Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Public Law and Legal Theory

University of Florida Levin College of Law

Series

Debt ceiling

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Borrowing By Any Other Name: Why Presidential "Spending Cuts" Would Still Exceed The Debt Ceiling, Neil H. Buchanan, Michael C. Dorf Jan 2014

Borrowing By Any Other Name: Why Presidential "Spending Cuts" Would Still Exceed The Debt Ceiling, Neil H. Buchanan, Michael C. Dorf

UF Law Faculty Publications

On three occasions since mid-2011, the United States has come perilously close to exhausting its borrowing authority under a statutory limit commonly called the "debt ceiling." In prior work, the current authors argued that, in the event that the debt ceiling is reached, the President will face a "trilemma" in which any realistic action he takes — defaulting on government obligations, raising taxes, or issuing debt in excess of the statutory ceiling — would unconstitutionally usurp legislative power. We argued that in such circumstances, violating the debt ceiling would be the "least unconstitutional option." Nonetheless, most pundits and politicians, including …


Bargaining In The Shadow Of The Debt Ceiling: When Negotiating Over Spending And Tax Laws, Congress And The President Should Consider The Debt Ceiling A Dead Letter, Neil H. Buchanan, Michael C. Dorf Jan 2013

Bargaining In The Shadow Of The Debt Ceiling: When Negotiating Over Spending And Tax Laws, Congress And The President Should Consider The Debt Ceiling A Dead Letter, Neil H. Buchanan, Michael C. Dorf

UF Law Faculty Publications

If the debt ceiling is inconsistent with existing spending and taxing laws, what must the President do? In earlier work, we argued that when Congress creates a “trilemma” — making it impossible for the President to spend as much as Congress has ordered, to tax only as much as Congress has ordered, and to borrow no more than Congress has permitted — the Constitution requires the President to choose the least unconstitutional path. In particular, he must honor Congress’s decisions and priorities regarding spending and taxing, and he must issue enough debt to do so. Here, we extend the analysis …


Nullifying The Debt Ceiling Threat Once And For All: Why The President Should Embrace The Least Unconstitutional Option, Neil H. Buchanan, Michael C. Dorf Jan 2012

Nullifying The Debt Ceiling Threat Once And For All: Why The President Should Embrace The Least Unconstitutional Option, Neil H. Buchanan, Michael C. Dorf

UF Law Faculty Publications

In August 2011, Congress and the President narrowly averted economic and political catastrophe, agreeing at the last possible moment to authorize a series of increases in the national debt ceiling. This respite, unfortunately, was merely temporary. The amounts of the increases in the debt ceiling that Congress authorized in 2011 were only sufficient to accommodate the additional borrowing that would be necessary through the end of 2012. In an economy that continued to show chronic weakness -- weakness that continues to this day -- the federal government would pre-dictably continue to collect lower-than-normal tax revenues and to make higher-than-normal expenditures, …


How To Choose The Least Unconstitutional Option: Lessons For The President (And Others) From The Debt Ceiling Standoff, Neil H. Buchanan, Michael C. Dorf Jan 2012

How To Choose The Least Unconstitutional Option: Lessons For The President (And Others) From The Debt Ceiling Standoff, Neil H. Buchanan, Michael C. Dorf

UF Law Faculty Publications

The federal statute known as the “debt ceiling” limits total borrowing by the United States. Congress has repeatedly raised the ceiling to authorize necessary borrowing, but a political standoff in 2011 nearly made it impossible to borrow funds to meet obligations that Congress had affirmed earlier that very year. Some commentators urged President Obama to ignore the debt ceiling, while others responded that such borrowing would violate the separation of powers and therefore that the president should refuse to spend appropriated funds. This Article analyzes the choice the president nearly faced in summer 2011, and which he or a successor …