A way to save us from ourselves?

All of this kerfuffle about future spending could be moot.

it's an interesting constitutional analysis.. i wonder why the teabaggers didn't find the 14th when they were holding their constitutional classes ?? was it possibly because no one took off their shoes ??

It's very intriguing, isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._States_Constitution

You Can Take Your Debt Limit And Shove It

quote:

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.

It is unlikely that the Treasury would actually default on its debt if the White House and Congress fail to agree on a increase in the limit on government borrowing.

Even if the debt limit is not raised, the Treasury will still have plenty of money from tax receipts to pay the interest on the existing debt. I mean seriously, when you are already more than $14T in debt, do you need more?

The Treasury would pay the interest on the debt first and then simply prioritize the remaining income.

Further, there is no reason they cannot agree to a debt ceiling increase, the GOP has already said that so long as it is matched with long term spending cuts, the debt ceiling can be raised to any reasonable level that Democrats desire.

Perfect evidence that Republicans hope to crash the world's economy and blame it on Obama. Idiots.

quote:

I mean seriously, when you are already more than $14T in debt, do you need more?

How can we take you seriously with your horrendous track record? You've never owned up to Reagan and Bush's part in accumulating the debt, and the unfunded tax cuts and wars that you told us would be paid for by Iraqi oil. Guess what? Your credibility here ran out four pseudos ago.

14TH AMENDMENT THING GETTING SERIOUS - We were half joking about evoking the 14th Amendment as a way out of the debt ceiling debate, but it's quickly becoming a central part of the negotiations. Chuck Schumer suggested today that invoking the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states that federal debts "shall not be questioned," to continue paying government obligations is a strategy worth considering should a debt-ceiling deal remain elusive. "It's certainly worth exploring," he said. "It's something worth looking at for the next time around, but I don't think it's had enough fermentation -- examination, to employ at this time."

Huffposthill via email

quote:

the unfunded tax cuts

You must mean the ones the Democrats just passed and Obama signed into law, just this last December?

Did you know that Obama is on track to run up more debt in 3 years than Bush ran up in 8?

If Bush debt was a problem, why is 8/3rds the Bush rate under Obama, the answer?

No, dopey, it's the freaking wars that YOU said would be paid for by oil. Try to focus.

deep background on the 14th .. by prof. jack balkin ..

quote:

"The fourth section, which renders inviolable the public debt and repudiates the rebel debt, will secure the approbation of all but traitors."

quote:

Originally posted by Jkat:
deep background on the 14th .. by prof. jack balkin ..

Good article. There hasn't been much discussion of Section 4 recently. The Fourteenth Amendment still provokes plenty of controversy, but almost all of the controversy focuses on Section 1, Section 5, and the incorporation doctrine.

There was a case before the Supreme Court, Perry v. United States, in 1935, but it's not very enlightening.

well ..as you know gus .. i'm anything but a lawyer .. but i have always found the arcanery in law interesting ..and sometimes intriguing as well .. i thought this was good historical background ..and the links lead to some meat as well as some gristle too ..

i find it instructive that some of the concerns listed when art. 4 of the amendment was originally discussed are exactly what's going on today .. far into the future ..

One of the top Fourteenth Amendment scholars is Akhil Reed Amar at Yale Law School. Professor Amar has written a number of articles about the origin of the Fourteenth Amendment in the 39th Congress, but I don't know that this debt ceiling business has ever come up.

From JKat's link:

quote:

The original purpose of Section Four, which is reflected in its text, was to prevent political disruption and party wrangling over the public debt following the Civil War. However, the language of the Amendment went beyond this particular historical concern. It was stated in broad terms in order to prevent future majorities in Congress from repudiating the federal debt to gain political advantage, to seek political revenge, or to try to disavow previous financial obligations because of changed policy priorities.

Drop it on 'em Monday, Aug. 1st if they haven't blinked yet.

they predicted that pretty well didn't they ... ?? uncanny foresight ..

hey gus .. thanks for the link.. and if no one's told you lately: you're a hell of nice guy ...

quote:

"The fourth section, which renders inviolable the public debt

Simply means that Dem threats to stop the payment of interest if they can't get access to more credit, is unconstitutional. In the absence of a debt ceiling hike, we will simply pay the interest and then prioritize the remaining income to the treasury.

Stupid argument anyway, the debt ceiling will be raised. The GOP has already said Dems can have as much debt ceiling increase as they want to match with long term spending reductions.

I thought you pretended to be an originalist, zorro, a strict constructionist or something. Maybe that's why you didn't quote the literal language

quote:

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.

Because that's exactly what the Republicans are doing. They are questioning the public debt of the United States.

The language of the Fourteenth Amendment is as plain as day and it proves you wrong.

bear in mind ..even alan greenspan has ..in the past .. questioned the need for votes in congress to specifically authorize increasing the "debt limit" .. under his view .. if congress has passed a set of laws called 'the budget' ..ad said budget exceeds revenues .. then congress has in fact "authorized" said debt included i nthe math of the passed budget .. and there is no need for a specific congressional vote to ratify what congress has already passed ..

imo .. what needs to happen is .. when congresses authorize a budget .. they also need to assess a rate of taxation to pay for what they just authorized .. on a year-to-year basis ..

bite me excessively two years in a row and i know who to vote for/against ..eh ??

Prior to the debt ceiling approach, Congress had previously approved each debt issuance separately. I'm good with returning to that.

Really? You'd be okay with that? How many bills do you think the Treasury pays per month?

Anyway, the relevant question is not what zorro would be okay with, but what's constitutional and what's not constitutional.

quote:

Anyway, the relevant question is not what zorro would be okay with, but what's constitutional and what's not constitutional.

Yeah, but I think he thought he was setting a trap. (Then again, he always thinks that. It's almost inspiring the way he can maintain that particular illusion.)

quote:

Really? You'd be okay with that? How many bills do you think the Treasury pays per month?

They would only need approval for the bills that raise the debt level of the US.

Is that a nightmare scenario for Dems or something?

quote:

what's constitutional

The only thing needed to satisfy the 14th amendment is the continued payment of interest on the national debt. It only takes a fraction of the total income to the treasury to make the debt payment. So pay that first, prioritize the remaining 80-90% of the treasury income to the most important federal expenditures.

Alternatively, simply raise the debt ceiling by the amount that Dems are willing to match with long term spending reductions.

Looks like section 5 has been overlooked, it is the Congress not the President:

quote:

Section 5.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

If Tiny Tim couldn't handle turbo tax, it is unsurprising that he is confused by this constitutional amendment.

Is Obama thinking of relying on the 14th Amendment to keep paying debts even if Congress doesn't lift the ceiling?

"I don't think I want to get into speculation," Jay Carney said today. "I am not aware of any analysis being done by lawyers here and I have not heard the president discuss it." Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tells HuffPost Hill he's looking into it himself, while Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) says it's "silly." "I think it's interesting to talk about, but I don't think it's sustainable as a legitimate position," he said.

The Nation's Katrina vanden Huevel starts the rallying cry in the Post: "Invoke the 14th."

The conservative counterattack on the 14th Amendment option has started -- although this analysis doesn't seem to get the concept of an amendment.

Huffhillpost via email

Interesting pros and cons.

Thoughts?

And then there's this:

quote:

REP. TIM SCOTT THREATENS IMPEACHMENT IF OBAMA INVOKES 14TH AMENDMENT - In a classic Washington moment today, a member of Congress threatened to invoke his chamber's constitutional right to impeach the president if the president invokes the Constitution. "This president is looking to usurp congressional oversight to find a way to get it done without us. My position is that is an impeachable act from my perspective," the South Carolina lawmaker said about the president potentially citing the 14th Amendment -- which states that "The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned." -- to end the debt ceiling stand-off.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...edlinkusaolp00000008

Looks like section 5 has been overlooked, it is the Congress not the President with power to enforce the provisions of this article:

quote:

Section 5.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Isn't Captain Wonderful supposed to be like a wizbang constitutionalist or something?

quote:

Isn't Captain Wonderful supposed to be like a wizbang constitutionalist or something?

First of all, Pres. Obama (whom I assume you're referring to) has said nothing about using the 14th Amendment. Second of all, Section 4 says the debt shall not be questioned. If it is the Executive branch's job to pay bills out of the Treasury, then that is what it does. It doesn't require Congressional action under this section to do its Constitutional job.

Clearly what Section 5 is for, when it comes to enforcing Section 4, is the situation where the Executive branch, for example, decides to repudiate a debt. Congress then would have the authority under Section 5 to act, saying, essentially: "Hey! Buddy! See Section 4 here? Well, get your ass in gear and pay the damn bill!"

And now, zorro, I find myself wondering once again: Why don't you think before you spout off something some rightwing nutjob has just posted? Just for yuks?

Exactly. The congressional power to enforce the 14th Amendment has mostly been used to enforce section 1. But the enforcement power doesn't necessarily need to be used at all. Parts of the 14th Amendment, including section 4, are largely self-executing.

If someone tried to question the validity of the public debt of the United States in court, for example, or tried to enforce payment of a Confederate debt, the court would simply dismiss their claim. A court wouldn't need any authorization from Congress to do this.