On the issue of the 14th amendment, the "debt ceiling" do Republicans EVER honor the Constitution?

[Faryn Balyncd]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1385938&mesg_id=1386174

[brooklynite]

1. I think they're worried about "anchor debts"...

Foreigners slipping into the country and then getting elected and incurring debts that will come back to harm "real" Americans 20 years later....

(Actually, that might explain the whole birther obsession...)

[Riftaxe]

2. As much and as little as any other politicians

when it is convenient to do so.

[jaxx]

3. This is interesting about the 14th......

June 1st, 2011
The Debt Ceiling and the 14th Amendment: Everybody Wins!
by Jonathan Zasloff

Some observers, including Garrett Epps, who is a legal scholar, and Bruce Bartlett, who is not, have argued that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment makes the debt ceiling invalid. That Section reads, in relevant part:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned.

That’s it, at least for the relevant parts. The only Supreme Court case law on it concerned whether government could renege on debts it made (no), and thus whether it applies to non-Civil War debts (yes).

So what’s the argument here? Recall that if there a conflict between statutes, the standard method of resolution is the “last-in-time” rule, i.e. whichever statute was passed more recently wins. The argument is that if Congress approves appropriations after the enactment of a debt ceiling, then it is unconstitutional to refuse to spend money for those appropriations. And the Treasury can’t issue T-bills and then refuse to make good on them. Those are decent arguments, although hardly sure-fire winners. The weakest link in the chain is entitlements, in other words, Medicare and Social Security. Congress enacted those before it enacted the debt ceiling (2006 IIRC), so those might not fall under this interpretation. As I have argued previously, whatever the merits of the claim, it may be that the only body with the authority to challenge a President making the claim would be a Congressional joint resolution, which would be blocked by Senate Democrats.

http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/politics-and-leadership/the-debt-ceiling-and-the-14th-amendment-everybody-wins/

[earthside]

4. Not a good argument.

Democrats have participated in raising the debt ceiling in the past, under Pres. Clinton for instance and when they had majorities in Congress ... were Democrats dishonoring the Constitution?

[originalpckelly]

6. Yes.

Just the read the US Constitution, it specifies that in no way can the validity (or soundness) of the debt be challenged.

[earthside]

7. Well, that maybe so ...

... but Democrats participated in debt ceiling votes many, many times and will again in August. If there is a Supreme Court challenge or an executive branch order saying that the 14th Amendment is now going to be interpreted as to not require anymore debt ceiling votes -- well, that's great.

But I don't see how accusing Repuglicans of doing now what Democrats did in the past (and will probably do in August) is a good argument.

[originalpckelly]

8. There is what the law says, and what politicians want it to say.

It doesn't change what the laws say. Not at all.

Someone needs to get on this, although you have to worry about what might happen if we don't pop the massive bubbles forming in our economy, and this could be a way to do it, be it in a way that would disable our only method of salvation in such a crisis.

[originalpckelly]

5. The text is rather clear.

The whole debt ceiling thing is unconstitutional.

[Igel]

9. Yes it is.

But it also rules out certain kinds of debt.

In other words, there are authorized debts and unauthorized debts, according to the clear text of the amendment. So does that mean Congress can authorize spending X amount of money, but decide to have a separate authorization for incurring debt in the event that there's not enough money for the spending that's been authorized? In other words, can Congress set up an additional class of unauthorized debts, and require that all debts be somehow authorized by more than just a spending bill?

I've had the same thing where I've worked. I have a budget. I can use it as instructed. But if revenues are down or the budget was overly optimistic--or just plain crazy--so that I couldn't pay for something at the end of the month I'd require separate authorization for putting stuff on the corporate credit card.

One's authorization to spend. The other is authorization to incur long-term debt. The text can be read to say that authorization to spend is authorization to incur debt. On the other hand, since Congress has explicitly authorized certain levels of indebtedness, it's not exactly a weak argument to say that Congress has distinguished between the two authorities. If this argument carries the day, then Obama would be explicitly ignoring laws passed by Congress that governed the Executive's actions if he incurred more debt than authorized. *That* would also violate fairly clear Constitutional language, language that he has a problem with in other areas.

Under * we heard debate about the unitary executive, whether there was a Constitutional need for all executive functions to reside within one executive. Could the Congress set up independent or quasi-independent "executive" agencies, or could it share authority with the president over parts of the executive. The Constitution is clear--the President is the source of all executive authority. It's not so clear if everything that's executive-like must be in the executive.

Under *Nixon* and Reagan we heard talk of the "imperial presidency," in which the president decided that any authority that wasn't clearly and solely given to some other branch was the president's. Much of the "imperial presidency" rhetoric was based in pragmatic "need"--the president decided something was necessary and so he would just take whatever power was necessary, protecting any authority to act freely. It was pointed out widely that power tended to shift periodically, now Congress would throw its weight around, now the President. We're in a presidential weight-throwing period, me thinks.