I don't get the 14th Amendment argument

[FreeJoe]

How does it help? OK, so our existing debts are valid and have to be paid.

I don't know the real numbers, but lets just say that in August the Treasury expects to take in $200 billion, expects to pay $40 billion to cover our debts and expects to pay an additional $200 billion for stuff like government agencies, military expenses, etc. If you invoke the 14th admendment, you agree that the $40 billion in debt payments has to be made. That leaves you with $160 billion for everything else. How does the 14th amendment give the President or anyone else the authority to borrow more money to cover the difference?

[FreakinDJ]

1. The intent was for the Southern States to pay their share of Civil War Debt

why does that sound so familiar

[Warpy]

4. It's a bit of a stretch to use it to get rid of the debt limit now

but some very persuasive arguments could be made that it applies to all debt incurred by the government and that Congress's attempt to limit the amount of debt that can be paid is unconstitutional.

Such an argument might even get past the Roberts court.

[kirby]

8. It's a stretch that corporations have 1st Amendment rights...

But that didn't stop the courts.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Clearly Default of Debt is Unconstitutional

what creates the crisis is the inability to act.

The Debt originally was created by Congress - legally.

[Zen Democrat]

24. And the debt ceiling was created by the Congress less than 100 years ago.

Maybe the law is unconstitutional?

[FreakinDJ]

26. YES - Laws can be ruled UnConstitutional

it has happened many many times

that is why in 1996 Republicans didn't play with Debt Ceiling but rather refused to appropriate funds - that is an entirely different and legal manor

[ZombieHorde]

2. Recommended for honest inquiry. nt

[Harmony Blue]

3. Bill Clinton suggested this is what Obama should do

Reason being the courts would take a while to make a ruling, and the country in the short team would avoid a default.

[gateley]

5. The problem, from what I've read, is that the legal/constitutional

experts aren't in agreement whether or not this would be viable.

The invoking it to get in in place then have to deal with the repercussions down the road holds some appeal, though.

But Obama (via Carney) has said no, so that's the ultimate determining factor.

[FreakinDJ]

7. Question: Does President have authority to avert Constitutional Crisis

Some Constitutional Law Professors have argued he is bound by the Oath of Office to intercede

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. But what is it that you actually want him to do?

Don't say "invoke the 14th Amendment." Tell me the actual mechanisms of how it solves the problem.

[MrDiaz]

6. Obama

DOES NOT have the authority to do so.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. That's because it doesn't make any sense

It's not you, it's them.

:-)

[Hamlette]

10. All of our expenses are "debt"

we have a contract with Social Security recipients because they have paid into it for years. Same with Medicare.

Since all spending is the result of some congressional act so we are obligated to pay it.

[FreeJoe]

15. Well....

That explanation makes sense in that it explains how the 14th amendment would be relevant. On the other hand, would anyone plausibly be convinced that all spending and debts are the same thing? That seems like quite a stretch.

[Hamlette]

20. From a legal point of view, the amount you owe on a contract is a debt

the case law is pretty clear that "entitlements" are debts owed by the government to you and me.

It is all but impossible to cut an entitlement once you've paid into the system.

[alc]

23. the 14th qualifies "debt"

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.



"Public debt" has a specific meaning that does not include all of our expenses. It does not even necessarily cover the SS trust fund since that owns "special bonds" rather than "public bonds" and there are accounting gimmicks they used keep the SS trust debt separate from "public debt".

You may be able to argue that where legislation authorizes/requires the president to do things beyond the debt ceiling that legislation is invalid because it violates the 14th amendment combined with debt ceiling legislation. Is the debt ceiling constitutional and does it take precedence over more recent laws? There are a whole lot of arguments that can be made. If Obama goes through the courts to get permission it won't be any time soon. If he unilaterally makes a decision on constitutionality of a law and raises the debt ceiling, it will be really bad for him if the courts were to later disagree.

[kirby]

12. My opinion...

Since Congress has already implemented laws spending various sums of money, the government would be allowed to continue to borrow to meet those obligations. The argument could be made that no borrowing to pay for bills enacted after Aug 2 was allowed.

Just my theory.

[WheelWalker]

16. Not a bad interpretation, imo. Thanks for the perspective.

[FreeJoe]

18. I can see that.

So the existing spending authority is a committment that is essentially a debt. Future spending isn't. That makes some sense.

Of course, the devil is in the details. We need to pay an air traffic controller for the time he has already worked. Can we ask him to work more after the debt ceiling is reached?

[WheelWalker]

27. We can ask him, but we should mention there'd be no pay.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Obama has left the door open, in politician parlance

"I have talked to my lawyers. They are not persuaded it's a winning argument."

Hardly an unequivocal no.

A good exploration of the topic here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.html?_r=1

[FreeJoe]

17. That's an interesting article...

And it is interesting to see that some very smart people see it as a possibility. However, it still doesn't explain how the heck an amendment requiring us to pay our debts gives the President the freedom to borrow still more money to pay for things that aren't debts (assuming that you don't use an earlier poster's logic that all spending is essentially payment for debts incurred).

In the end, if no deal is reached, the President shouldn't bother with the 14th amendment. He should just do what is necessary while congress gets things straightened out. They are the ones that committed to the spending and they are the ones that set the debt limit. Until they act to reconcile their conflicting demands, the President has to do something.

The constitution gives only the congress the ability to declare war. It has been acepted over time that the President can authorize military action (a polite way of saying "war") without waiting for congress. To me, this is the same thing (only more legitimate). The President needs to take emergency action until the congress can get their act together.

[BeyondGeography]

22. Sounds like you want him to go 14th Amendment without going 14th Amendment

I agree with you that crisis-provoking action might well be necessary to resolve this crisis.

One thing that encourages me about Obama is that he wants to clear this off the agenda until 2013. Hard right now to see how that happens without him taking unilateral action.

[damntexdem]

19. You don't just say you have to pay them, you pay them, ...

which means you borrow to pay them, ignoring a statutory debt ceiling. In effect, you state that the Constitutional provision requires action that ignores a mere law, because the Constitution trumps a mere law.

[Yo_Mama]

21. You're right

The truth is that we are very able to pay our existing debts. What would actually happen is that we can't run other parts of the government.

But it is utterly pointless, not to mention unconstitutional, because the president doesn't have the authority to raise money, and if Treasury were going out and borrowing more money just on his say-so, there is a good chance that the debt would later be ruled NOT valid debt, and if so, the creditors wouldn't have the same security. Therefore, creditors would treat such a presidential move identically to not raising the debt limit.

Because Congress has the authority to raise money, it doesn't help the President at all to "invoke the 14th" and tell the Treasury Secretary to keep borrowing. The Constitution reserves to Congress to pass a budget (we haven't had one for years), to borrow money, and to raise money via taxation and the imposition of fees. So legally the President can't do all that.

Therefore, the SC would never rule it valid that the President could just borrow money on his own authority, because he does not have the authority to raise the money to pay back the debt, so relying on presidential authority to borrow money is tantamount to defaulting on the debt.

[girl gone mad]

25. Then put aside the 14th amendment. Coin seignorage is legally sound.

This is the option they need to be weighing and prepared to use.

[fivepennies]

29. Interesting

http://wallstreetpit.com/79740-is-coin-seignorage-obamas-magic-bullet

The harder part is whether it would work. I don’t know if it’s legal, but Firestone seems to think so. If it is legal it could not only solve Obama’s debt ceiling difficulties, it could also allow him to generate a fast economic recovery (in NGDP, or aggregate demand.) In other words, he could do an end run around the Fed and run monetary policy right out of the White House, just as FDR did in 1933. Or he could threaten the Fed to get his way, just as FDR did in 1933. (FDR devalued the dollar, and basically told the Fed that if they tried to stop him he’d start printing fiat money, which was authorized by Congress in the devaluation bill.) Of course either of these moves would delight Paul Krugman, and cause heart attacks amongst all the Very Serious People who run the country. (You know, the ones who don’t understand the distinction between NGDP and RGDP.) Just as FDR’s decision to torpedo the World Monetary Conference was called “magnificently right” by Keynes, but horrified all the Very Serious People of 1933.

[SoCalDem]

28. Just saying that an "artificial" increased credit limit is not "necessary"

because our legally incurred debt WILL be paid...the amendment says so..there need not be any other "actions" taken.