14th Amendment: Democratic Senators See Debt Ceiling As Unconstitutional

[rich_t]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted.

WASHINGTON -- Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.

link

[Mr Mannn]

So, let me get this straight. An amendment to the constitution...that's been part of the constitution for more than 100 years...that's been upheld in a previous USSC decision...the democrats are going to declare that part of the constitution is in fact, unconstitutional?

Will this be the rally cry of 2012? "We can spend as much as we want! Its really legal!"

The democrats are going to declare that the out-of-control-spending that created the Tea Party, and resulted in the unprecedented democrat drubbing in November 2010...Democrats will declare spending like this is their constitutional right? and they will declare this in an election year?
 
If this would ever be discussed fairly in the media, then the GOP would rule forever.
Sometimes I wonder if DU members aren't really Obama's advisers. The stupid is dramatic.

[rich_t]

Ahhh...  But where in the Constitution is there a government spending limit?

They are claiming that a portion of the 14th says there isn't one, therefore they can spend as much as they want and do NOT need Congress to approve an increase in the debt ceiling.

[Mr Mannn]

Ahhh...  But where in the Constitution is there a government spending limit?

They are claiming that a portion of the 14th says there isn't one, therefore they can spend as much as they want and do NOT need Congress to approve an increase in the debt ceiling.

There's a campaign slogan right there. Sure guys, roll with it!

[rich_t]

Personally, I don't think the DEMS will attempt to push this issue very hard.

Article I Sec. 8 does state that Congress has the Power: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

(Note that it doesn't require the Congress to borrow money.  It states that they have the Power to.  Nor does it limit the amount of money they can borrow.)

The debt ceiling (somebody correct me if I am wrong) is the borrowing limit that the Congress has authorized.

The 14th Amendment states in part: 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 GOP is not questioning the validity of the current public debt.  They are merely refusing to authorize borrowing more money to fund future/additional debt.  I don't see it as a 14th Amendment issue.

The chart shows that every time that Congress has increased the debt limit, they have also managed to spend just about every single dime of the increased credit limit.  The bleeding has to stop.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2011/04/Debt%20Ceiling%20History-49343.php

[DumbAss Tanker]

What a convenient legal interpretation for them to suddenly discover.

[Traveshamockery]

What a convenient legal interpretation for them to suddenly discover.

"Convenient legal interpretation" is how the democrats operate in running the government.

[NHSparky]

What a convenient legal interpretation for them to suddenly discover.

Here's hoping they push the issue.

[miskie]

There is simply no way this will fly - it completely usurps congressional authority -

The irony is Obama is working on becoming the 'Unitary Executive' they always criticized Bush of being. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Here's hoping they push the issue.

I completely agree, a straightforward reading of the entire passage demonstrates just how ridiculous their proposition really is, and ultimately means inevitable and humiliating defeat for them if they go down this road.

[delilahmused]

I completely agree, a straightforward reading of the entire passage demonstrates just how ridiculous their proposition really is, and ultimately means inevitable and humiliating defeat for them if they go down this road.

It kinda reminds me of their interpretation of the 2nd amendment, they think one part of it matters more than the other.

Cindie

[Ptarmigan]

I think the government needs to default. Yes, it would send shockwaves in the short term. In the long term, it would end one uncertainty.

[rich_t]

I think the government needs to default. Yes, it would send shockwaves in the short term. In the long term, it would end one uncertainty.

Part of me feels the same way.

[Ptarmigan]

Part of me feels the same way.

I know local governments have defaulted in America. Orange County in 1994.

A Default By Orange County
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/09/business/a-default-by-orange-county.html

[DumbAss Tanker]

Not that simple, Ptarmy, local governments are ultimately backstopped by their State when they default.  Default by an actual State government, or the Feds, is totally uncharted territory and would be a chaotic situation, with the stock market's typical reaction to chaos as a result.

The debt ceiling issue would be a pretty technical default and if it actually happened, everyone is expecting the Congress would have to resolve it one way or another immediately after the first payment to bondholders was missed, with all the bondholders being made good pretty quickly, so it would not be anything but a nine-day wonder.  Default of States like California or Illinois is a whole different thing, their ability to reconvene, reconsider, and do something ugly to slap a patch on the system is completely different and less-powerful than the Federal government's, and therefore a State default does have the potential to cause a cascading economic crisis...California in particular though seems Hell-bent on trying to explore 'What would happen if' on that one, though. 

[Ptarmigan]

Not that simple, Ptarmy, local governments are ultimately backstopped by their State when they default.  Default by an actual State government, or the Feds, is totally uncharted territory and would be a chaotic situation, with the stock market's typical reaction to chaos as a result.

The debt ceiling issue would be a pretty technical default and if it actually happened, everyone is expecting the Congress would have to resolve it one way or another immediately after the first payment to bondholders was missed, with all the bondholders being made good pretty quickly, so it would not be anything but a nine-day wonder.  Default of States like California or Illinois is a whole different thing, their ability to reconvene, reconsider, and do something ugly to slap a patch on the system is completely different and less-powerful than the Federal government's, and therefore a State default does have the potential to cause a cascading economic crisis...California in particular though seems Hell-bent on trying to explore 'What would happen if' on that one, though. 

No argument from me.

[Ptarmigan]

Obscure clause may help US avert default
http://news.yahoo.com/obscure-clause-may-help-us-avert-default-172136367.html

The 143-year-old clause, written to address still-potent divisions after the bloody Civil War, has been dredged up by legal scholars as well as the US Treasury secretary to suggest how a debt debacle might be avoided.

"If Congress has enacted laws that create public obligations, then those obligations must be met," Buchanan wrote in a column on Thursday.

Taken a step farther, some suggest, the law may make the debt ceiling itself unconstitutional.

While some have argued that the constitutional clause was specific to the situation of the time, a 1935 Supreme Court ruling established that it still applies, Buchanan said.

[DumbAss Tanker]

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 bolded part is the problem with their stupid idea.  Since Congress is the body with the power to borrow money, the debt ceiling is part of the "Authorized by law" in that clause, and ignoring the Congressionally-imposed limit is what would actually violate the Constitution.

[rich_t]

IMO, the debt ceiling in and of itself is not the problem.  It's the actual spending.

Just because the Congress has the Constitutional power to incur debt and spend money doesn't mean they have to.

The problem is a stunning lack of fiscal responsibility by our congressional idiots and it has been going on for decades.