Is the Debt limit Constitutional?

[Richard-H]

...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.

The debt is not created by raising the debt limit. (are you really that stupid?)

The debt is created by the difference between the Federal spending mandated by Congress and the amount of revenue collected, which is also determined by Congress.

The Debt limit is just a formal approval to borrow money to pay the debt that has been created. Once the debt has been created, the 14th amendment mandates that the debt limit be raised to pay for that debt.

Is this really beyond your comprehension or do you just like to play word games?

If the Tea Party really wanted to reduce the debt, they would have agreed to the the $4T debt reduction deal that the President offered a few years ago. John Boehner agreed to that deal, then reneged on it because the Tea Party wouldn't agree.

The Tea Party obviously wants to keep the federal debt as high as possible so that they have political talking points: they intentionally want to create these fabricated crisises. They have no interest in reducing the debt whatsoever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The debt limit creates a constitutional contradiction.

Congress mandates federal spending - no federal program comes into existence without congressional approval. These programs may not originate with the current congress, but they all originated in congress at some time.

Congress also sets the limits on taxation.

The difference between the spending that congress mandates and the limits on taxation is the federal debt.

The 14th amendment requires that congress honor this debt, but the debt limit law (created in 1917) creates a situation where congress can choose not to allow payment of the debt.

Basically, the debt limit law contradicts the 14th amendment. Being that the 14th amendment is part of the constitution and was created long before the debt limit law, it should trump the debt limit law. Therefore the debt limit law is unconstitutional.

Why doesn't any administration bring up this issue with the supreme court?

Here's a discussion:

Is The Debt Ceiling Constitutional? | The Moderate Voice

Idiots will be idiots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=0

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

If it contradicted the 14th Amendment then Obamacare contradicts the 1st.

 

[oldfart]

...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.

Just to be clear, I believe the argument is that Article I authorizes Congress to borrow for the account of the United States. It says nothing about repayment of that debt. Theoretically there was nothing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment that that would prevent Congress from repudiating the public debt as a number of states have done (A friend of mine represented the British bondholders in negotiations of the State of Mississippi's repudiate debt of guaranteed 1820's railroad bonds a few years ago. The state is still blacklisted by Lloyds'!).

Clearly the main purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not concerning the debt, but Section 2 was inserted to prevent Southern states re-entering the Union from ever abrogating obligations for Union pensions or granting such pensions to Confederate veterans. So although the language was turgid, the intent was clear, once appropriated, funds to meet obligations and claims on the United States must be met regardless of actions of a subsequent Congress.

Whether or not this implies a general requirement that the public debt of the United States must be repaid is the issue, and there is an argument both for and against. In essence the question is "Can Congress by legislation repudiate the public debt?" If it were a matter of law, the answer would be obvious, of course Congress may by law undo any law. But if the Fourteenth Amendment makes such a law unconstitutional, Congress has no such authority. By definition a law cannot be illegal, but it can be unconstitutional.

Were the Supreme Court to rule that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the honoring of the public debt by Congress, and by extension the act of appropriating money in accord with Article I is sufficient to require payment, the power of Congress to repudiate appropriations already expended but unpaid and the power to repudiate the debt would both be unconstitutional, and the Executive would have a constitutional duty to ignore any law having the effect of repudiation, and payment would become automatic, with the Executive to determine the mechanism for payment.

This situation would be the exception to the rule that a government is different financially from a household or business. There would be no default provision for the federal government. All of those who beat their chest proclaiming the sanctity of living within the government's means would be forced to manage the deficit and debt limit to avoid default or abdicate the right to do so to the Executive. The argument leaves conservatives hoist by their own petard.

 

[Hoffstra]

Congress always know when we will or won't run a deficit.

They have a reasonable idea how big that deficit might be.

So yes, every time they approve deficit spending, they are requiring Treasury to fund that spending through revenue.....and selling bonds once the revenue runs out.

If the debt ceiling and the yearly spending approved by Congress don't coincide, then the debt ceiling MUST be raised.

No, cutting spending won't deal with a current debt ceiling limit. The debt ceiling is only hit by pre-approved spending and upcoming bills.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Or change/modify it like he did ACA 7 times

-Geaux

 

[Hoffstra]

yes, the debt ceiling may be unConstitutional as it appears to violate the 14th Amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...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.

Just to be clear, I believe the argument is that Article I authorizes Congress to borrow for the account of the United States. It says nothing about repayment of that debt. Theoretically there was nothing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment that that would prevent Congress from repudiating the public debt as a number of states have done (A friend of mine represented the British bondholders in negotiations of the State of Mississippi's repudiate debt of guaranteed 1820's railroad bonds a few years ago. The state is still blacklisted by Lloyds'!).

Clearly the main purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not concerning the debt, but Section 2 was inserted to prevent Southern states re-entering the Union from ever abrogating obligations for Union pensions or granting such pensions to Confederate veterans. So although the language was turgid, the intent was clear, once appropriated, funds to meet obligations and claims on the United States must be met regardless of actions of a subsequent Congress.

Whether or not this implies a general requirement that the public debt of the United States must be repaid is the issue, and there is an argument both for and against. In essence the question is "Can Congress by legislation repudiate the public debt?" If it were a matter of law, the answer would be obvious, of course Congress may by law undo any law. But if the Fourteenth Amendment makes such a law unconstitutional, Congress has no such authority. By definition a law cannot be illegal, but it can be unconstitutional.

Were the Supreme Court to rule that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the honoring of the public debt by Congress, and by extension the act of appropriating money in accord with Article I is sufficient to require payment, the power of Congress to repudiate appropriations already expended but unpaid and the power to repudiate the debt would both be unconstitutional, and the Executive would have a constitutional duty to ignore any law having the effect of repudiation, and payment would become automatic, with the Executive to determine the mechanism for payment.

This situation would be the exception to the rule that a government is different financially from a household or business. There would be no default provision for the federal government. All of those who beat their chest proclaiming the sanctity of living within the government's means would be forced to manage the deficit and debt limit to avoid default or abdicate the right to do so to the Executive. The argument leaves conservatives hoist by their own petard.

How does not borrowing more money mean that the government will not repay its debt? People keep bloviating about this, but they can never answer that question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yes, the debt ceiling may be unConstitutional as it appears to violate the 14th Amendment.

Or. your brain fails to comprehend English.

Or math.

Or anything else.

 

[Hoffstra]

How does not borrowing more money mean that the government will not repay its debt? People keep bloviating about this, but they can never answer that question.

daily revenue often times does NOT cover our daily financial obligations.

what, did you think you can simply divide yearly revenue by 365 and divide yearly interest on the debt and the value of cashed out bonds by 365, and figure out exactly how much we earn each day and owe each day?

silly Conservatives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

But does SCOTUS agree?

 

[Hoffstra]

SCOTUS has never ruled on the Constitutionality of the debt ceiling.

perhaps its time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How does not borrowing more money mean that the government will not repay its debt? People keep bloviating about this, but they can never answer that question.

daily revenue often times does NOT cover our daily financial obligations.

what, did you think you can simply divide yearly revenue by 365 and divide yearly interest on the debt and the value of cashed out bonds by 365, and figure out exactly how much we earn each day and owe each day?

silly Conservatives.

One more time, how does not borrowing more money mean not paying the debt? Keep in mind the fact that the US government takes in multiple times the amount it owes on interest payments, which is what every honest person is referring to when they talk about default.

Come to think of it, that one word might be your problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No "just once more". That's over and done with, QWB. Let SCOTUS decide.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No "just once more". That's over and done with, QWB. Let SCOTUS decide.

Want to point out who has standing to challenge a law that was passed by Congress with the sole intent of forcing Congress to properly approve spending and borrowing, which, constitutionally, is the sole province of Congress?

By the way, do you remember when Congress passed a line item veto, and that was challenged because Congress cannot surrender its constitutional responsibilities? How did that come out again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another point, there is not a single lawyer in the White House that agrees with anyone that thinks the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Get that, not a single lawyer in the White House, including Obama. That was settled in 2011 when Obama dismissed all the idiotic suggestions that idiots are bringing back today.

 

[HUGGY]

I feel the "debt limit" is miss named and in calling "That" function of the interaction of the financial engine which is monetary and investment expansion regulation causes too much angst amongst those that try to equate the federal government and international governments relationship to the U S treasury the same as balancing thier personal finances.

We should re-name that which the debt limit does so it does not cause so much stupid reaction to it.

 

[expat_panama]

...The debt is not created by raising the debt limit...

That's what we're hearing from factions on the left and the idea's become popular.

However, working for a living to feed a family takes more than popularity, it requires a solid connection with reality. Right now the national debt's been capped at $16.8T for over five months and back in 2011 (the last time this happened) the faction on the right caved and raised the ceiling. What happened was--

--debt soared to where it would have been had there never been a limit. It's because government spending continues from contingency/emergency/petty-cash funds. This is something that didn't happen in the late '90's because the limit stayed in place for five years.

So while raising the ceiling shouldn't raise the debt, it's what happens.

 

[expat_panama]

SCOTUS has never ruled on the Constitutionality of the debt ceiling. perhaps its time.

The first step is to build a case.

If you wanted to argue that the limit is unconstitutional you'd have to start with U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 where only congress has the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States". You could then show how Amendment 14 states

"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."

--but you'd have to explain why only 31 USC § 3101 and 31 USC § 3101A begs this question, and why you are ruling out new spending cuts or tax hikes.

You're welcome to give it a try...

 

[expat_panama]

...Were the Supreme Court to rule that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the honoring of the public debt by Congress, and by extension the act of appropriating money in accord with Article I is sufficient to require payment, the power of Congress to repudiate appropriations already expended but unpaid and the power to repudiate the debt would both be unconstitutional, and the Executive would have a constitutional duty to ignore any law having the effect of repudiation, and payment would become automatic, with the Executive to determine the mechanism for payment...

We agree that lawyers can say anything they're paid to say.

In the past the SCOTUS has agreed to go along with the Fugitive Slave Act, Separate but Equal, and The Affordable Care Act. The can do so in the future, and at the same time they usually try to appear to be reasonable. With the debt ceiling the SCOTUS would probably want to explain why they did not order more taxes, spending cuts, issuing more dollars, or any number of other choices alternative to this one solo obsession for unlimited debt.

A mindless SCOTUS debt fetish would be without precedent.