In case you want the text: Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. I don't how you can interpret it any other way than its written, and if a judge disagrees with it time to firm him on the spot for not upholding the constitution.
The health care mandate is not unconstitutional, it is basically just taxation. The President has no authority to raise the debt ceiling, and in fact would be acting opposite to the stated will of congress, which is the lowest ebb of Presidential power under the widely cited Jackson concurrence from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.. If they are doing their jobs, then the court will smack him down. Since you listed "We default" as an option (one that would certainly have more calamitous effects than paying off the debt without raising the debt ceiling), I assumed you meant all possible options, not simply those you agree with. I also think following this option would cause fewer problems than predicted and the problems would be of a limited duration. I am well aware of the text of the 14th amendment. That is why I said the President will not be able to default on the debt in favor of other spending if the debt limit is not raised. There is nothing there that gives the president the authority to unilaterally overrule a debt limit lawfully set by congress. The section is about honoring debts already incurred. The president raising the debt ceiling would be borrowing MORE money, not honoring the debt that we already have. That is why the distinction needs to be drawn between not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting.
This is going to end up costing anyone with a personal debt of any kind (which is most of us) a lot of money.
troo dat. Spoiler <iframe width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cCcBQgTxGBo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Spoiler
I suspect that Obama isn't bringing up the 14th Amendment because he wants to keep pressure on Congress. I am guessing here but I bet he is considering it but feels that if he were to invoke it while Congress was still trying to pass a bill that would basically take all political responsibility away from them to where they would do nothing so Republicans could pin it all on Obama. It would essentially be the McConnell option without them even having to vote. As for a legal challenge I bet there would be by someone like Bachmann but I really doubt that the Congressional leadership would want to challenge it as it would throw us into default.
That's a good argument and I can see that having some sway with the USSC but there is still the question of the political dimension regarding who brings the suit. Do you think with the risk of default, or at the minimum downgrading bond ratings and chaos in the markets, that the US Congress as an institution or Congressional leadership would want to bring that suit?
But those funds have already been authorized by Congress when they passed their spending bills too. It could be argued those are debts already passed by Congress. If Congress passed a bill to spend $100 Billion on the military, you could make the case that the President doesn't have the authority NOT to pay those debts. They absolutely would. But from what I've read, it's unclear it they would have standing to do so.
Right. For Fiscal Year 2011 there's a decent case and i could see both sides acquiescing to it as more time would be bought. However, if there was still no agreement on October 1, all hell would break loose.
Those are not debts. Those are appropriations. If they were debts they would be included under the ... wait for it ... debt ceiling. They could fire anyone in the military tomorrow. They would not be liable for paying them through the end of the appropriation cycle. They could reduce medicaid compensation and they would not be required to pay under the old appropriation levels. The argument you are proposing would make the debt ceiling meaningless. Federal standing is a VERY complicated area of the law. I believe this would be a case of first impression. The court has allowed taxpayer standing where there is a specific violation of the constitution where Congress exercises its power to tax and spend (for example, if there was a bill to fund Catholic churches). Would they allow taxpayer standing where the president is acting outside of his powers? Maybe maybe no. Ultimately, the court would be the one deciding whether or not they have standing, and there is enough wiggle room for them to decide either way.
That's exactly the 14th Amendment argument - that the debt ceiling is not legally controlled by Congress and is meaningless. It's always been done by Congressional vote, but the simple fact is that it's never come to the courts, so no one's ruled on it. There are many Constitutional lawyers on both sides of the argument - it's not at all a clear cut issue one way or the other.
Not to mention Article II states that the president "must take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It's the entire basis of executive orders and declarations. There's no reason why the president cant invoke this authority to ensure that we execute the 14th amendment.
The debt ceiling is also a law that would need to be faithfully executed. Not raising the debt ceiling would not violate the 14th amendment. Your argument actually opposes the president raising the debt ceiling.
If he didn't do it interest rates would spike. Stocks would tank. Our Debt rating tanks,and a good chance you trigger the next recession, or make our current one worse.
Those are policy arguments, not legal arguments. They have nothing to do with the post you quoted. I disagree with them, and think that the effect would be less severe and of a shorter duration than other do, but that has nothing to do with the legality.
I really think congress should vote to remove the debt ceiling. Then they could spend as much as they want since there would never be any consequences to it. Heck while they are at it, they should give everyone 100% free health care. Even better, the government should send everyone a check every month so nobody ever has to work or even pay taxes. Heck without a debt ceiling, the government wouldn't even need to take in any taxes. Just print more money whenever they need it. Paying foreign debt, easy just print more money. Just keep printing money and printing money and printing money and printing money and printing money..... Surely there would never be any consequences to this.
If you knew how the government worked, you'd know they already can spend whatever they want, which btw has nothing to do with "printing money". The "debt ceiling" is a relic to allow blanket issuance of Liberty Bonds during WW1 - it has no effect on Congress' power to spend, it's just basically something that can be exploited in order to **** things up, which is what is happening now.
