@TCatInReality @crooksandliars

The problem is that the laws the last Congress passed are impossible to execute.

The last Congress ordered the president to spend a bunch of money that doesn't exist. So what is he supposed to do with that? If I give you $20 and order you to spend $50 of it, what do you do?

Well fortunately with a system of coequal branches the president doesn't actually have to execute impossible laws. He just does his best, and is subject to impeachment anyway.

But there is no room for a SCOTUS challenge there.

@volkris @crooksandliars
I disagree.
Perhaps you've noticed that the US gov has the ability to borrow money (mostly from itself), therefore can spend $50 when ordered to, even if given $20.

Now, you can argue the #DebtCeiling limits the gov's right to borrow. But why does that law take precedent over the other spending laws?

It makes no sense for one law to take precedent over all others - esp with such severe financial harms.

@TCatInReality @crooksandliars

You're missing that it's not a case of one law taking precedent over other.

Congressional appropriation laws are permission to spend what is there. The president still has permission to spend even if he mathematically can't.

It's like, I can write a law giving you permission to flap your arms and fly around the room, and even if that's not possible, it's still the law. You still absolutely do have that permission. That you can't actually use that permission doesn't mean you don't have permission.

So really it's not one law taking precedent over another. It's economic reality, math, taking precedent over legislation, and that's exactly how it is supposed to work.