Is a US Government Shutdown a Legally Feasible and Sustainable Long-term Solution?

For years, the United States government has experienced recurring shutdowns, creating uncertainty for federal employees, citizens, and businesses alike. Supporters of the Attorney General's recent decision to allow the federal government to continue in a partial shutdown have argued that it is legally and politically possible for the shutdown to persist until the end of the current term. However, this raises several critical questions regarding the legal and practical viability of an extended government shutdown. In this article, we will explore the legal and political implications of extending a government shutdown and whether it can persist until the end of the current presidential term.

Legal Possibilities and Veto Override

To understand the legal implications of an extended government shutdown, it is crucial to examine the constitutional and legislative framework governing federal operations. Specifically, the Constitution requires that Congress appropriate funds for government operations through the passage of budget legislation. Without such legislation, the government is legally unable to function.

While it is possible to continue a government shutdown through a presidential veto, it is important to note that unilaterally shutting down the government is not a legally sustainable long-term solution. The federal government is funded through a combination of tax laws and appropriations laws, and both are necessary to maintain normal operations. If no funding is appropriated, federal agencies and departments cannot function until the necessary legislation is passed.

According to constitutional law, the legislative branch has the power to override a presidential veto. This requires overwhelming majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass the same legislation again. For House approval, 218 out of 435 representatives must vote in favor, and for Senate approval, 67 out of 100 senators must vote in favor. Once this majority is achieved, the President must sign the bill for it to become law.

In the scenario where the President vetoes a budget bill, a two-thirds majority in both houses (290 in the House and 67 in the Senate) is required to override the veto. If these conditions are met, the government would be legally obligated to continue its operations. This makes it technically possible for a shutdown to persist, but it would be a slow and cumbersome process that involves significant political pressure and negotiation.

Practical Implications and Budget Battle

Proponents of the current shutdown argue that it is more pressing to address issues such as immigration and border security than to pass a budget. However, a prolonged shutdown can have severe negative consequences on various aspects of governance and the economy. Federal agencies that rely on funding to operate, such as health services, national security, and defense, can suffer from a lack of resources and personnel.

The government shutdown in years past highlights the potential financial and operational disruptions. During the shutdown in 2018, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suffered significant disruptions, with critical security and border control functions limited. The overall cost of a prolonged shutdown can be substantial, including loss of productivity, reduced government services, and morale issues for federal employees.

Political and legislative negotiations are essential to resolve a shutdown. A breakdown in the legislative process can lead to a prolonged shutdown, affecting various agencies and departments. Still, it is important to note that in the past, both Democrats and Republicans have been responsible for shutdowns due to their inability to reach a consensus on funding legislation.

The Call for Accountability

The current political atmosphere has led to increased accountability and transparency in federal operations. Critics argue that the Democrats' position on the shutdown demonstrates a lack of responsibility in handling government finances and national security. They contend that the government should be run in a more mature and mature way, with regular budget legislation to ensure the continuity of essential services.

By refusing to pass a budget, parties can be held accountable for prolonged shutdowns. This can lead to public dissatisfaction and a shift in voter preferences, potentially resulting in a change in representation in Congress and the presidency. The American public expects their elected officials to manage government finances effectively and to uphold their responsibilities in ensuring national security and servicing the public.

In conclusion, while it is technically possible for the government to remain shut down until the end of a presidential term, it is highly unlikely and not a sustainable long-term solution. Political and legislative negotiations are necessary to maintain the proper functioning of government agencies and services. The current shutdown highlights the importance of responsible governance and the need for regular budget legislation to ensure the stability and continuity of federal operations. As responsible citizens, we must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and ensure that the government operates efficiently and effectively.