Liberal Fascism.

Anne Althouse takes on Jeff Rosen's argument that a majority of the Supreme Court would support the authority of the President to borrow money, even though the text of the Constitution says that only the Congress has that authority:

[Quoting Rosen]Of these five justices, Thomas is the only one whose judicial philosophy might lead him to side with Congress over Obama. As someone who believes that Congressional power over the purse should be construed strictly, Thomas might conclude that Article I gives Congress, and not the president, the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States”—a power that it has exercised by establishing a debt ceiling. The debt ceiling doesn’t repudiate the debt or question its validity, Thomas might hold; it simply threatens default by prohibiting the president from assuming extra debt beyond what Congress has authorized. According to this argument, Obama’s unilateral decision to take on additional debt to avoid a government default would not represent debt “authorized by law,” as the Fourteenth Amendment requires, and therefore wouldn’t be justified by the Amendment.

Isn't it funny how this "tea party" philosophy just sounds like a fair reading of the text? But only Clarence Thomas is crackpot enough to do that! I added the boldface to highlight what to me seems like the obvious interpretation: No one is talking about questioning the validity of the debt! When you fail to pay debts, you're not claiming they aren't valid. Why wouldn't all the Justices say that? Why would that inapt clause take precedence over the specific and clear clause in Article I, listing among Congress's powers the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"?

Forget for a moment the plain text of the Constitution, how about separation of powers?  The Congress has the power of the purse.  That's all it has to control the President.  It can't arrest the President since the executive powers are located in the Executive branch, but it can vote to withhold money from the executive.

Unless Rosen is right and the President can just borrow money without Congressional approval.

How does Rosen not recognize his argument as an argument for fascism?

The principles of the Constitution grew out of the conflict between Parliament and the Monarchy out of this very issue.  King Charles thought that he could govern without the Parliament, so he dissolved Parliament and he found all kinds of unusual ways to raise money for himself (See "Ship Money Controversy," 1634 - 1639), until he learned that he really needed Parliament.  Parliament decided not to allow itself to be dissolved again, particulalry after Charles attempted to prorogue it (See "The Long Parliament," 1640 - 1666).  From there it was off to the races as the legislature fought the English Civil War against the King, and eventually executed King Charles.

That's the history our founders were working against, and why they devised a separation of powers.

Is Rosen entirely ignorant?  If not, why would he want to recreate that bit of history?