"To infinity ... and beyond!" was the often-repeated catch phrase used by the animated character Buzz Lightyear from the film Toy Story. The phrase comes to mind when reviewing the debate over whether Congress should vote to raise the federal debt ceiling yet again.

 The Wall Street Journal reports: "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in a letter sent to top U.S. lawmakers on Friday, asked Congress to move 'as soon as possible' to increase the nation's statutory debt limit. The Treasury estimates that the $12.1 trillion current limit could be reached as soon as mid-October." Geithner wrote:

It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations.

Sadly, Geithner's entire argument is that the only thing preventing the U.S. from meeting its obligations is a statutory limit arbitrarily set by Congress. If only things were that simple. There is much more involved in maintaining the solvency of the U.S., and very little of that has to do with the debt ceiling. The so-called debt ceiling was enacted when Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond act in 1917. It has since been raised repeatedly to accommodate Washington's profligate spending. Constitutionalists hear such things and ask themselves "what does the Constitution have to say?"

The word "debt" is mentioned in Article VI of the Constitution in regards to assuming the debts incurred under the Articles of Confederation and in the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to debt incurred during the Civil War. Section 8, which details the power of Congress, includes the authorization to "borrow money on the credit of the United States." There is no mention of a debt ceiling or limits on federal debt. That is not to say Congress was able to raise debt willy-nilly. At one time, Congress passed legislation to authorize every new issuance of debt that was sold to the public. But why was it almost 130 years before Congress decided to exercise this statutory power to set a debt ceiling? The year the first limit was established should shed some light on the answer.

It was the Progressive Era which drastically changed the constitutional Republic designed by our Founders into the massively centralized and big spending federal government we are now familiar with. Economist Robert Higgs writes that because of U.S. involvement in World War I, "federal revenues rose by nearly 400 percent between fiscal 1917 and fiscal 1919—and even greater amounts had to be borrowed. The national debt swelled from $1.2 billion in 1916 to $25.5 billion in 1919." Indeed, it was because of all the unnecessary and mostly unconstitutional actions the U.S. became embroiled in during that period which led to the sharp increase in federal spending requiring such large amounts of debt.

So one asks: "did the Framers and Ratifiers believe there must be a limit on federal indebtedness?" They most assuredly did and those limits were contained within the four corners of the Constitution itself. The Constitution specifically listed where the U.S. Government would have limited authority to spend but now the federal government exercises almost unlimited powers. This directly contrasts with the entire purpose of having a written Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, writing in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, said in regards to those who seek to stretch the authority to spend and tax beyond what is plainly authorized:

that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.

Jefferson argued that any power exercised that was beyond those obviously granted by the Constitution was an usurpation. These usurpations are the very forces driving Geithner to urge for yet another hike on the federal debt ceiling. Simply put, if the U.S. government actually returned to its constitutional limits, our debt problem would be solved in short order. The only reason that the debt has grown to monstrous proportions is because of all the unconstitutional spending. 

Patrick Krey, M.B.A., J.D., L.L.M., is an attorney in New York.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	Allow me to ask again - - - - - - where did they find this Geithner creature?
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 31, 2009
Votes: +2

Still Free said:

And may I ask ... ...why is everything this "administration" does [or attempts to do] urgent or a "drop dead rush," necessitating a ramrod job to complete it? It's like the salesman who tells a prospective buyer "you HAVE to buy [such and such] today or tomorrow it will be gone ..." Translation: Don't walk, RUN in the other direction! And what happened to all those Clinton supporters who hammered the deficit before "Hill-Bill" got in? Where are all those folks now?

report abuse vote down vote up

August 31, 2009
Votes: +2

danwhitehead1 said:

That's a typicality - - - - - - of the "liberal" left....everything is a looming disaster. It gets very tiresome (at least to me). As far as the group of previous opposers you're wondering about, that's another typicality of the "liberal" left...the quality of wishy-washy/slippery (and that's putting it a lot nicer than I'd like to put it). Dealing with the "liberal" left seems to be much the same as trying to walk across quicksand.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 01, 2009
Votes: +1

danwhitehead1 said:

	To clarify - - - By opposers, I meant the Clinton supporters who were hammering the deficit. The "liberal" left always give me the strange and uneasy feeling that they're not quite against what they oppose and not quite in favor of the things they're for.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 01, 2009
Votes: +1

Still Free said:

Quicksand -- there's a great word ... Some days it's like going from one quicksand hole to another, and that's just reading the news. And why aren't all the folks upset about the deficit before Hill-Bill out there screaming about the deficit due to the war(s)? Which reminds me, where are all the war protestors who were so active during the Bush years? Sheehan, for instance? Haven't they heard about our latest foray to meet some Afgan folks?

report abuse vote down vote up

September 02, 2009
Votes: +0