Smarter than you: National Budget, edition

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

kentuck (69,083 posts)

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment
   
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

The President should challenge this in the US Supreme Court.

Once and for all, he could stop this dangerous game-playing with our economy budget matters.

"Shall not be questioned" sound rather specific, don't you think?

Frankie the Bird (60 posts)

1. Exactly - the Teapublicans are violating the Constitution by obstructioning
 
and needs to be placed under arrest with the "domestic terrorist" designation and hauled off to Gitmo for an extended stay.

Some people try to learn him up:

badtoworse (3,745 posts)

4. What about the "authorized by law" part?

How is debt authorized by law other than by act of Congress, signed by the president? I don't see any authority to increase existing debt without it being "authorized by law". My interpretation is that debt, authorized by law, cannot be abrogated.

kentuck (69,083 posts)

5. It is my understanding that this is existing debt.
 
Not new debt. Only Congress would have the authority to increase spending and create new debt. They also have the authority to cut spending.

Nuclear Unicorn (8,556 posts)

23. Our debt is accumulated deficits between revenue and expenditures.
 
If the debt ceiling is not raised then the government cannot conduct additional deficit spending once the debt limit is reached. It would not jeopardize previously accrued debt. In effect the government would have to immediately start operating under a balanced budget.

Economically it would be devastating because it would remove a massive amount of currency from the economy too quickly. Too many jobs and industries would be effected but it would not be unconstitutional.

kentuck (69,083 posts)

25. They are well on their way with the sequester, etc...
 
and cutting food stamps and programs for old people...

However, even if they were running a surplus this year, they cannot default on the existing debt. That cannot be questioned.

kentuck (69,083 posts)

25. They are well on their way with the sequester, etc...
 
and cutting food stamps and programs for old people...

However, even if they were running a surplus this year, they cannot default on the existing debt. That cannot be questioned.

badtoworse (3,745 posts)

20. It doesn't say new debt must be issued.

To me it means that existing debt is senior to all other spending

Deep13 (38,034 posts)

10. Literally, it means no one can talk about public debts.
 
Not well written.

 

lumberjack_jeff (25,394 posts)

16. This does not address the legality of congress deliberately defaulting.
 
It'd be nice if a lawyer would talk about that.

PoliticAverse (7,055 posts)

19. I'm sure courts would find not paying a treasury bond, bill or note to be in violation of the law...
 
in this case and would order the US to pay such regardless of any debt ceiling.

badtoworse (3,745 posts)

22. The court would order it to be paid out of current revenue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023734514

[BattleHymn]

"Shall not be questioned" sound rather specific, don't you think?

So does "shall not be infringed".

[thundley4]

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

I'm no lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it sounds to me that this means all lawful debts must be paid before any new spending is considered. Any revenue coming in from taxes, tariffs and what have you must first be used to pay debts already owed by the government .

[Skul]

payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Read that again, DUmpmonkeys.

[BattleHymn]

The President should challenge this in the US Supreme Court.

Is there another supreme court somewhere else he could try?  Perhaps he should go crying to the UN and tell them them the evil republicans are holding his plan hostage?

[98ZJUSMC]

So does "shall not be infringed".