So it sounds like there's going to be a showdown of some sorts on this, and I got to thinking...
IIUC, the debt ceiling is a legislative thing, no more, no less, just like any other law passed by Congress (and if I'm wrong on this, then what follows won't have any foundation). And also IIUC, it's binding on Treasury -- they are required to stay under it and not spend any money that would put us over the limit.
However, the same body also passes legislation that calls for Treasury to spend above and beyond what would be allowed under the ceiling. So which legislation is Treasury bound by? Seems to me that if the spending bills are enacted subsequent to the last revision of the debt ceiling legislation, then the appropriations bills would "supersede" the debt ceiling legislation, making the debt ceiling moot and/or unenforceable.
Can somewhere tell me where I'm off base here? It's not like this can be some kind of legal ninja breakthrough that no one else has thought of.
IIUC, the debt ceiling is a legislative thing, no more, no less, just like any other law passed by Congress (and if I'm wrong on this, then what follows won't have any foundation). And also IIUC, it's binding on Treasury -- they are required to stay under it and not spend any money that would put us over the limit.
However, the same body also passes legislation that calls for Treasury to spend above and beyond what would be allowed under the ceiling. So which legislation is Treasury bound by? Seems to me that if the spending bills are enacted subsequent to the last revision of the debt ceiling legislation, then the appropriations bills would "supersede" the debt ceiling legislation, making the debt ceiling moot and/or unenforceable.
Can somewhere tell me where I'm off base here? It's not like this can be some kind of legal ninja breakthrough that no one else has thought of.