The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned

[ddeclue]

The following is my letter to Daniel Webster, copied to the Orlando Sentinel. Daniel is the allegedly "reasonable" Republican who replaced Alan Grayson in the 2010 elections regarding the debt ceiling. I urge you to copy this letter and send it to your representatives and hometown newspaper and some version of it to President Obama as well:

To the Honorable Representative,
Daniel Webster,
Eighth District of Florida

Dear Sir:

With regards to the on-going debate regarding raising the debt ceiling:

This is not merely a preposterous debate that risks throwing not only the national economy but the economy of the world-at-large into utter ruin.

This is not only an obvious attempt by right-wing ideologues to extort the Executive Branch into reversing the New Deal, dismantling Medicare and Social Security for instance.

It is also blatantly unconstitutional:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states in very plain and obvious language in Section 4 that:

"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."

The simple act of voting whether or not to raise the debt ceiling to cover the previous Congressionally authorized expenditures of the U.S. government is the very definition of "questioning" - to do so is literally to "call the question" on whether the authorized debt shall or shall not be paid.

It is therefore blatantly unconstitutional and the Republican Party which claims to be such strong supporters of the Constitution when it comes to issues such as the President's health care reform plan must necessarily become hypocrites if they are to try to force this clearly unconstitutional exercise in extortion not to pay an already authorized debt.

Do the right thing Representative Webster.

Do the reasonable thing.

Do the constitutional thing.

Vote to raise the debt ceiling.

When the government comes to a grinding halt and the economy proceeds to blow up in August - when little old ladies stop receiving their Social Security checks and soldiers in Afghanistan stop receiving their paychecks - there will be hell to pay for the Republican Party that went to such an unreasonable, unconstitutional and extortionist extreme to try to shove its own ideology down the throats of the vast majority of citizens who simply do not accept it.

Respectfully,

Douglas J. De Clue
...

cc: [e-mail]

[dkf]

1. Is that debt authorized by law if they haven't raised the debt ceiling?

[ddeclue]

4. Yes when they voted to authorize the expenditure originally.

Raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with authorizing the expenditure - it is simply raising our authority to borrow money to pay the already incurred debt. It is the equivalent of you calling and asking your credit card company for a credit limit increase - that has nothing to do with the bills you've already incurred on that card by your purchases - you've already authorized those purchases previously.

[some guy]

10. I don't think so.

You can say it's the equivalent, and to some degree, I'll agree. But what if the credit card company says "no."

Also, you response should include the Fed, since they're the company the US borrows money from.

( I'm not looking for an argument, but you're speaking sort of knowledgeably and this is a new thread, so I can ask, and hope my post isn't lost among many.)

[ddeclue]

12. well in this case the credit card company is precluded by the constitution from saying no.

I was merely pointing out the difference between expenditure authorization and debt limit.

[some guy]

21. How so?

Would it be that part of their charter is that they're required to provide funds as requested by the Congress?

If so, that's fine as far as it goes. But right now, Congress is refusing to request more funds until an agreement is reached which reduces future debt accumulation.

Congress isn't repudiating existing debt, just not agreeing to expand debt.

The problem is, if the government runs out of money on August 2; well then they have to postpone paying bills until they get some more cash on hand.

So rather than asking the credit card company for a higher credit limit, the Congress wants the government to ask its creditors for more time to pay the bills.

Is that the same as default? I'm thinking not, sort of. They may be required to pay China, because China has the size and stature to harm the US. But they can put off paying SS recipients, because as individuals, they don't have the clout to force payment.

They could also postpone payments to the MIC and limp along that way for a while.

I see all this as bad, but not exactly repudiation of debt, so not exactly violation of the 14th amendment.

So, why is it default, instead of a minimum payment plan?

[ddeclue]

24. It's simple: Congress has authorized expenditures

that it is subsequently refusing to pay which the 14th amendment says they cannot do.

[some guy]

26. Thank you very much.

:D

I also thanked you in post 23.

[some guy]

6. Yeah.

That whole 14th amendment thing is open to question.

Subsequent to that amendment, the US (apparently, and at least de facto) approved the creation of the Federal Reserve Corporation - so now, rather than Congress simply saying, yes, print more money, it would seem there has to be some agreement between the Congress and the Fed for the Fed to print more money ( and lend it to the US ).

There is also a 1917(?) law about establishing a debt ceiling, that also would seem to be needed to be factored in.

Both of these laws could in theory be declared unconstitutional, but I don't see that happening in the next 2 1/2 weeks.

I'm not really sure about either of the above, except they both happened subsequent to the 14th amendment.

[ddeclue]

9. no statute can nullify the Constitution which is expressly the Supreme Law of the land.

you can pass all the statutes you want but the afforementioned statutes are just as unconstitutional when it comes to this debt issue as the debt limit law itself.

constitution always trumps statute.

[some guy]

13. I'll agree with that

but how long to move the questions through the courts, and what damage in the mean time?

Anyway, I liked your other response, so I've responded to that in the meantime, and will let this subthread die off.

[ddeclue]

15. Yeah well that's ok because the Republicans would have to move the ball in response to Obama's E.O.

Obama issues an executive order citing the 14th Amendment ordering Geithner to pay the debt. Geithner pays the debt. Then the Republicans have to unring the bell by going through the court process to try and reverse not Obama.

[some guy]

23. Okay.

Hey, I actually like this idea.

:bounce:

Thanks for your patience.

[dkf]

16. Printing money isn't the same thing as issuing debt.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/10/ES1014.pdf

The fed prints money and the treasury issues debt.

[some guy]

25. Yeah. You can ignore that post.

It was me thinking badly out loud.

The creation of the Fed and the debt ceiling law were topics I wanted to discus, but wasn't on solid enough ground to introduce them well.

:)

[dkf]

27. That's what makes this fun!

It's such a learning experience.

[The Magistrate]

7. Yes, ma'am, it Is

The vote which authorizes the appropriation and expenditure is authorization by law. When that item was added to the Constitution, the debt ceiling statute did not exist. That statute probably is unconstitutional, if it comes into operation in a manner that does call the public debt into question. Hard to bet, off course, on what the pack of shit-heels dominating the Supreme Court at present would make of this. Their votes would not be determined by honest examination of law and precedent, but by what their ideologic and partisan leanings prescribed, and whether these would dictate preserving capital, or destroying a Democratic Party President, is quite a conundrum.

[dkf]

8. Lawrence Tribe says it is not...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=2

[ddeclue]

11. I can read English professor tribe.

It is quite clear on its face what the amendment says and it does not require further interpretation.

[The Magistrate]

14. Opinions Will Differ, Ma'am

It is certainly true that the original intent of the written words bears no relation to the present circumstance and statute, but words in the Constitution have often come un-moored from their original context, and been used to produce outcomes the authors could never have meant, let alone desired, but which were apt to the present in which a decision was made.

[ddeclue]

17. Perhaps true but wouldn't the originalists on the court have a hard time

engaging in adapting the words to some modern meaning unrelated to the clear sentences in the 14th Amendment and wouldn't the liberals on the court support Obama anyways? I mean how do Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, et. al go all post modern interpretive after professing to be such originalists?

[The Magistrate]

18. Because Forcing Default, Sir, Destroys Capital, In Great Flaming Gobs

Whether these people actually would be willing to do major financial harm to the very interests they have slavishly served their whole lives is a pretty question. These people have demonstrated they have, actually, no commitment to any real theory of jurisprudence beyond 'decide in favor of business and wealth', so the only real factor would be what course they thought most favored business and wealth.

[ddeclue]

19. I don't understand your point.

If they are fearful of the outcome of forcing default then they would take Obama's side in the court matter that would result because he would be on the side of NOT defaulting whereas the GOP would be on the side of forcing default.

Indeed the Wall St. Journal has taken the GOP to the woodshed when it is normally their bestus buddy (sic).

[The Magistrate]

28. And That, Sir, It What Makes It Fascinating

Politically, they would want to destroy President Obama, which default would likely do; at least, that is what Republicans affect to believe.

Economically, they would want to preserve the capital which separates wealth and business interests from the hoi polloi, and default certainly would destroy much capital and many business interests; that is certain as sunrise in the east.

What is a bought-out, rabidly partisan shit-heel slavishly loyal the money power and its political instrument, the Republican party, to do?

[ddeclue]

29. "The best way to get revenge on rich people is to turn them into poor people"

a great line from "Switching Places".

The GOP establishment may not like Obama but they certainly aren't about to turn themselves into paupers to do it.

The teabagger crowd may be dumb enough and poor enough not to care but ultimately they don't have enough cards to win the game without the GOP.

Doug D.

[dkf]

20. The economist blog says there is no way Anthony Kennedy would let himself be responsible for collap.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/debt-ceiling

[The Magistrate]

30. That, Ma'am, is Why they Make the Horses Actually Go Around The Track Before Money Changes Hands....

Just do not imagine views on, and principles of, Constitutional law would have anything to do with the outcome. People would drag items of the genuine discipline in to justify their a priori political and economic imperatives, rather like a hunter decorates his lodge with stuffed heads....

[freshwest]

2. Great post. K & R!

[Mimosa]

3. EXCELLENT POST!!! Highly recommend. n/t

[jimmyflint]

5. Nobody pays attention to the Constitution anymore.

It is just an old piece of paper. :sarcasm:

But I do like your letter, so consider this a kick&rec

[robinlynne]

22. I'll add the Supreme Court regularly dumps on the constitution..... this discussion

is interesting.