Okay, if it isn't constitutional for the Prez to use the 14th Amendment to sidestep a recalcitrant

[arbusto_baboso]

House...

Isn't it also unconstitutional for that same House to not pass a new debt ceiling and thereby cause a default on America's debts?

And what can be done about a Congress that is behaving contrary to the Constitution (that they CLAIM to love)???

[Bucky]

1. Exactly. But it's a law without consequences for breaking it.

By Constitutional law, they're not allow to pass legislation that "questions" the validity of the debt. I'd guess that includes acts of omission, like failing to pass laws to service that debt. But that said, there's no Constitutional remedy for them failing to do it's duty. Congress is, by design & by principle, the first and most democratic of the three branches.

It's like the barbarians took over the Roman Senate.

[MineralMan]

2. It probably is unconstitutional for Congress not to do something.

Trouble is that there's no actual authority that can be used to force them to do anything.

[Blue Meany]

3. Yes, it is unconstitutional for Congress not to pay debts for

expenditures and loans it authorized. I suppose the Supreme Court could rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional and perhaps that's what Obama should be seeking now.

[Llewlladdwr]

9. Could you provide a link to the relevant text in the Constitution?

Thanks!

[DevonRex]

4. This is exactly why Obama asked us to call congress right fucking now.

There is no authority to force congress to act. And as long as they're even just discussing and debating one bill or another, they can say they're working on it

[suston96]

5. They all take an oath to uphold and defend the offical organ of governance -

- the United States Constitution, what it literally mandates and what it implies.

To refuse to fund the payment of the just debts and obligations, domestic and otherwise, is a violation of that oath.

Good OP.

[Shrek]

6. Why not call it unconstitutional to avoid raising taxes?

Why assume that the debt ceiling is the only cause of default? Wouldn't it just as easily be blamed on too little tax revenue?

[arbusto_baboso]

8. That's not the point.

The debts are ALREADY THERE, and it is unconstitutional for Congress to avoid paying them. Period. By whatever means.

[Llewlladdwr]

10. Again?

Could you please provide a link to the relevant portion of the Constitution? Thanks!

[arbusto_baboso]

12. See below.

Check and mate.

[Llewlladdwr]

7. No.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the United States of America will not default on its debt.

[arbusto_baboso]

11. Okay, technically it's not about default. BUT......

By flatly refusing to raise the debt ceiling, Congress IS violating the 14th Amendment.

To Wit: 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.

They are effectively questioning the public debt. Period.

[Llewlladdwr]

13. How are they questioning the debt?

Having insufficient funds to pay a debt is not a repudiation of the debt.

Please show me the relevant text of the Constitution that says the United States of America CANNOT default on its debt.

[arbusto_baboso]

14. Okay, you keep demanding text about default...

and I already admitted I misstated my point, so SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THAT PART ALREADY!

As to repudiation of debt, have you actually been LISTENING to what the repukes have been saying? Have you?

Dude, return to reality for at least a millisecond.

[rosesaylavee]

15. Llew did the same thing on a similar thread

I posted the other day...it's just his/her way.

Thanks for asking the question - I think this needs to be asked and discussed as I bet we will run into similar issues between now and elections 2012.

[Llewlladdwr]

17. And I will continue to do so.

This whole 14th Amendment argument is wrong. I've yet to have anyone explain to me how the President 'invokes the 14th'. Nor can anyone provide a link to that portion of the Constitution that states the US cannot default on its debt. The belief that the 14th Amendment is the answer to this crisis is magical thinking of the worst sort and it embarasses me that the so-called 'reality-based' community (remember that one?) seems incapable of reading a fairly simple bit of English text and interpreting it logically.

[rosesaylavee]

19. Any hope of you welcoming me to your ignore list?

[Llewlladdwr]

16. Reality? The reality is that the 14th doesn't do what you claim it does.

It nowhere gives the Executive the authority to usurp Congress' power under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to raise revenues and borrow monies against the full faith and credit of the United States. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment explicitly reserves the authority to take action under the Amendment to Congress.

And I've yet to hear ANYONE claim that our current national debt is not valid. Not a single person. If you have a link to such a statement please provide.

And thank you for the delightful cursing. Perhaps you're angry because you know deep down you're wrong?

[Shrek]

18. Not only that . . .

. . . but Article II Section 3 imposes on the President an affirmative duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Seems to me if he tries to usurp congressional authority to borrow money, raise revenue, or enforce the 14th amendment, he'll be the one in violation of the constitution.