14th Amendment: Democratic Senators See Debt Ceiling As Unconstitutional

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

14th Amendment: Democratic Senators See Debt Ceiling As Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON -- Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned," reads the 14th Amendment.

"This is an issue that's been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. "I don't think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I'll tell you that it's going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'"

By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html

---

...........some Senate dems are reportedly having a press conference tomorrow basically saying that due to the language of the 14th amendment:
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.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/28/989603/-BREAKING:Senate-Dems-say:-Debt-Ceiling,-What-Debt-Ceiling?via=siderec

............

Obama Schedules White House News Conference for Tomorrow
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-28/obama-schedules-white-house-news-conference-for-tomorrow-1-.html

[bluestateguy]

1. The nuclear option is for Obama to simply instruct Geithner to ignore the debt ceiling

Indeed there is a valid constitutional argument to be made here, and nonetheless avoiding default is simply more important than some Schoolhouse Rock bullshit about This is How a Bill Becomes a Law.

[No Elephants]

23. "School House Rock bullshit about This is How a Bill Becomes Law." So, a dictatorship, then?

Jaysus!

[melm00se]

49. the President, unilaterally, cannot declare a law

unconstitutional and order someone to ignore the law. That would abrogate his oath of office and impinge upon the authority of a co-equal branch of Government (the judicial branch) and any lawsuit brought on those grounds would probably succeed and that could bring this administration to a screeching halt and, potentially, destroy their credibility and ability to get anything done.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

76. Can he do so for reasons of national security?

As an emergency measure to save the country from disaster?

[tishaLA]

2. Sets a very dangerous precedent, though. If we worried about unitary executive

under the previous administration, think of what a Bachmann or a Santorum would do without congressional oversight.

[Psephos]

15. exactly n/t

[Hand_With_Eyes]

77. Bush already set that precedent

He did as he pleased

[PoliticAverse]

3. Key phrase "authorized by law". Doesn't the debt ceiling law count as a law?

Also the 14th Amendment didn't stop the US from defaulting on their gold clause debt in 1935.

[Abq_Sarah]

8. It sounds like it means

You can't invalidate the debt with a stroke of the pen. On the other hand, there's nothing in the 14th that says you have to spend like a bunch of drunken sailors and drive the debt up to unsustainable levels either.

[Jim Lane]

14. I'd read "authorized by law" differently.

Every expenditure Obama makes is pursuant to a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President. Therefore, each such expenditure is authorized by law. If the Republicans want to try to stop a particular form of spending, they can try to amend or repeal the authorizing legislation.

[Tx4obama]

18. Yes, that is how I read it too. n/t

[No Elephants]

25. Except the language refers to debt authorized by law, not spending authorized by law.

Even with your reading, that would apply only to spending that has already been authorized, maybe also to spending that has already occurred.

[Jim Lane]

33. Doesn't matter, it's all authorized by law.

All the spending, past and what's contemplated for the rest of this fiscal year, is pursuant to appropriations bills passed by Congress.

All the income is pursuant to tax bills and other revenue measures passed by Congress.

If Congress directs the President to collect $5 in revenue and to spend $8 on this, that, and the other, then I'd say Congress has authorized debt of $3. Having done that, can Congress also direct the President not to incur debt of more than $2? I'd say no. Statutes can't violate the Constitution, and the Constitution says that the President can't refuse to honor the debts arising from authorized spending.

This sounds like at least a colorable argument to me, and maybe even a sound one.

As a practical matter, what would the Republicans do? Go to court and ask for an order directing Obama to disregard the spending bills that Congress itself had passed?

[No Elephants]

38. Thanks. That hit me after the editing period had expired. However, Congress doesn't

Direct the President to collect $5 of revenue, or any set amount. (If only it were that easy.) Yes, law sets which income is taxable and at what rates. However, Congress cannot predict what the collective taxable income of all those subject to U.S. taxation will be in any given year. Or ever.

"As a practical matter, what would the Republicans do? Go to court and ask for an order directing Obama to disregard the spending bills that Congress itself had passed?"

If we're talking practicality only, Congress would not have to do much if any President were to exceed the debt ceiling. Rating agencies and our creditors would move and public opinion would do the rest. Legally, Congress could, at a minimum, impeach.

[Jim Lane]

62. I don't see why the rating agencies should have a problem.

Obama says: "This debt ceiling business is unconstitutional. I'm going to ignore it. This government will continue to honor its obligations -- will continue to pay interest on bonds, pay principal on bonds that mature, send out Social Security checks, keep the national parks open, blow up innocent people in Afghanistan, etc. If Congress doesn't like it, they can try passing a bill that rescinds their previous approval for the spending that's causing the total debt to pass the ceiling. Or, as No Elephants pointed out, they can impeach me for continuing to spend the money that they told me to spend."

It's business as usual for the bondholders and creditors. The rating agencies would probably be fine with that.

[Tx4obama]

16. ... the public debt of the United States, authorized by law = debt due to bills passed in Congress

[No Elephants]

39. It's not that simple.

[Hosnon]

63. I think it might be that simple... nt.

[Tx4obama]

17. The ' debt ceiling law' is not a 'debt'

The amendment is regarding the 'debt'.

The amendment says: " ... debt authorized by law ... "

So it refers to the actual 'debt' - debt due to passage of bills in Congress - appropriation bills, etc.

[No Elephants]

26. Please see Reply 25.

[Samantha]

19. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land

If there is a conflict between it and say, a Federal law, the Constitution prevails -- until the Supreme Court gets a lawsuit on the matter and puts a different spin on it.

Sam

[No Elephants]

27. But you still have the issue of what "public debt of the U.S...authorized by law" means.

[No Elephants]

24. 1935 aside, Yes "authorized by law" is a key phrase. First, Congress has to authorize the debt.

[Hosnon]

64. Congress authorizes the debt pursuant to appropriations bills unless those bills

include dollar for dollar revenue matches.

Unless they use PAYGo, the Constitution seems to forbid Congress from cutting the funding to pay for its own spending bills.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Will the teabaggers be for the Constitution or against it?

[Moonwalk]

5. It's nice to know that the U.S. doesn't have to pay for lost slaves....

:eyes:

[christx30]

6. From Wikipedia:

"Republican economist Bruce Bartlett argues that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and obligates the President to consider the debt ceiling null and void."

Looks like Obama is in a pretty good spot under that senario. Being forced by the constitution to ignore the debt ceiling. Like when I am forced to drink a beer, watch Star Wars, and eat a huge pizza.

[valerief]

7. So they've known this all along and we've been showered with more fear theater

from our Koch Congress.

[Pab Sungenis]

9. At the very least

if it goes to the Supreme Court it will take time, which will give the White House time to work out something.

[dballance]

10. Well Somebody Has to Be the Adult Here.

With the GOP acting petulant toddlers someone needs to bring sanity back to our government.

[No Elephants]

28. Sanity, as in sane spending, or only as in ignoring the debt ceiling?

I became a Democrat at the age of five and a half and never regretted my choice. I have nothing against sane spending and do not see that as inconsistent with my Democratic principles (which I stick to, no matter who occupies the Oval Office or Congress).

[ixion]

11. since we're talking unconstitutional, let's talk about the unPATRIOTic Act.

because that's unconstitutional as hell.

[louis c]

12. The Fourteenth Amendment, in its entirety

See Sections 4 and 5



Link:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

[Fuddnik]

13. It doesn't matter what they think.

It comes down to what Fat Tony and Uncle Thomas think.

[izquierdista]

22. Not really

Maybe it's time for the 200 year power grab of Marbury v. Madison to be laid to rest. Thom Hartmann did a good piece on this a while back saying that each branch was supposed to have its own authority as to how it would apply the Constitution. The way it was supposed to work, if the Executive felt that some law was unconstitutional, he had the authority not to execute it as the law of the land; if the Congress sees something unconstitutional happening, they could defund it. So what are Fat Tony and Uncle going to do, even if they have their usual Gang of 5, if Obama just signs an Executive Order directing the Treasury to ignore any purported "debt ceiling"?

[No Elephants]

29. Good luck on having the SCOTUS reverse Marbury v. Madison.

[izquierdista]

37. It's not for them to 'reverse'

It's time for the other two branches to assert their powers under the Constitution.

[No Elephants]

40. Well, since the SCOTUS decides what the Constitution says and means, that is circular.

And one of the things the Constitution says is


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. that the Supreme Court decides all cases and controversies arising under the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the U.S."

The branches are co-equal. However, that does not mean they are co-equal in every function. The SCOTUS does not legislate or declare war or run administrative agencies or appoint ambassadors. By the same token, neither the President nor Congress makes the final decision on what the Constitution means. Even Dim Son Bush accepted that.

So, unless and until the SCOTUS reverses Marbury v. Madison, the holding of that case is the law of the land.

Of course, we can abrogate the rule of law entirely, but I don't recommend it.

Edited to fix bolding error.

[izquierdista]

41. You don't get it, do you?

They only decide because of what was asserted in Marbury v. Madison. It's time for the President and Congress to make some assertions of their own. I'd like to see Congress assert that part about being the only branch to declare war. This President could (yea, in theory he could :eyes:) make a very forceful assertion on the debt limit, as has been done with these 'signing statements'. When I took high school civics, we never learned about "signing statements", just Marbury v Madison.

[No Elephants]

42. I do. You don't. They decided Marbury under the power gtven them by the Constitution.

As far as Congress asserting the exclusive power to declare war, again, even Dummya recognized that.

ETA: BTW, until Dummya, no signing statement every created a separation of powers issue. One signing statement said "I hate this law." And that was about as far as it got. Maybe that's why your high school civics teacher, who was probably not a Constitutional scholar or even a lawyer anyway, found no need to mention them.

[Hosnon]

59. It's not clear that the Founders intended the SCOTUS to be the only arbiter of

constitutionality.

Indeed, when Congress passes a law, it is affirming said law's constitutionality. And if the President chose not to execute a law, he is affirming said law's unconstitutionality.

The SCOTUS agrees that it is not the only arbiter, too. It defers resolution of many constitutional "political questions" to the political branches, deeming them more equipped to decide.

[Hosnon]

55. Those two can't pick and choose what cases to hear.

That's the major limitation of the SCOTUS.

First someone with standing would have to bring suit. Then that case would have to make it all the way up to the SCOTUS. The former is improbable and the latter would take a few years.

By the time they had a chance to hear it, the issue would be moot.

[Igel]

20. Defaulting isn't required.

There are still sufficient revenues, even if the debt ceiling remains unaltered, to provide for paying the interest on the debt. Just roll over any debt principle that comes due.

Of course, the downside is that any spending requiring new debt would immediately have to stop, meaning that while the federal government as a whole wouldn't shut down entirely many parts of it would. Which would keep on going to depend on Geithner and the terms of the contracts signed.

[No Elephants]

30. Rolling principal due into the debt would be increasing the debt.

Increasing debt without Congressional authorization is the Constitutional issue, not avoiding default on our existing debt.

"Of course, the downside is that any spending requiring new debt would immediately have to stop, meaning that while the federal government as a whole wouldn't shut down entirely many parts of it would."


And that is the practical issue.

[Hosnon]

65. Unless Congress authorizes it to be spent. The debt ceiling is on par with any other statute.

Including appropriations bills.

Congress set the debt ceiling at $14 trillion in February 2010. Any appropriations bills passed after that date trump the debt ceiling legislation; therefore, any debt pursuant to those appropriations bills are not bound by the debt ceiling.

[roomfullofmirrors]

21. this is getting stupid now. call their fucking bluff.

[No Elephants]

31. Looking at the entire amendment, it seems like the monetary provisions are there

to resolve potential financial issues arising from the Civil War and Emancipation, as follows.

The U.S. won't pay anything in respect of slaves lost and it won't pay anything in respect of debts the Confederacy incurred, but the debt of the U.S. authorized by Congress is (still) good.

Even if I am wrong, I'm betting that's how Tony and Thomas will see it.

[No Elephants]

32. On reflection, if that is how Tony and Thomas will see it, I must be wrong.

[Yupster]

50. It is a very badly done amendment

It was written to resolve issues of the Civil War.

No Confederate leaders can hold federal office, freed slaves are citizens of the states they reside in, no payment for lost slaves, no payment of Confederate debt.

Now it's used for all kinds of unrelated issues.

Constitutional right to an abortion, anyone born in US gets citizenship, and now ability to borrow over the congressional authorized debt limit.

Back in the 70's Newsweek or Time did a big issue asking if it was passed unconstitutionally too.

[happyslug]

67. Yes, was the 14th actually ratified by the needed number of states???

Every other Constitutional Amendment has been passed by 2/3rds of the states even if you exclude any state that rejected the proposed Amendment and then approved it (i.e. once rejected could not longer be approved by that state).

On the other hand, the 14th was rejected by several states that later approved it, AND some states that approved it later rejected it BEFORE 2/3rds of the States had ratified it. The only way the 14th can be viewed as passed is once a state approves an amendment, it can NOT reverse that division, but if a State REJECTED the Amendment, the state can later over rule that rejection and approve the amendment.

The 14th had opposition not only in the South (most of objectors were out of office do to laws passed by Congress, laws that became Section 3 of the 14th Amendment thus of little concern in passing the amendment (Congress had basically set up State Governments in most of the Former Confederacy made up of African Americans AND Southerns who had supported the North in the War, and as such these states all ratified the 14th relatively quickly).

But in addition to the Opposition in the South, people in the North opposed the 14th, First was the Women's Rights Movement for the 14th is the first conditional provision where the term "Male" is used (Yes, even in the US Constitution as written in 1787, the term male is NOT used, the term "people" was preferred thus avoiding any issue of sex discrimination). Elizabeth Stanton opposed the amendment for this very reason and after it passed tried to use it to vote. In the 1860s the Women's rights movement was tied in with the Abolitionism Movement and thus had a strong support among wide sections of the Population).

Another group, a much larger group, disliked the 14th amendment doing what Madison had avoided when he wrote the Bill of Rights by extending the concept of Federal Protection of "due process of law" to even State actions (The fifth guarantee every American the Right to Due Process, if the Federal Courts were involved and a Federal law was at issue, but did NOT apply to the States). The 14th expanded that guarantee to States:

The Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 14th Amendment Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice the wording difference, the Fifth only applies to the Federal Government, the 14th applies to the States. What the opposition said this was the greatest grant of power to the Federal Government ever, and the states should NOT give up the Right of the State to determine what Due Process is. The opposition was in many ways correct, the US Supreme Court did use the 14th amendment to expand what "Due Process" was, leading to the infamous Locher decision of 1905, where the US Supreme Court ruled it was a Violation of Due Process for a State to require a Minimum wage and Maximum hour law. The Court ruled it was a violation of the 14th's due process clause for a state to deny a person the right to contract for whatever wages he wants to work for and for as long as that person is willing to do (The Locher decision was called the ruling the guaranteed the American people "the right to contract to starve").

For more on Locher vs New York see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York

Locher survived till 1938 when the Supreme Court, seeing that it was about to "Packed" by FDR, started giving huge exceptions to Locher. Locher survives to a very limited degree for it is the bases for the US Supreme Court cases involving the extending the Federal Bill of Rights to every American. Most people support this today, for the worse parts of such Federal requirements of Due Process have been held in check do to fear by the Court that Congress and the President can change the number of Supreme Court Judges at any time. The best example of this is when President Grant appointed two new Justices to the US Supreme Court in 1870. Just before Grant made his appointments the Court ruled that the Legal Tender Act of 1862 was unconstitutional. Congress then restored the number of Supreme Court Justices to Nine (The number of Justices had been restricted to eight by Act of Congress during the presidency of Andrew Johnson, so Johnson could make no appointments to the US Supreme Court). President Grant then appointed two new Justices who in 1871 reversed the 1870 decision. The two new Justices made the previous dissent to become the Majority. Grant denied he made his appointments to reverse the Supreme Court Decision as to the Legal Tender Act of 1862, but given that what we call Senate hearings on Supreme Court Justices did NOT occur till the 1950s (As Southern Senators saw such hearings as a way to attack Brown vs The Topeka Board of Education, it is possible that Grant did NOT know it, but the person who supported the two new appointees did (i.e. Grant technically made the appointment, but it was off a list of people prepared by people who wanted the decision reversed).

Just pointing out that the Court has abused the 14th amendment, but such abuse has been tamed do to fears that Congress can always change the number of Supreme Court Justices so any decision opposed by Congress can be reversed. Thus the Court does look on popular opinion when it makes its decision, not so much of people want something or not, but how deep would the opposition be to any ruling that a law was Unconstitutional but a law people not only think should pass, they are willing make it the sole grounds for how they vote in an election (And that gets the attention of Congresspeople and Senators quickly).

More on the Legal Tender Cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

[Hosnon]

54. The article deals directly with that point:

"In 1935, the Supreme Court held that despite the Civil War context, the amendment clearly referred to all federal debt.

'While (the 14th Amendment) was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation,' the majority wrote in Perry v. U.S. 'We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.'"

[Tx4obama]

34. Keith Olbermann w/ Ryan Grim Regarding the Debt Ceiling and the 14th amendment - VIDEO

Keith Olbermann w/ Ryan Grim Regarding the Debt Ceiling and the 14th amendment - VIDEO
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x596209

[No Elephants]

45. Legal experts on the debt authorization clause of the 14th amendment, are they?

[Tx4obama]

66. Here's a video from today with Jonathan Turley

Countdown with Keith Olbermann - Jonathan Turley on Debt Ceiling Constitutionality
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jopY13psYOY

[sendero]

35. "Constitutional".

.... is what the SCOTUS says it is. And this activist court is not going to side with the Dems, constitution or not.

[fasttense]

36. What if Obama continued to run the government as if the debt ceiling had been raised?

What would the RepubliCONS do then?

[No Elephants]

47. What would China and Moody do is more to the point.

[ieoeja]

61. The suggestion is that the Constitution requires us to pay our debts.

Making it unconstitutional for our elected officials to default.

And you believe that requirement would cause Moody, and those who buy our debt, to consider us less likely to pay our debt?

I am of just the opposite opinion. I believe permitting future elected official to ignore our debt would make us a riskier investment. Especially when you consider that the main requirement for elective office is the ability to win a popularity contest. So if the idea of just walking away from our debt got popular....

[Yupster]

51. Start impeachment proceedings

is my guess.

It would be a president just saying he was going to ignore congress.

I'm sure lots are already furious at him ignoring the War Powers Resolution.

[Hosnon]

58. Ultimately pointless as the Senate would not convict. nt.

[AngryAmish]

43. Does anyone realize how dangerous this is?

Let's say Palin gets elected President. So she decides to invade Canada to grab some resources. Army has to go, that is what they do. Congress then comes to their senses and defunds the war. Palin decides to issue debt to pay for the war. Congress passes law saying you can't. Gets ignored with Palin citing 14th Amendment.

The only check at that point by Congress over the Executive is Impeachment and Removal. Do we want to get a President impeached every time they have a disagreement with congress? And what if we don't have the votes to Impeach and Remove?

[No Elephants]

44. Agree. The Republicans have been for years claiming some of the things claimed on this thread.

It's danged scary.

[AngryAmish]

46. Do we really want the President to have MORE power? Especially President Huckabee?

[No Elephants]

48. I prefer separation of powers, as intended by the Framers, thanks, no matter who controls the WH.

It's worked, not perfectly, but fairly well since 1789, even with some bad people in Congress, the WH and the Supreme Court at various times.

Unitary Executive = dictator. No thanks.

Funny, I remember a lot of posts here praising Obama for not being a dictator when he did not fight for passage of the public option or write an executive order ending DADT, both of which he had ample Constitutional power and moral right to do. Suddenly, it's okay if he disregards Congress and the SCOTUS to declare war on his own and disregard a law passed by Congress and signed by him setting the debt ceiling. And then, I suppose, disregard a ruling of the SCOTUS that says he has no Constitution power to do those things.

Wowza!

[Hosnon]

60. Unitary Executive = President, as established by the Constitution.

"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

[brooklynite]

52. Not a relevant analogy

The 14th Amendment addresses the obligation to pay for the debts incurred by the Government. It does not allow the executive branch to spend money not authorized by the legislative branch.

[Hosnon]

56. Exactly. nt.

[Hosnon]

57. I don't think it would work that way.

First, there's the issue of exactly what the debt ceiling is. My understanding from reading up on this is that it isn't about incurring new debt, but borrowing to pay old debt. That is where Section 4 of the 14th Amendment comes in. The debt was authorized by Congress when it passed the spending legislation. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to prevent the U.S. from paying it.

Secondly, there's the issue of separation of powers. Congress makes the laws, the President executes them. That is, Congress says spend $X, and the President spends $X. It might violate separation of powers for Congress to come back after authorizing spending legislation to prevent the President from executing that legislation.

[plumbob]

53. The debt ceiling was passed into law by Congress in 1917.

That means that for most of the history of this country, there was no statutory debt ceiling. It's just a law, not a Constitutional amendment.

It was passed to make it easier for the country to go further into debt, be removing the need for Congress to approve each issue of bonds, instead giving a broad umbrella number which allowed the Treasury to issue whatever it needed to do to get to that number.

A lazy Congress then didn't want to get into the details of bonds, just as a lazy Congress now doesn't want to get into the details of debt, the biggest of which is war. If I were the President, I'd do what I wanted and let someone sue me.

[SlipperySlope]

68. Prior to 1917 Congress had to approve each individual act of borrowing.

The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

Prior to 1917 Congress specifically authorized each and every loan that the United States took out. There was no "debt ceiling" per se, but there was no borrowing unless Congress specifically authorized that act of borrowing. When Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act in 1917 they basically said "we aren't going to bother authorizing each and every act of borrowing, as long as the total borrowing stays within this pre-approved limit".

If the debt ceiling is unconstitutional then the logical consequence would be that Congress would have to authorized each individual issuance of debt, not that the executive branch could borrow without Congressional authority.

[TomCADem]

75. With Respect To Interest Payments, Hasn't Congress Already Approved Such Debt?

Plus, by refusing to approve a debt limit increase, isn't Congress essentially impairing its contractual obligation to pay its debt in violation of the Contract clause?

[closeupready]

69. If a balanced budget law in the form of Gramm Rudman was unconstitutional,

hard to see how the debt ceiling isn't also unconstitutional.

[SlipperySlope]

70. Violating the debt ceiling would be unconstitutional for the same reason.

Gramm-Rudman was struck down because it violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. It would have given the Comptroller General (an employee of the legislative branch) powers traditionally reserved to the executive branch (interpreting and enforcing an act of Congress).

The Constitution gives the legislative branch the sole power to borrow money. If the executive branch were to attempt to borrow without the authority of congress, then that would be an unconstitutional act for very similar reasons as Gramm-Rudman was found wanting.

[LetTimmySmoke]

71. Obama and the dems should not even THINK about exercising this option

Until very near August 2, once it's become absolutely clear to the public that the GOP will not accept a reasonable solution that includes increased taxes on the wealthy to normal historical levels, as well as eliminating the loopholes and corporate subsidies.



Politically, exercising this option will only work as a last resort.

[SlipperySlope]

72. I can't believe anybody here would want this as precedent.

I can't believe that DU would be cheerleading for setting a precedent that the President can borrow as much as he wants without Congressional approval. This is just going too far down the "all powerful executive" path for me.

[TomCADem]

74. Better To Concede To Republicans On Taxes, Then?

The Republicans want to tank the economy, because the corporate media will give them a free pass. Eventually, Democratics and President will have to concede in order to avoid a meltdown in the economy. I would rather test the Constitutional argument if Republicans are not willing to see reason.

[wordpix]

73. if Dems "win" on the 14th Amendmt, this will go to SCOTUS

Fat Tony and his boys will surely say a debt ceiling IS constitutional, on whatever basis their corporate puppetmasters insist on.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

79. That is a GOOD outcome

...as long as it happens AFTER August 2nd. If the RW Scotus says it is constitutional, the economy collapses the moment they announce their decision. The RW court and their GOP suitors receive all of the blame for the collapse.

[orpupilofnature57]

78. How about what Jefferson said about thee " Monied Interests" that

would infiltrate ,and manipulate government to serve the few.