A government shutdown should be unconstitutional

[ashling]

This may not be an original idea, but it's something I've been thinking about.

WARNING: sometimes I tend to ramble, so hang on on the corners!

Prior to our revolutionary break from Great Britain we lived under a constitution. It was not a written constitution, but a traditional constitution. (you might think that I have already run off the road, but hang in there) There was no question that the British had a constituted government. The question was a constitution and what was it's purpose ... what is the purpose of a constituted government?

In 1766 - ten years prior to the break - John Adams answered this question by comparing a constitution to the integral parts of the body. It is the thing that provides the vitality of the whole body. The purpose of a constituted government, Adams said, was the "good of the whole community."

The goal of our government is, likewise, the "good of the whole community." Shutting down the function of the body - shutting down the government - is the antithesis of this concept. The structure of the constitution guarantees that there will be vital debate and contention over how it should function. The very fact that we have reduced our constitution to writing, however, is an acceptance of the fact that the government should function. There does not have to be a provision in the constitution stating that, it is just understood.

However, it seems that it is in fact not very well understood by the Teapublicans.

Therefore, I propose an amendment to the constitution that spells this out. I propose a permanent continuing resolution, as it were. I don't have particular language in mind, but it should provide that in the event that in the event that the Congress and President do not come to an agreement on a budget by the end of the fiscal year, then the government will continue to operate on the same budget.

So, there you have it. I know it is kind of sketchy, etc. but its just something I was thinking about.

[ashling]

1. Your thoughts, please

???

[treestar]

2. I agree. Partly we have an unwritten constitution

of the gentleman's agreement sort of type, like the British. The British so far have been able to continue to operate as there are lows to which no elected official would ever sink.

We had that protection until now. Thus your proposal is a good one. There should be some law or principle that the government continues to be funded no matter who is in office or what lack of agreement there is.

The ACA would still be law, just unfunded, so they aren't affecting the legislative process (as they could had Mittens won and they got the Senate and they truly could repeal). So they aren't even getting that much out of it. If they lose the House in 2014 and don't gain the Senate, then Obamacare will be funded anyway.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. How do you force a co-equal branch of government to vote on something?

[ashling]

5. I'm not asking that anybody be forced to do anything

except maybe act like adults. In fact, it would remove the necessity to vot on a Continuing Resolution as there would, in effect, be a permanent resolution continuing the government in the event they don't agree.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. But then, if the GOP didn't want to increase spending

all they have to do is refuse to vote and the budget stays flat. Conversely, congress could decide to end funding for something, such as a war, but all a president would have to do would be to refuse to accept the new budget and his war funding would remain undiminished.

[ashling]

8. Perhaps, but

All of that could be settled without completely shutting things down.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. It is possible to pass stop-gap bills on consensus issues.

Nothing says a budget bill has to be an omnibus bill. Personally, I prefer smaller bills; omnibus = anonymity = corruption and graft.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I would agree although

considering the authority that exists in Article 1, Sect. 9 states the following -

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

it may be difficult for the language to be crafted as it could be interpreted as removing a power given to Congress and they would probably balk at it.. You do have situations where there are multi-year appropriations (not tied to a single fiscal year - e.g. the "Farm Bill", which has generally been a 5-year appropriation).

Perhaps the language could stipulate that after "x" amount of time, then the CR amendment would be automatically invoked and will be in effect until such time that regular order results in the approval of formal appropriations or the extension of previous fiscal appropriations to remain in effect for the remainder of the new fiscal year (or term).

[ashling]

6. Your last paragraph

fairly summarizes what I was suggesting.

My suggestion doesn't have anything to do with multi-year appropriations and I don't see how Art 1,sec. 9 has anything to do with it.

Anyway, a constitutional amendment would invalidate any current constitutional language to the contrary.

As things are now, When the budget process is not complete by Oct. 1, Congress passes a continuing resolution so that agencies continue to receive funding until the full budget is in place.12 A continuing resolution provides temporary funding for federal gencies until new appropriations bills become law

This would do away with the necessity of voting a continuing resolution by saying that if they don't get a budget by Oct 1, the government would continue to function and operate under the last enacted budget.

[ashling]

10. Its possible to do a great many things

but the point of my proposal is to be sure that the government is not shut down under any circumstances. It is a last ditch sort of thing.