Home / General / At Least Go All the Way And Use “Strict Constructionist”!

At Least Go All the Way And Use “Strict Constructionist”!


If you’ve been waiting for Ann Althouse to enter the debate about the constitutionality of the debt ceiling, you’re in luck! If you want to learn something, well, you’re crazy.   And you’re also out of luck, since her response is written in Vacuous Wingnut Buzzword rather than English. Her addition to Laurence Tribe’s op-ed, in its entirety:

Oh, how ploddingly boring Professor Tribe is! Vividly creative lawprofs have perceived that the 14th Amendment transformed the President into a dictator, and here comes Tribe with his gigantic wet blanket of case citations and constitutional texts. So wooden and formalistic!

The Constitution is alive! Have you not heard? A seed has been found: the public debt clause. It has fabulous growth potential. It had life from the moment these legal geniuses inseminated that ovum of constitutional text. And you would snuff out their brilliant conception? Heartless! That is so lacking in… empathy.

The first thing you’ll notice is that there’s nothing particularly “formalistic” about Tribe’s analysis (which isn’t an insult.) He cites the same constitutional text as everyone else involved in the debate, and the “case citations” consist of exactly one cite that says nothing either way about whether the debt ceiling law is consistent with the 14th Amendment. His argument is powerful — certainly the strongest argument skeptics have — but it’s based primarily on inferences from the structure of the text and a pragmatic argument about the aggrandizement of executive power.

Althouse, needless to say, doesn’t cite the constitutional theorists who are allegedly using “empathy” as the primary basis for an argument that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. If you examine Jack Balkin’s analysis (1,2,3) , however, you’ll note that it’s based on a careful reading of constitutional text and history, and is more “originalist” than “living constitutionalist” (although in Balkin’s view this is a false dichotomy.) Whether or not one finds it persuasive, it’s if anything more “formalistic” than Tribe’s.

One may find one of the arguments more or less persuasive, but like most constitutional questions of any interest the constitutionality of the debt ceiling isn’t a technical question that can be answered merely by citing the constitutional text, let alone argument by string-of-empty-catchphrases.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • howard

    scott, every time you force me to read some althouse, i draw the same conclusion: “she teaches people? how did that happen?”

    • CJColucci

      I don’t know how it happened, but I do know that she had a visiting appointment in my town, and a friend of mine in the law school’s administration told me that the faculty and administration very quickly concluded that she was just [email protected]#$%^g nuts and very quickly shelved any idea of making a permanent offer.

      • Halloween Jack

        I’m guessing that that was the Brooklyn adventure of a few years back?

        • CJColucci


    • Pith Helmet

      I think there must be a wingnut head-hunting service for law professors. It’s the only way I can explain her and Glenn Instaputz sucking off the public teet.

      • DrDick

        I have said it before and still hold that there is a secret affirmative action program at the nation’s law schools that requires them to hire a certain quota of braindead/batshit crazy wingnut professors (I do realize that there is no other kind of wingnut professor).

        • Captain Splendid

          It ain’t a secret. Wingnut Welfare is a well-understood phenomenon.

          • Barack Obama

            Its nothing like Partisan Loyalist welfare! Just look at the drooling, goose stepping support I get from JFL despite constantly fucking people like him square in the rectum!

            • dangermouse

              Jesus Christ.

  • Davis X. Machina

    I blame Refrigerator Poetry Magnets. They ought to be at least as hard as handguns to get.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Yeah, Althouse should help design and market a Federalist Society version. In addition to the ones above, I suggest “legislates from the bench,” “penumbras and emanations,” and “The Federal Broccoli Consumption Act.”

      • Bart

        Don’t forget the Bush v Gore caveat about “future use of any precedents from this decision”

  • mark f

    There is something incredibly strange about a law professor complaining that an argument about the constitutionality of this or that is boring and full of case citations Ann Althouse.

    Someone in comments is talking about light bulbs and another guy is still complaining about Obama’s birthright.

    • Halloween Jack

      Althouse is still working the gambit of trying to look sane by having commenters that are crazier than she is. It still isn’t working, particularly since she married one.

  • (A)gigantic wet blanket of case citations and constitutional texts. So wooden and formalistic!

    The bastard! What was he thinking?

    • Scott Lemieux

      To be clear, she means it as a compliment. The problem with her argument is that Tribe’s op-ed has no more of these elements than anyone else’s analysis.

    • Tom Allen

      And where can I get a gigantic wet wooden blanket?

      • JohnR

        Geez that would be heavy. You’d be crushed under it.

  • R. Porrofatto

    Althouse’s attempts at ridicule always have a kind of sneering College Republicans Still In Junior High quality about them, where something like this

    inseminated that ovum of constitutional text

    is what passes for wit.

    It’s as if she aspires to be a Mark LeVIN twerpette, if such a thing is even imaginable, only without the depth of his legal wisdom.

    • Roger Ailes

      If Mark LeVIN and Nancy Grace copulated, Ann Althouse would be the outcome.

      And I’m not talking reproduction.

    • Halloween Jack

      She always goes for the naughty bits analogy; if nothing else, it gets her page hits.

  • Rick Massimo

    There’s a real stuck-pig quality to the roar over this whole issue. If Obama goes ahead and ignore the limit, it’ll end up in court and the Republicans can have the fun job of arguing retroactively that he should have allowed the U.S. to go into default. Same thing with their so-called threats to impeach.

  • mpowell

    Yeah, I have a much simpler argument for why Obama should ignore the debt ceiling: Congress tells you to do not A and also tells you to do A. What do you do? Whatever the f*ck you want.

    Blowing off the debt ceiling is just the most sensible response option available to the executive. And for all those people complaining about the possible crisis consequences… wtf is good about having a debt ceiling in the first place? It can only bring pain of exactly this sort. Let’s establish that it means bumpkiss and move on to a more legitimate constitutional crisis. There’s no reason for this particular asinine law to bring down the republic.

    • Barack Obama

      My real goal is to fight for the same Corporate$ $$$$$$$ as the GOP. So that’s why I wont use the 14th amendment. This is the perfect excuse to implement the Sensible Center Right Village agenda of being Reasonable by ending SS and Medicare as we know it and getting the Corporation$ to donate to my campaign.

  • Barack Obama

    When will you plebes realize that this is all show? I want to gut SS and Medicare. So do the Republicans. The debt ceiling is just Kabuki for you morons. My Village buddies and I, and Goldman Sachs, know the end game already. Suckers!

  • Bill Murray

    Presidential Oath of Office

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    so he should place a constitutional amendment over a law to be consistent with his oath

    • Murc

      You mean, the same constitutional amendment that specifically refers only to debts that are authorized by law?

      • mds

        Well, in one sense the debts are authorized by law, since the borrowing is required to fund already-enacted spending. Hence mpowell’s reference to A and not-A: the existing obligations that require additional borrowing to meet are the result of Congressional action, and yet Congress has so-far refused to officially permit raising the debt ceiling to pay for them, instead taking the public debt hostage in exactly the manner the crafters of Section 4 feared. That’s why the GOP leadership is demanding draconian spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, because only mouthbreathing dumbshits like Paul Broun and some of his fellow Teabag Taliban think that it’s possible to enact immediate spending cuts that will remove the need to raise it.

        • Murc

          Hmm, I had not thought about it in those precise terms. Is ALL government spending debt, though? Doesn’t debt have a well-defined legal definition in both criminal and civil law?

          My laymans understanding of the situation, and please, someone correct me here, is that we’re not constitutionally allowed to default on our debts if at all possible; that is, the debt obligations of the U.S government have first claim on all of said governments revenue, so long as said revenue actually exists.

          My understanding is also that the Treasury Department needs statutory authorization to issue debt at all, though not to pay off the holders of said debt; the later is constitutionally required and trumps legislation, the former does not.

          • Malaclypse

            That sounds a lot like Treasury’s position as of today.

  • Althouse hates law. It’s indoor work though, and she has not talent or inclination to do anything else, so until this blogging thing starts paying some coin she’ll stick with forming impressionable young minds.

    • kth

      Ann Althouse is big, it’s just the law that got small.

  • mb

    I want to know what happened to “the Constitution is not a suicide pact?” The 2nd Amendment looks like it says I can haz a nuke. But I heard Obama wants to stop everybody from having their own ICBM since the “Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

    This situation the know-nothins are forcin’ feels suicidal to me, therefore the non-suicide-pact nature of the Constitution should come into play.

    Otherwise, I want a nuke.

    • Woodrowfan

      you’ll put your eye out!!!

  • DrDick

    Having read that passage from Althouse, I think she is rather more of a strict deconstructionist.

  • Hogan

    Is it feeding the troll to tell commenter “Barack Obama” that his schtick is embarrassingly bad, his verbal abuse of JfL is repetitive and pointless, and he’d make a better impression by posting random Simpsons quotes?

    In other counter-trolling news, I counted 36 comments by the Troll of Many Dots, and 13 responses that were not variations of “DNFTT.” (You know who you are.) Jobs with Justice is up $29.50 on the week.

    • Uncle Kvetch

      Is it feeding the troll to tell commenter “Barack Obama” that his schtick is embarrassingly bad, his verbal abuse of JfL is repetitive and pointless, and he’d make a better impression by posting random Simpsons quotes?

      Yes. It’s obviously Norm/Harry/Al/whatever and it should be ignored.

      • DrDick

        He is getting really desperate at this point and is spiraling downward out of control in a full body swirly.

  • the corpratists

    Pledge of Allegiance? WE don’t need no stinking pledge of allegiance!

  • Walt

    I don’t understand how this debt ceiling suppose to work. The executive branch doesn’t normally have unilateral discretion to decide which appropriations get spent, right? So why would they when the debt ceiling is breached?

    • Murc

      This is just me spitballing here, but generic government spending is statutory. Congress passes a law that says X amount of dollars will be spent on Y things this year.

      That law is just a law. The CONSTITUTION says our debt gets serviced first. Ordinarily this isn’t a problem, our credit rating is rock solid and taxes + newly issued debt cover all of our outstanding expenses.

      If the amount of debt we can issue is breached, suddenly there isn’t enough cash to go around. The President is obligated to obey the Constitution before he obeys the law. So he has to take money that was appropriated for other things and use it to service our debt. Absent direction from Congress on this he can just take it from wherever the hell he wants.

  • McKingford

    I subscribe to the thinking espoused by mpowell. Congress has, in approving the 2011 budget, implicitly endorsed the debt financing required to make it work. The debt limit is therefore superfluous.

    • Bill Murray

      didn’t recent previous budgets include automatically increasing the debt ceiling to pay for the budget as enacted? Wasn’t that one of the big things the idiots Republicans do?

      • Ed Marshall

        There used to be the Gephardt rule, where if you voted for the budget, you voted for raising the debt ceiling at the same time. Gingrich got rid of it, and it never came back.

        • Ed Marshall

          I misremembered that. They just got rid of it this year.

  • Pingback: Daily Links for July 8th through July 9th | Akkam's Razor()

It is main inner container footer text