Then it can go to court, I don't think one can challenge it directly.

In this case one shouldn't have to wait until the ship hits the iceberg before changing course.

Extortion is against the law and that's what this is.

That violates the 14th Amendment.

Has someone filed an action?

Personally, I've been busy with other things, but that's just me.

It is also destructive and dangerous, but I see nothing about it that is necessarily unconstitutional.

That said, the SCOTUS is a strange institution, and I suppose they could find some way to rule that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional, if they wanted to.



-Laelth

"unneeded uncertainty" regarding the United States' ability to pay its' public debt.

This is implicit but when the Congress threatens to not raise the debt ceiling causing default and erosion of United States' creditworthiness it becomes an explicit violation of the 14th Amendment.

That said, the argument you present could very well serve as the basis for a SCOTUS ruling striking down the debt ceiling. As I said above, the SCOTUS is quite flexible and unpredictable.

-Laelth

During the debt ceiling crisis in 2011, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner argued that prioritization of interest payments would not help since government expenditures would have needed to be cut by an unrealistic 40% if the debt ceiling is not raised.

this wouldn't impede the U.S. Government's ability to pay its' debt and obligations due to the economic turmoil and reduced tax revenue, they would have to be seriously deluding themselves

and that should be an end to it. This constant haggling over whether or not the executive branch has the ability to spend the money they already approved gives Congress power over the executive they were never meant to have.

The legislation is unconstitutional but we won't get it overturned while all those right wingers are on the bench.

The stakes are too high and you never know once in a blue moon, even the right wing SC agrees with the Obama Administration as they did re: the Affordable Care Act.

Having or taking away the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the MIC just ask George W. Bush.

Congress still controls the power of the purse with or without a debt ceiling and since 1974 they can determine how much money can be spent.

I'm not trying to be mean but this honestly sounds like double-speak. The thread is about how bad the DC is supposed to be but then you go ahead and say it's immaterial to congress' power of the purse. If it's immaterial then leave it in place.

And I'm also not understanding what that stat about the 84% of economists is supposed to mean. Okay, so congress passes a law. If money was appropriated then implantation and enforcement would not be a budgetary issue. But if money isn't appropriated then it must be done with a new budget each year. Nothing can force congress to fund a law because then that would subvert congress' power of the purse.

A president can't appropriate military spending on his own. Any increases were requests granted by congress. If such a request were to exceed the DC then congress would need a separate vote.

I want that double requirement there. Before we get dragged into the next war of choice(and we will) I want every politician knowing they will have to vote, not once, but twice to feed the Beast and then go back to their constituents burying their sons and daughters to explain why.

But just imagine that you controlled both your spending and your overdraft limit.

Why would you set your overdraft limit lower than the amount you've already spent?

It just seems to me to be another example of the Repubs causing America to punch itself in the face.

Except DC's are set prior to passing any budget that may exceed them.

It wouldn't be a good idea to set your overdraft limit before you know what you want to or need to spend.

If they control both the limit and the spending then they should just decide what they want to spend, there's no need for a limit as the de facto limit is factored in.

This is the same as "calling in to question" of the United States's ability to pay it debt and obligations, which is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

Bush essentially fought two+ wars off the books.



The debt limit means little to nothing in regarding to feeding the MIC.

And any deficit spending adds to the debt thus exhausting the current DC that much more quickly.

As it should be.

Congress could easily have declined to ascent to a ESB or an increase to the DC and stopped Bush dead in his tracks. That would be TWO opportunities to stop his madness.

Our MIC has grown regardless of any debt ceiling and every other nation seems to do well without it.

We should be using the DC and other parliamentary options to end the madness. That's what it's there for. We're just pissed because the Tea Party (TP) beat us to the punch.

we should not aspire to be as Republicans.

If you mean by not raising the DC as the Tea Party promotes which in turn would create financial chaos, and undermine the 14th Amendment.

I don't care which party is promoting it.

The debt and obligations of the United States should never be called in to question.

Edit for P.S. The Republicans are paying a heavy political price for their actions.

Okay. We still collect tax receipts. We pay debt service first and then we can spend the rest on our federal agencies. In effect the 14A creates an instantaneous balanced budget if we hit the DC. I will grant that would be bad for the economy because it would immediately end $700 billion/year in federal deficit spending. That would be too much too soon.

However, it should be pointed out that if we accumulate too much debt then debt service -- interest only payments, no reduction of the principle -- would exceed annual tax receipts and that would put us in violation of the 14A. There is coming a time when these debates become moot. We need to go back to campaigning on the Clinton era budgets.

will be forced to close and we have essentially done as the Republicans in shutting down at least parts of the government, the economy will suffer and we will be politically hammered just as the Republicans are today, giving them an avenue back to power.

Your last paragraph proposes a hypothesis that may or may not occur, my OP is addressing an actual violation of the 14th Amendment that is taking place now.

Be that as it may it's not a constitutional violation to see federal agencies close due to lack of funding.

What if I said we could raise federal spending on every agency without adding or cutting the DoD? That's what our debt is doing to us. We are spending a fifth of our tax revenue on debt service. That means past deficits are stealing from our ability to run our government today. It's like your credit card interest -- it's drawing income out of your wallet before you even slaved for the wages.

It is a constituional violation to cause question to be raised as to wether the United States will pay its' debt and obligations and that's what the Republicans are doing now in refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

The post to which you just shaded was in response to your assertion that we should adopt the tactics of the Tea Party.

As to this



It demonstrates that the debt ceiling has/had no positive effect on spending.

It's the job of Congress to manage the budget and if they fall short, it's up to the American People to hold them accountable at the ballot box, and through various means of communication.

What the Congress should not be doing is undermining the full faith and credit of the United States Government, which is essentially what the Republican House is doing now.

I don't necessarily agree with it either.

I wish the Dems could cause people to question spending on the MIC that drives us deeper towards bankruptcy

be viewed any differently by the American People if Democrats were doing it instead of Republicans?

If you're really against the out of whack spending toward the MIC it would seem to me, having Democrats in power would be for the most part beneficial towards those ends.

The GOP is owning it. All we need to do is GOTV.

the last part of my paragraph.

You had stated more or less that we should do as the Tea Party.

This most certainly is the Republicans fault and my contention is it would be wrong for us to ever follow a similar path.

By not raising the debt limit and causing the nation to default on its' debt, the Congress will be in direct violation of the 14th Amendment and will have broken their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

thanks Joe

debt then do it while they are doing the spending. Congress should understand that if a spending bill is passed it gets paid.

We'll pay debt service first and then we can spend whatever is left over from the tax receipts on our federal agencies.

at least parts of the government will have to shut down.

How is this any different from what the Republicans are doing now and getting politically hammered for?

a violation of the 14th Amendment that's occurring now.

If we default because the Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit, then bankruptcy will occur much sooner across the nation and worldwide.

Albeit one that pulls too much money from the economy too quickly.

to the government making sustaining the debt and keeping a balanced budget even tougher.

Although, I think it's a fair question to see which businesses would be hurt. We NEED military budget cuts. That means people making good wages in factories etc. will be losing their jobs, with an attending tax revenue loss and loss in the private sector economy -- but it still has to be done.

It may need to be done (in your or other people's opinion) but defaulting on debts seems to be a blunt and undemocratic way of doing it.

We will pay debt service before we can spend on the federal agencies.

From my reading of the 14th, debts include all unpaid obligations.

We have the tax receipts to pay for that debt service. If the DC does not go up the debt service gets paid but no federal agency can engage in deficit spending. Thus the 14A is not violated, though other effects will be felt, just not any unconstitutional ones.

The 14th amendment doesn't say "we'll just pay the interest on our debts".

It says:

"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 validity of the public debt...shall not be questioned.

That implies to me that it's not just about interest payments. The government has to prove that it's good to pay down the debt itself, not just scrape by by chipping away at the interest payments.

IMO the validity of the public debt will be questioned if the Repubs refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. You're saying in order to prove we can pay our debt we have to raise the limit to the amount of debt we accrue. Getting new credit cards doesn't prove you can pay your old ones. It just puts you deeper in debt -- which actually makes it harder to pay down that debt.

When was the last time the US actually paid down principle on its debt? That would require a budget surplus, which hasn't happened since Clinton's budgets and then decades before that.

That's like yesterday in historical terms.

Creating an instant balanced budget is not necessary and will cause a lot more pain than paying down the deficit gradually as could easily be done with Clinton era tax levels.

to pay its' debt and obligations.

The economists on my previous post to you upthread said the debt limit creates "unnecessary uncertainty."

So the debt limit itself creates "uncertainty and the Republicans refusal to raise the debt ceiling not only raises questions as to the "United States ability to pay its's debt and obligations, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I believe the economic pain will be felt across the spectrum.

Hoover pretty much had a hands off approach when the Great Depression hit, FDR used government spending to help in revitalizing the economy, although it must be said WWII aided the American Economy as well, but FDR's New Deal policies were on the right track.

Not raising the debt ceiling and shutting down the government by whatever means, creating nothing but austerity especially in today's fragile economy can only send us backward to a much darker time.

That's more a political and economic argument, not a constitutional one. It could just as easily be argued that unrestrained spending leads to bankruptcy (and it does) ergo THAT is a 14A violation because it creates questions as to whether or not it can pay its debts.

Granted, but that's a political/economic issue. GOTV 2014 is the answer.

And there was no question about whether the US could pay its debts until the tea partiers decided to make one.

and thus "creating question" regarding U.S. ability to pay its' debt and obligation, is a constitutional one.

The political and economic aspects of the argument with 84% of economists state that it creates "unnecessary uncertainty" give support to legal contentions that the debt limit is unConstitutional as a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Because once Congress approves a budget, they agree to increase the debt by what they raise and what they spend. It's a useless exercise, in my opinion.

The constitution requires that debts be paid. In this case, those debts are treasury bills, bonds, and such. It doesn't include SS payments, salaries, paying invoices, etc. Revenues more than cover the cost of servicing our debt, so not raising the debt limit doesn't violate the 14th amendment. It is stupid, harmful, disastrous, and a terrible idea, but it isn't a violation of the constitution.

"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".

Pensions would include payments to retired federal workers. It would not include paying employees.

It doesn't mention the specific debts that you cited as being the debts that are relevant.

We are still bringing in enough income to pay those debts. It cannot plausibly argued that SNAP payments are debt payments. Or that federal salaries are debt payments. Or that Medicaid payments are debt payments.

Once again, I'm not trying to argue that failing to raise the debt limit is rational or that failing to spend money on anything other than debts is a good idea. I'm just saying that the constitution doesn't FORCE the government to borrow more money.

Honestly, the better argument is that the Impound Control Act, which requires that the executive branch spend appropriated funds is in direct conflict with the debt ceiling. Both are statues and not constitutional requirements, so it is not clear which would supersede the other. The executive would have to violate one or the other if the legislature doesn't change either.

You are conflating "debt payments" with "debts".

You are using a modern interpretation of "debt payments" based on modern banking terminology rather than the 18th Century American English meaning of "debts" IMO.

Disclaimer: I'm not a legal or constitutional scholar so you may be correct, but I do have some knowledge of English grammar which is what I'm basing my interpretation on.

is very vague. Your specific reading of it is certainly possible/plausible, but it depends on how narrowly or broadly you define "public debt" and what you think "questioning" it means. For example, you could argue exactly what you said, that "In this case, those debts are treasury bills, bonds, and such. It doesn't include SS payments, salaries, paying invoices, etc."...but then also say that the fact that we can't pay our other obligations of SS payments, salaries, invoices, etc. does bring into question the "validity of the public debt", since we basically become an untrustworthy lendee. Basically that if we pass on some obligations now, we are ripe to pass on other public debt obligations in the future, so passing on those obligations brings into question the validity of our debt.

This would all have to fight its way up to SCOTUS to be definitely determined.

From a political standpoint, Obama should come out on Tuesday and say that he believes there is a 14th Amendment remedy to the debt ceiling if Congress won't raise it. If he does that, then he will get his clean hike. Just like when W threatened to go to war in Iraq without Congress' authorization, they rushed to give it. If he basically threatens to take away a power they currently have, they won't allow him to do so and would rather rubber stamp what he wants.

I take it Obama has some sort of move in his back pocket here, a card he doesn't want to play yet. But there is no way they haven't considered a remedy in case the Republicans don't raise it. They know damn well they are dealing with crazy people.

said that the 14th amendment doesn't overrule the debt limit. I can't find any credible legal scholar claiming that it will.

Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.

You are right in 2011 Obama said he wasn't going to use any sort of executive workaround, but he hasn't said anything this time, I don't believe. In 2011, he was also negotiating with them. His hardline stance has to be backed by some sort of plan B, doesn't it? There is no way he is thinking, "well, if they won't do it, just default."

EDIT: Never mind, saw that Carney came out last week and said those remedies were not in play.

of wages, damage to businesses and subsequent economic downturn would reduce tax revenue making it even more difficult for the government to honor "treasury bills, bonds and such."

Not to mention as the other posters stated, our nation's creditworthiness would be damaged resulting in higher interest rates on the debt.

I agree that it is a really stupid idea. Still, stupid isn't unconstitutional.

stupid is also unConstitutional.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023812849

The Constitution trumps a Federal law which does not comport, and Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, the so-called debt limit does conflict.

But here is another interesting thought: the onus of paying our bills is placed with the Congress. So if Congress fails to do so in light of that Constitutional directive, are not members of Congress failing to fulfill their duty, and since they swear in their oath of office to protect the Constitution, are they not violating their oath?

The whole conversation Republicans have relied upon blames President Obama for the shutdown and the possible failure to raise the debt limit. It is not his Constitutional responsibility to do so. It is their responsibility. So I think President Obama should step out and say it would be a breach of the Constitution for him to take action in this area when the Constitution clearly assigns that responsibility to them. Maybe some of them could even be impeached for failing to fulfill their responsibilities!!!

The debt limit was supposed to hold a President in check (financially) especially in a time of war from overspending. Another point I made in my thread was this one (to give you a smile):

"Importantly, the debt ceiling law was passed to keep the President of the United States "fiscally responsible" during wartime. Inasmuch as George W. Bush* kept 10.5 trillion dollars in debt off the general ledger and out of public sight during his two terms, he single-handedly proved by this action that this law is ineffective for the purpose for which it was intended! Repeal it now."

So I believe the Democrats should start screaming for a repeal of this Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. Of course, Republicans would not go along with this, but it would be a great cause to publicly champion.

And of course, thank you for this thread!

Sam

threatening to not raise the debt ceiling.

They are actively creating an economic and trust crisis which "raises questions" in regards to the United States' ability to pay its' debt and obligations, even other nations are becoming more concerned.

Unfortunately I know of no law that allows for impeachment proceedings against a Congressperson.

The American People will have to make them pay at the ballot box and through various forms of communication; which I believe is happening with increased frequency and intensity.

Peace to you, Samantha.

Some time ago, I was looking into treaties and found this quote:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects...

&quot a) Treaties

The Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." It is controlling as to all officials of the three Branches of the Federal government--Executive, Legislative and Judicial--with regard to all of their pronouncements, actions, decisions, agreements and legislative Acts. Each of them is sworn, by oath of office, to support the Constitution only. To be valid, any treaty must be strictly in conformity to--free from any conflict with--the Constitution. A treaty is like a Federal law in this respect.

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void
to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties. " (emphasis added)

This discussion was inserted a thread located at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1104652&mesg_id=1105631

So looking at the fact that the debt ceiling legislation (Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917) is not "in strict conformity to--free from any conflict with--the Constitution" -- why cannot one say it was automatically null and void?

The situation in front of us today clearly demonstrates the debt ceiling law is in conflict with the Constitution, doesn't it?

Sam

the people can't decide what's null and void in regards to the Constitution, it must be left to the Supreme Court whether I agree with them or not.

If the people decided they have the power to decide what's null and void, we would most definitely have chaos.

Joe

the burden would be on the Republicans to challenge it at SCOTUS.

Meanwhile the President would be free to ignore the 'debt ceiling'.

in getting the desired result.

Should the SC rule narrowly that the Executive can't spend the necessary monies not appropriated to it by the legislative branch, we would be back at square one.

I believe the best strategy would be for the Obama Administration to directly challenge the Constitutionality of the debt ceiling to the SC based on it being a violation of the 14th Amendment.

There is plenty of economic, historic, legal and recorded ammunition for doing so, this would compel the SC to confront the Constitutionality of the issue head on.