congress, nearly 100 years ago, passed a tax on income and in doing so have destroyed not just many, too many, way too many individuals, they have destroyed the fabric of the United States itself, and all the while most Americans line up like sacrificial lambs to the alter, bleating and braying in ecstasy over their own destruction as sacrifice for the pontificated greater good.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Forgive my pedantry, Brother, but no truer words have spoken such falsehoods. I am fairly certain you know what I mean by that remark. Consider Section 7701 of the United States Code:

(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

And consider Section 1313 of the United States Code:

(b) Taxpayer Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.

The term "taxpayer" has been statutorily defined, not once, but twice! It is profoundly tautological in its repetition, just as tautological as Abbot and Costello's Who's on First routine, and with both, it is imperative to remember that tautology is always true.

First, welcome friend. I thank you for bringing to light this important distinction and how American's have gone from Citizens of the Several United States to "taxpayers" of the United States. If ever there was a grand deception -- a vast [left/right] wing conspiracy -- I believe this to be it.

I specifically chose the phase you quoted for a distinct reason. The blatant actions of Congress have grown so much to that we no longer are seen as the Free Citizens and the People. We are taxpayers to them. To them, in economic terms we have become the capital of the United States.

As Chief Justice Marshall once said:

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Congress, nearly 100 years ago, passed a tax on income and in doing so have destroyed not just many, too many, way too many individuals, they have destroyed the fabric of the United States itself, and all the while most Americans line up like sacrificial lambs to the alter, bleating and braying in ecstasy over their own destruction as sacrifice for the pontificated greater good.

One of, if not the most influential and greatest Chief Justices we have had...

With grand illusions of OWS revolution and Tea Party candidates; one can see that as you have said -- is to starve the Beast that has bitten the hand that feeds it -- nay -- that has gnawed off both hands and is on a steady pace of consuming both appendages.

Figured I would give an update in how Congress has justified this backwards deal. I recently (almost a month ago) wrote Representative Joe Heck. While he is the Representative for my district I live in, I was not a registered voter at the time due to work requirements that had me all over the place. That of course is neither here nor there.

I presented information that I presented here and asked how he felt -- being a person who voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011 and did he find any conflict with Section 301 and the Constitution. Surprisingly I wasn't returned with a canned response -- thought it could be a staffer writing the paper, it bears the signature of the Representative so it is thus his response.

I found it striking how this Representative (and my guess a large portion of those who did vote "yea") justified Section 301 of the Budget Control Act.

Rep. Heck states "Regarding your question on Section 301 of the BCA, the debt ceiling disapproval process allows Congress to voice opposition to the need for additional increases in the debt ceiling. These additional increases were already approved by Congress with passage of the BCA." What we can get out of this is Congress actually already approved massive debt limit increase; but packaged it to the American public as something else!

This, I believe is why many in Washington have viewed this a a "template" to how these debt "crisis" will be handled from now on.

Here is how it was sold -- unless you looked really, really hard for factual data (The Economist actually ran a good article at the time detailing the bill). But this is how I viewed how the bill was spun -- of course, if you saw it otherwise, please feel free to join in:

Congress to the People: Hey you peon....er....people. We finally figured out how to placate an angry populace with our affinity to splurge and spend all your money -- regardless if we are a Republican or a Democrat. We know you want us to cut spending so we will do a "Quid Pro Quo" -- We will cut X amount over 10 years and then we will raise the debt ceiling by 450 billion dollars.

The People to Congress: Yeah hurry up -- Football season is ramping up and I don't want the President taking up air-time. Do what you must and hurrah! for the spending cuts.

-------------------------------

Dealing with Congress is like dealing with a few girls I have ran across: Half-truths are full blown lies. Just because you omit the full amount you actually passed -- and really neglecting to inform the people that COMPLETE amount the Debt Deal authorized; in a three-stepped process designed to look and feel as if there is cooperation happening on Capital Hill was a beautiful and saucy 2.4 Trillion dollars by December 23rd, 2011.

This folks was bought with false and fake promises of a measly 2.4 Trillion dollars over 10-years. Who wants to make a bet that we at least triple the 2.4 Trillion debt limit increase in those 10-years and the "spending" cuts are truly nothing.

America -- I salute your aptness for football, Dancing with the Stars and Spam and total neglect and failure as a self-governing People -- chiefly myself first.