So the GOP is violating the 14th Amendment? Sounds good. Impeach them all. Please point to where in the Constitution it authorizes a debt ceiling. Exactly which Amendment would that be? The 14th explicitly states legal debts MUST be paid. So if Congress is violating their Constitutional duty get rid of those who are violating it.
Actually, if you look again, you can see that I discussed the text of the Amendment, and then the original meaning of the text. Yes: Reconciliation of Build Back Better: Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives - Vote Details House Vote on Build Back Better: Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives - Vote Details Senate Vote on Build Back Better: U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 117th Congress - 2nd Session How exactly are they violating the 14th Amendment? Are they denying the validity of treasury bonds that have been issued? Did they pass a bill not to pay them? It's in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 2 under powers of Congress: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; The 14th Amendment doesn't explicitly state legal debts MUST be paid, it says: "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." Not having the money to pay is not questioning the validity of the debts. Moreover, the outstanding debts can be serviced without raising the debt ceiling, so even if it said what you think it does (but in reality does not), they still can choose not to raise the debt ceiling (ie borrow more money) and not be in violation of your interpretation.
[/QUOTE] Sorry I didn't specify. Public debt...authorized by law. That means legal. You want to be pedantic? I can be pedantic. The 14th Amendment specifically states the debt must be paid. Bottom line. End of story. So if Congress does not pay the debt they are in violation of the 14th Amedment. The Founding Fathers never put a debt ceiling in the Constitution, nor has any Amendment. So you are saying it is unconstitutional for Biden to have a coin minted and **** Congress, but it isn't for the GOP to violate the 14th? I don't give a flying **** WHY the 14th Amendment was created. I care about the actual text in the Constitution. We operated almost 200 years without a debt ceiling. The money is not there to service the debt.
I wasn't being pendantic, you totally missed the point by focusing on the wording of legal vs. authorized by law. The 14th Amendment says nothing about when or how or if the debts must be paid, only that they cannot be questioned. The debt ceiling is just a codification of the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 2 power reserving to Congress the power to borrow money. Whether you call it a debt ceiling or Congress just doesn't authorize the borrowing is irrelevant. It is Unconstitutional for the President to have a coin minted or to borrow money because those are powers reserved to Congress. Senator Cruz can't veto a bill, because that is a power reserved to the President. The Supreme Court cannot impeach the President because that is a power reserved to the House. That is just how power was allocated in the Constitution. The reason why the 14th Amendment was created is only relevant to help you understand its meaning. The meaning is related to denying the validity of debts, that's what cannot be questioned means in that context. If they aren't declaring the debts invalid, then they aren't violating that clause of the 14th Amendment. The federal government receives enough revenue to service the debt. They just don't receive enough revenue to maintain current funding on all operations and service the debt. They can shut down most operations and have no issue paying out on T-bills.
Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, points to Section 4 of the amendment as the basis of the argument that the president has the authority to order the nation’s debts be paid regardless of the debt limit Congress put in place. Section 4 of the Amendment was designed to remove debt payments from potential post-war partisan bickering between the North and South, but it also applies to the wide divide between Democrats and Republicans today. who to believe, the considered legal opinion of a distinguished legal scholar or the blathering of StupidMoniker ? what an easy choice!! consider Moniker's poor reading comprehension / warped logic he once made the claim that the rich pays most of the taxes---referencing it to a link that says they pay ~~40% of the taxes. when discussing racial diversity in American, he lumps Asians/Whites as one demographic group; on that basis, he conveniently claims that the City of Irvne, Ca (~42% Asian, ~40% white, ~38% other) is not diverse
the considered legal opinion of a distinguished legal scholar, Laurence Tribe, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment was designed to remove debt payments from potential post-war partisan bickering between the North and South, but it also applies to the wide divide between Democrats and Republicans today. StupidMoniker's blathering, The point of that clause of the 14th Amendment was so the representatives of the returned Confederate states could not vote to refuse to pay the bills incurred by the Union in fighting the Civil War, but that Congress could vote not to recognize debts incurred by the Confederacy.
Exactly. Moniker with his whole BS of they can't question the debt, they can just refuse to pay for it. They can't question the validity of debt. You mean since they have the power of rhe purse they can't question the debt they authorized? Well no ****ing ****. That's common sense. The 14th was not ratified for common sense. The 14th was to ensure Congress paid the debts THEY authorized.
Are you ****ijg kidding me? They're threatening to blow up the world economy unless we add work requirements to all programs WTF. These are DOMESTIC terrorists. While we have braindead trolls spinning hunter biden conspiracies the real threat is the Republicans who want to implode the economy.
McCarthy is a clown. Democrats should just ignore the whole thing and borrow anyway. This manufactured nonsense does nothing.
Theyre terrorists. They're threatening to blow up the entire economy unless democrats do something that NO Americans want. Who the **** would put work requirements on old people? What the ****? While Republicans threaten to implode the economy its always good thing their foot soliders are focused on the important issues like hunter biden conspiracies right @Os Trigonum lmao
Tired of our deadbeat Boomer filled Congress charging **** to the credit card and leaving his giant mess for the next generation to clean up. This will end up causing real economic pain and the longer you put it off the worse it will be. The deficits and current debt is unsustainable. Stop kicking the can down the road. Take some real action about addressing this problem. Children.
Honestly, at this point, Biden should just invoke the 14th amendment and dare the Supreme Court to stop him.
The issue with this when the treasury decides to sell tbonds in an auction the risk premium tied to the auction will be higher as buyers won't know the status of the debt ceiling. We'll be paying massive borrowing costs in the mean time until the courts decided it. The government doesn't just "print money." They have to sell government assets to raise such money.
I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand that we are saying the same thing. The point of disagreement between myself and Prof. Tribe, is he wants to expand the meaning to not only eliminate partisan bickering over what is a valid debt, into some sort of mandate to raise the debt ceiling. If the debt ceiling is meaningless and the 14th amendment requires that we borrow money in violation of the debt ceiling, why have they had this fight dozens of times? Had no one read the 14th Amendment for the last 50 years? No, that particular clause of the 14th was to ensure that the newly reunified Congress could choose not to pay the debts of the Confederacy, but also have no opportunity to refuse to pay the debts incurred by the Union in the civil war. AS professor Tribe put it: to remove debt payments from potential post-war partisan bickering between the North and South. That is why there is an exception right in the text of the Amendment that states: "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." The Union won the war, and the Confederacy was going to pay for all their own costs, plus half the costs of the winning side. This was one of the reconstruction amendments. They were all about asserting federal power over the states, in particular the states that had seceded, and not at all about clarifying that Congress has to continue to borrow money no matter what. You are right on one point: it wasn't ratified for common sense. Common sense would say that you do have to compensate people for costs of emancipation (especially since the Constitution explicitly forbids both ex post facto laws and depriving people of property without just compensation). They wrote it to explicitly exclude those claims.
Originalists are like religious fundamentalists - they are so oblivious that it is cute. Watching as texts are strained to unbelievable degrees, all to claim they fit into the neat box of an "order" from long ago that has very little applicability to the modern world we live in. I often wonder if it is part of a larger mental disorder.
It is hilarious that you think the originalist reading of the 14th amendment is straining the text. When they wrote that the US can't be held liable for the costs of emancipation, what do you think that means? Something about the debt ceiling?
Religious fundamentalists are all about interpreting their religions text to suit their needs. Democrats and Republicans interpret the constitution however it suits their needs. The 14th has much to do with debt ceiling limits as the 2nd absolves firearm holders from the responsibilities of gun ownership.
