Is the Debt limit Constitutional?

[RetiredGySgt]

Read the damn thing, it clearly leaves to Congress the power to authorize debt, thus the debt ceiling. Failing to raise the ceiling does not equate to failure to honor the debt. Nor has Congress approved any more spending. No contradiction at all.

Where exactly does the constitution say that?

A search of the constitution for the word 'debt' comes up with nothing of what you are saying. It does say that Congress has the power to PAY THE DEBT, but nothing saying that Congress has to explicitly authorize the debt.

The 14th amendment clearly obligates Congress to pay the debt. No doubt. The purpose of the 14th amendment is to prevent Congress from refusing to pay debts.

Face it, the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. It just needs somebody to challenge it in the supreme court.

Article I section 8

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Any more foolish questions?

Constitutionally ONLY Congress can authorize borrowing money. The only power the President has is to sign a bill or veto it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where ya at Richard? Article I Section 8 paragraph 2 clear states that the power to borrow rests solely with Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As to the specific law in question Also section 8 of Article I

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I see the facts scared off the foolish.

 

[Rshermr]

Can't face the fact that the debt ceiling contradicts the 14th amendment, now can we?

ObamaCare contradicts the entire Constitution

Well, me boy. We can either believe you, or the supreme court. And a supreme court that is majority republican appointed. but nice try.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where ya at Richard? Can't handle the facts and the truth?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Absolutely HILARIOUS. A thread that is so wrong it caused its author to run away when presented with the facts.

 

[Richard-H]

Where exactly does the constitution say that?

A search of the constitution for the word 'debt' comes up with nothing of what you are saying. It does say that Congress has the power to PAY THE DEBT, but nothing saying that Congress has to explicitly authorize the debt.

The 14th amendment clearly obligates Congress to pay the debt. No doubt. The purpose of the 14th amendment is to prevent Congress from refusing to pay debts.

Face it, the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. It just needs somebody to challenge it in the supreme court.

Article I section 8

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Any more foolish questions?

Constitutionally ONLY Congress can authorize borrowing money. The only power the President has is to sign a bill or veto it.

You are right in that the Constitution does say that Congress has the power:
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"

However, Congress does not have the power to not authorize payment of the debt. That would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

That gives Congress 2 choices:
1. Authorize more debt.
2. Authorized an increase in revenues.

Congress is obligated under the 14th amendment to pay the debt. If there is a difference between expenditures and revenues, Congress is obligated to do one of the above.

If they do not they are in violation of their congressional oaths.

Since congress determines the debt, it cannot set a debt limit less than the debt without violating the 14th amendment. Therefore the debt limit is either meaningless or in violation of the 14th amendment.

To date the debt limit has been meaningless - congress has always increased the debt limit as needed. But once they refuse to raise that limit they will be in violation of the 14th amendment and the unconstitutionality of the debt limit law will be apparent.

 

[Richard-H]

Absolutely HILARIOUS. A thread that is so wrong it caused its author to run away when presented with the facts.

I am leaving to have lunch now. I have a full schedule for the rest of the day. I will probably be back to continue this argument sometime tomorrow, depending on circumstances.

Please do not make the idiotic assumption that just because I do not reply right away, that I'm "running away".

Get a life!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article I section 8



Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Any more foolish questions?

Constitutionally ONLY Congress can authorize borrowing money. The only power the President has is to sign a bill or veto it.

You are right in that the Constitution does say that Congress has the power:
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"

However, Congress does not have the power to not authorize payment of the debt. That would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

That gives Congress 2 choices:
1. Authorize more debt.
2. Authorized an increase in revenues.

Congress is obligated under the 14th amendment to pay the debt. If there is a difference between expenditures and revenues, Congress is obligated to do one of the above.

If they do not they are in violation of their congressional oaths.

Since congress determines the debt, it cannot set a debt limit less than the debt without violating the 14th amendment. Therefore the debt limit is either meaningless or in violation of the 14th amendment.

To date the debt limit has been meaningless - congress has always increased the debt limit as needed. But once they refuse to raise that limit they will be in violation of the 14th amendment and the unconstitutionality of the debt limit law will be apparent.

Once again for the slow and brain dead, the Government takes in more revenue each month then all its debts each month. The ONLY way the debt doesn't get paid is if Obama orders his lackeys to not pay it.

By the way using your logic then Obama is in violation of the 14th the minute he shuts down payment to the Social Security retirees. We should petition Congress to take him to court.

Further he plans not to pay military veterans next month AGAIN something specifically mentioned in the 14th. And again Obama not Congress.

 

[Freemason9]

The 14th amendment is Obama's 'ace in the hole', and he knows it. He's not going to show his cards until he has to.

Does anybody really think that the President is going to do nothing if congress doesn't raise the debt limit? Do you think that he'll just run in circles saying "There's nothing I can do!", when the world economy falls apart.

Not only will he order the treasury to continue paying the debt, as per the 14th amendment, but he very well may use the 14th amendment to send the GOP members of congress packing. They will be in severe violation of their congressional oaths.

I believe you may be correct. There would be an added benefit here as well, if Obama chooses to invoke 14th amendment wording; he can fully fund all programs that Congress has authorized. Imagine if Congress actually became accountable for the spending they authorize . . .

LOL

 

[Freemason9]

Once again for the slow and brain dead, the Government takes in more revenue each month then all its debts each month. The ONLY way the debt doesn't get paid is if Obama orders his lackeys to not pay it.

This is a totally idiotic statement. If it were true that "the Government takes in more revenue each month then all its debts each month," then there would be no deficit. Think about it. Also, if Congress fails to pay the bills it authorized, all members of Congress that voted against paying should be impeached--they violated constitutional law.

As I believe even you might understand, only Congress authorizes funding. They have already authorized all funding that comprises the debt. Now, they are obligated to pay it. It's not "Obama's" debt, it is Congressional debt.

By the way using your logic then Obama is in violation of the 14th the minute he shuts down payment to the Social Security retirees. We should petition Congress to take him to court.

Obama "shuts down" nothing. There must be money available in an accounting system to make payment from. "Congress controls the purse strings"--haven't you heard that before?

Further he plans not to pay military veterans next month AGAIN something specifically mentioned in the 14th. And again Obama not Congress.

Oh, so now you CITE the 14th amendment? You live in a bizarro partisan world.

 

[Politico]

Seeing as it is part of the Constitution is this a serious freaking question?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no issue, O-richard..

It's constitutional.

Why? Because you say so?

There are an awful lot of legal experts that disagree with you.

Try goggling:

"Is the debt Ceiling constitutional?"

You'll have a bit of an education.

Not because I say so, but because you can't prove that it is not.

 

[Richard-H]

There is no issue, O-richard..

It's constitutional.

Why? Because you say so?

There are an awful lot of legal experts that disagree with you.

Try goggling:

"Is the debt Ceiling constitutional?"

You'll have a bit of an education.

Not because I say so, but because you can't prove that it is not.

There sure are a lot of constitutional scholars that believe that the debt limit is unconstitutional:

Is the debt limit unconstitutional? - Video on NBCNews.com

 

[expat_panama]

...the debt limit law (created in 1917) creates a situation where congress can choose not to allow payment of the debt...

Before 1917 the debt had been permanently limited and every single new bond sale had to be individually approved by Congress. 31 USC § 3101 and 31 USC § 3101A upped it to the current $16.8T. Please point out which wording in the current law is specifically creating a situation for illegal non-payment that did not already exist.

In the mean time we'll just work with the understanding that nobody can post it because it's simply not there.

 

[Richard-H]

...the debt limit law (created in 1917) creates a situation where congress can choose not to allow payment of the debt...

Before 1917 the debt had been permanently limited and every single new bond sale had to be individually approved by Congress. 31 USC § 3101 and 31 USC § 3101A upped it to the current $16.8T. Please point out which wording in the current law is specifically creating a situation for illegal non-payment that did not already exist.

In the mean time we'll just work with the understanding that nobody can post it because it's simply not there.

It's called the 14th amendment. No one has challenged these statutes cited above, because no congress has ever been stupid enough to refuse to raise the debt limit.

Do you understand that the Constitution trumps these statutes?

 

[expat_panama]

...Before 1917 the debt had been permanently limited and every single new bond sale had to be individually approved by Congress. 31 USC § 3101 and 31 USC § 3101A upped it to the current $16.8T. Please point out which wording in the current law is specifically creating a situation for illegal non-payment that did not already exist...

...the 14th amendment...

Let's work together on this.

We start with (from here) "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." We are now concerned that there's something in the current debt limit law that's different from previous debt limit laws written before and after the adoption of the 14th Amendment --something so different that it suddenly "creates a situation where congress" illegally questions Amendment 14 debt.

Please identify just what that 'something' is.

 

[Richard-H]

...Before 1917 the debt had been permanently limited and every single new bond sale had to be individually approved by Congress. 31 USC § 3101 and 31 USC § 3101A upped it to the current $16.8T. Please point out which wording in the current law is specifically creating a situation for illegal non-payment that did not already exist...

...the 14th amendment...

Let's work together on this.

We start with (from here) "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." We are now concerned that there's something in the current debt limit law that's different from previous debt limit laws written before and after the adoption of the 14th Amendment --something so different that it suddenly "creates a situation where congress" illegally questions Amendment 14 debt.

Please identify just what that 'something' is.

Wow, you like to twist words!

The 14th amendment is clear. No other laws matter. Any debt limit law that is used by congress to not authorize payment of the debt is in violation of the 14th amendment - it will ultimately be deemed void.

Congress is obliged under the 14th amendment to authorize payment of the debt. Just like the post civil war congress was obliged, by the 14th amendment, to pay all debts at that time.

Debt limit laws were created as a convenient way to aggregate debt and authorize payment on the aggregated amount - they are an accounting convenience. They were never intended to be used as an excuse not to authorize payments of the debt.

I'm sure that whoever wrote the debt limit laws never expected congress to use them in this way - they knew that congress would have to be collectively insane to do that.

So far, no congress has failed to increase the debt limit as needed - all threats to use the laws in that way have been nothing more than congress stomping it's feet and pitching a fit. Presidents may have decided to give in, somewhat, to these childish antics, but ultimately refusing to raise the debt limit is a hollow threat.

This time the little baby tea partiers are not going to get their way - no matter how much they may scream and stomp their feet!

 

[expat_panama]

...So far, no congress has failed to increase the debt limit as needed...

...and it's congress that decides what's needed--

--so if the current limit stays in place for five years it won't be the first time. The thing is that the current congress has already raised the limit this year, just like it raised the limit last year. We get to the point where enough is enough.