Given 14th Amendment, how is debt ceiling even legal?

[yurbud]

Any legislation that implies we won't honor our debts seems to violate the plain sense of the Amendment.

[Drale]

1. Thats what I've been wondering

its possible that no one has ever challenged it, and thats the reason its "legal".

[treestar]

2. Maybe Obama could go to the courts

for an injunction against enforcing the debt limit on the ground that it is unconstitutional.

[GodlessBiker]

3. No. He should just honor the country's debts as they are incurred and let them sue him for ...

an abuse of power or something like that.

[yurbud]

7. Buzzflash posted an editorial saying why Obama might not risk invoking 14th because

GOP would take it to court, and conservative Supreme Court would rule against him.

I could see Obama thinking like that, but if the Supreme Court ruled against him, they would fully own any default and that would put stink on the GOP for generations (if they even survive that long).

[karynnj]

13. Presidents have had things declared unconstitutional before

The Clinton line item veto is one example.

I agree with your conclusion.

[yurbud]

15. The most infamous example: Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears

The Indians sued and took it all the way to the Supreme Court, which sided with them and against Jackson and his Indian Removal policy, a 19th century ethnic cleansing.

Jackson said, ''The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it,'' and that was the end of it.

Obama could do the same thing for good.

[karynnj]

17. Wow - I knew of the Trail of Tears, but never heard that it was done in defiance

of the Supreme Court.

[Shrek]

4. The debt ceiling makes no such implication

It simply limits the amount the country can borrow and implies nothing about the service of existing debt.

If it did then you could make the same claim about the tax code. Does it violate the amendment as well, since it doesn't raise enought revenue to pay the bills?

[yurbud]

9. I like the line of thought in your second paragraph.

[Shrek]

11. For that matter, you could make the same claim about spending

Debt ceiling, too much spending, too little revenue -- any could potentially lead to a default.

Of these, why should the debt ceiling be singularly unconstitutional?

[earthside]

5. Because it doesn't say ...

... what everybody here is saying it says.

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.

It is about the debts and etc. of the United States of America and the Confederate State of America in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Frankly, I think that raising the debt ceiling is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress ... I don't think the 14th Amendment applies and I am definitely against the idea of letting the President raise the debt ceiling subject to the veto of the Congress (McConnel's idea ... Reid's???).

[ashling]

6. and the 2d amendment was written

at a time when the country did not have a standing army of any consequence and it was considered necessary to have a well regulated militia in each state and community .

[woolldog]

8. Perry v. US goes against your reading

of the 14th amendment. It argues the debt clause should be read expansively.

[karynnj]

14. Where in the Constitution is there anything about a debt ceiling

There is a lot on the Congress appropriating spending - and it is the spending appropriated and the tax structure they duly legislated that jointly produce the result that we need to raise the debt ceiling.

[Igel]

18. Art. I section 8.

It says that Congress is authorized to borrow against the credit of the United States.

How Congress goes about doing this is pretty much Congress' business. It's decided to pass budgets and set tax rates and tariffs, and then separately authorize the executive branch to borrow money up to a preset limit in order to cover the difference between revenues and expenses.

Note that when the Congress passes a budget it does not stipulate how much money will need to be borrowed, nor could it. That depends on how quickly the budget is spent and how quickly anticipated revenues come in. Note that Congress levies taxes, it doesn't mandate the amount of revenue. That's impossible: An economic downturn or boom can quickly alter the revenue stream up or down.

Congress this time around also said that the budget expenses, apart from some things, are to be taken from available revenues. They didn't just appropriate money, they also made it contingent on the money's being in the coffers. If it's not in the coffers and there's no borrowing authorization, then the authorization to spend the money pretty much isn't there.

Of course, there's still some mandate to spend money. If Obama's used money that he didn't have to spend in order to make sure there wasn't money he has to spend, that's simple breach of fiduciary trust.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Because a reading of the 14th amendment that invalidates the debt ceiling is not GIVEN

The whole notion of "Given the 14th Amendment..." is question begging at its finest.

[karynnj]

12. I agree with you - and it makes more sense to me than saying it is unconstitutional

for Obama to invoke it.

Are there any lawyers here (I'm not one) who have understood the various arguments.

[onenote]

16. "authorized by law"

To incur debt, it has to be authorized by law. And that comes with it the implication that such law may have conditions etc. The law authorizes the US to borrow up to a certain level. Raising the debt ceiling is a law that authorizes more borrowing.

[Igel]

19. What legislation implies we won't honor our debts?

Perhaps if our debt payments exceeded revenues there'd be a bit of a problem. As it is, revenues still exceed debt payments by a healthy margin in any given month.

If the cash flow manager screwed up the accounts, that's a different issue and he should be punished instead of lauded.

It's just that you haven't defined what "debt" means. Obama plays games, too, shifting definitions mid-discourse or even mid-sentence. Useful rhetoric that, but it flunks Logic 101 because, well, it's a fallacy and mostly just confuses things and shuts down understanding in order to coerce agreement and compliance.