14th Amendment: Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional

[lakhota]

14th Amendment: Democratic Senators See Debt Ceiling As Unconstitutional

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.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned," reads the 14th Amendment.

"This is an issue that's been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. "I don't think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I'll tell you that it's going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'"

By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said that the constitutional solution puts the question in its proper context -- that the debate is over paying past debts, not over future spending.

"The way everybody talks about this is that we need to raise the debt ceiling. What we're really saying is, 'We have to pay our bills,'" Murray said. The 14th Amendment approach is "fascinating," she added.

The White House referred questions on the constitutionality of the debt ceiling to the Treasury Department. Treasury declined to comment.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that the 14th Amendment option has recently been much discussed in the field.

"Without any clear case law about the debt ceiling in particular, no one knows exactly how the courts would rule on that issue, about whether President Obama could ignore the debt ceiling," he said. "If he wanted to continue to service the public debt, he'd probably get away with it."

Which leads to a related question: Who's to stop him?

More: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...an article that stops almost as soon as it starts...

>>>"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned," reads the 14th Amendment. <<<

...okay then...

[lakhota]

I'm sorry it's so complicated...

[pappyjohn99]

From the comments section of this article-

President Barack Obama, who taught constituti­onal law, hasn't been afraid to assert executive authority.

NOT TRUE . he was only a lecturer ( in other words, he was a senior student that did the professors light work ) he did not " teach " constituti­onal law

and , more on topic , there is no risk of defaulting on our debt. the payments on the debt are only 7 % of our annual budget. 7 % !!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!! it is 67 billion dollars a month.

our monthly revenue is 220 billion dollars pay the debt payments first and use the rest to pay for the rest of the cr@p the government wastes money on.

but, it makes a better and more dramatic argument when they call it a default on the debt instead of what it really is ..........­.. THE INSANE SPENDING PROBLEM

if they payed the debt first, they would have a harder time asking the public for more money for other things. so they ask for the money claiming it will result in a default if they dont get it but WHAT IT REALLY MEANS IS THEY DONT WANT TO MAKE CUTS TO OTHER GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN THE FUTURE

This guy makes some interesting points.

[lakhota]

NOT TRUE . he was only a lecturer ( in other words, he was a senior student that did the professors light work ) he did not " teach " constituti­onal law

Some of you people just amaze me. Where do you get your information?

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

More: www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

[cereb]

"NOT TRUE . he was only a lecturer ( in other words, he was a senior student that did the professors light work ) he did not " teach " constituti­onal law"


Obama TAUGHT Constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school from 1992- 2004. He was a Harvard graduate, and already a lawyer while at U of C.

[cereb]

This message has been deleted.

[cereb]

"professors light work".

Now I've heard it all.

[lakhota]

This is what we're dealing with...

[fairlycrazy23]

The most the 14th amendment says is we have to pay on the debt we have already acquired, not that we have to borrow more money.

So, it would be unconstitutional if the treasury failed to pay the debt, since we have plenty of money to service our existing debt there is no reason this should occur.

I mentioned the 14th amendment weeks ago as an argument that could be used to prevent the treasury from defaulting on debt payments.

Only Congress can borrow money or authorize it to be borrowed, it is a ludicrous argument to think the executive branch could borrow money against the expressed wishes of Congress, the debt ceiling clearly expresses the wishes of Congress to limit the amount of money the Treasury can borrow.

[jkapp]

Bush and Reps overspending and raising debt: BAD!

Obama and Dems overspending and raising debt: GOOD!

Gotcha At least we know where the partisan lines fall with some of the posters (not that it wasn't clear beforehand, obviously)

[floridayankee]

Jun 29, 2011 3:28:30 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

This is what we're dealing with...

Scary.....I thought the same thing when I read your OP.

The most the 14th amendment says is we have to pay on the debt we have already acquired, not that we have to borrow more money.

So, it would be unconstitutional if the treasury failed to pay the debt, since we have plenty of money to service our existing debt there is no reason this should occur.

I mentioned the 14th amendment weeks ago as an argument that could be used to prevent the treasury from defaulting on debt payments.

Only Congress can borrow money or authorize it to be borrowed, it is a ludicrous argument to think the executive branch could borrow money against the expressed wishes of Congress, the debt ceiling clearly expresses the wishes of Congress to limit the amount of money the Treasury can borrow.

fairlycrazy...you sound fairlysane if you ask me.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jun 29, 2011 8:30:53 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Jun 29, 2011 3:28:30 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

This is what we're dealing with...

Scary.....I thought the same thing when I read your OP.

The most the 14th amendment says is we have to pay on the debt we have already acquired, not that we have to borrow more money.

So, it would be unconstitutional if the treasury failed to pay the debt, since we have plenty of money to service our existing debt there is no reason this should occur.

I mentioned the 14th amendment weeks ago as an argument that could be used to prevent the treasury from defaulting on debt payments.

Only Congress can borrow money or authorize it to be borrowed, it is a ludicrous argument to think the executive branch could borrow money against the expressed wishes of Congress, the debt ceiling clearly expresses the wishes of Congress to limit the amount of money the Treasury can borrow.

fairlycrazy...you sound fairlysane if you ask me.