Section 4 of the 14th Amendment

[kentuck]

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

The President should challenge this in the US Supreme Court.

Once and for all, he could stop this dangerous game-playing with our economy budget matters.

"Shall not be questioned" sound rather specific, don't you think?

[lastlib]

2. I agree with the idea, but....

...do we REALLY want to put it in front of "Scalito"/Thomas/Roberts?

[kentuck]

3. Why not?

Force them to make a decision. I would like to see their ruling.

[lastlib]

6. (be careful what you wish for--you might get it....)

I couldn't put it past those morons to somehow twist the language into a pretzel and fuck us all over with it. Example: what does the phrase "authorized by law" mean? If they treat it as meaning that anything in excess of the current debt limit is not authorized, then we lose, and the GOP comes out strengthened. Bush v. Gore.........

[kentuck]

8. They challenged Obamacare in the Supreme Court.

Remember what happened?

Also, most of the debt has been run up by Republicans so who loses??

[badtoworse]

4. What about the "authorized by law" part?

How is debt authorized by law other than by act of Congress, signed by the president? I don't see any authority to increase existing debt without it being "authorized by law". My interpretation is that debt, authorized by law, cannot be abrogated.

[kentuck]

5. It is my understanding that this is existing debt.

Not new debt. Only Congress would have the authority to increase spending and create new debt. They also have the authority to cut spending.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Our debt is accumulated deficits between revenue and expenditures.

If the debt ceiling is not raised then the government cannot conduct additional deficit spending once the debt limit is reached. It would not jeopardize previously accrued debt. In effect the government would have to immediately start operating under a balanced budget.

Economically it would be devastating because it would remove a massive amount of currency from the economy too quickly. Too many jobs and industries would be effected but it would not be unconstitutional.

[kentuck]

25. They are well on their way with the sequester, etc...

and cutting food stamps and programs for old people...

However, even if they were running a surplus this year, they cannot default on the existing debt. That cannot be questioned.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. The Continuing Resolution (in lieu of a budget) and the debt ceiling are 2 different animals.

They could (very, very, VERY) theoretically write a budget/CR that adds $0.00 to the national debt thereby obviating the need for a debt limit increase.

[kentuck]

29. If the budget or the CR they sent to the Senate is not paid for...?

...then they would need to raise revenue or make more spending cuts in order not to increase the debt limit. If they have to borrow even one dollar, there will need to be a debt limit "increase"...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. Correct.

[Shivering Jemmy]

34. When you pass a bill with spending

You have authorized that spending.

[hootinholler]

7. Correct answer

The debt ceiling is unconstitutional.

[lastlib]

9. "yabbut".....

Would the current SCOTUS idjits see it that way? they know where their bread is buttered, and who butters it......

[hootinholler]

14. They have no other choice but to see it that way

The debt ceiling limits spending to service debt already incurred. The 14th says that debt must be serviced.

[badtoworse]

20. It doesn't say new debt must be issued.

To me it means that existing debt is senior to all other spending.

[kentuck]

27. However, once they pass a new budget bill...

that would be the budget law for our country.

If they made enough cuts or raised enough revenue to balance the budget this year, they still could not ignore the debt limit. We still owe the existing debt. It is a futile exercise for the Republicans. They do not understand our Constitution.

[badtoworse]

33. I think we are saying essentially the same thing

Legally, they can't be forced to raise the debt, but as a practical matter, they have to.

[kentuck]

36. If "the debt shall not be questioned"?

Then they are obligated to raise the debt. It is the law.

[badtoworse]

43. My interpretation is that we are obligated to pay the debt

The amendment is silent as to where the money would come from.

[kentuck]

11. If the Supreme Court ruled the debt ceiling "unconstitutional"..

...it would stop this nonsense about shutting down the government every 6 months, I would think?

[pediatricmedic]

17. No, it would not

We have been deficit spending for awhile now and that isn't going to change. It would shift from debt ceiling to balancing the budget instead. The debt ceiling is just an easy hostage for them to take. Unfortunately, balancing the budget sounds really reasonable to a lot of people and they may buy into it.

[kentuck]

18. Deficit spending adds to the debt.

Of course, they could balance the budget and the debt could still go up because we would still have to pay the interest on the debt, right?

[badtoworse]

21. A balanced budget would have to service thr debt without more borrowing.

That would mean draconian cuts elsewhere

[kentuck]

31. Yep.

So they have to borrow more money this year, even though they have made a lot of cuts already. Therefore they are constitutionally required to honor the debt.

[Deep13]

10. Literally, it means no one can talk about public debts.

Not well written.

[treestar]

15. Agree, what were they trying to say there?

Perhaps it had to do with preventing suits at law from voters that a certain expenditure was invalid.

[oldhippie]

28. It's not that hard .....

We have the Google, and it takes all of about 30 seconds to look something up if really interested:

Validity of public debt

Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all U.S. public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, during the Civil War several British and French banks had lent large sums of money to the Confederacy to support its war against the Union.[152] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States bond "went beyond the congressional power."[153]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[treestar]

35. Looks like there is no case law on it

So it's up for debate.

[oldhippie]

37. And there probably will be before too long .....

looks like that section was put in the 14th specifically to address some issues arising from the financing (on both sides) of the Civil War. I doubt they anticipated the current circumstances, but there it is. And I think you're right, there will be a bunch of debate and some case law before too long.

[kentuck]

38. 1 Section 1(a), 31 USCA 463(a). [294 U.S. 330, 350] of the US Code

There is a precedence. It is the law.

[oldhippie]

40. Those are interesting cites, ....

.. but they don't seem to pertain to the current question. They are about the gold exchange rates. Interesting, nonetheless.

[kentuck]

41. The law is the law...

and seldom only applies to one action or happenstance.

[PoliticAverse]

12. Obama has previously commented on section 4...

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/92884/supreme-court-obama-debt-ceiling

“I’ve talked to my lawyers,” President Obama said in explaining his dismissal of the argument that Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes him to raise the debt ceiling if Congress fails to act. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

[kentuck]

13. What is the winning argument?

Give the other side whatever they want if they threaten to not pay our debts??

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Previously accrued debts would be paid; we just could not add new debt.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. This does not address the legality of congress deliberately defaulting.

It'd be nice if a lawyer would talk about that.

[PoliticAverse]

19. I'm sure courts would find not paying a treasury bond, bill or note to be in violation of the law...

in this case and would order the US to pay such regardless of any debt ceiling.

[badtoworse]

22. The court would order it to be paid out of current revenue

[kentuck]

32. From the rhetoric today, he may have no other choice?

They may shut down the government.

[tritsofme]

39. The Supreme Court would be very unlikely to entertain such a "political question"

It would however end with a House impeachment vote.

[kentuck]

42. They already have.

Not only with Obamacare but with the Perry v. United States in 1935. It's in the US Code.