Is the Debt limit Constitutional?

[Geaux4it]

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

Obama's control of it is.

-Geaux

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No matter how you cut it ONLY Congress has the AUTHORITY to borrow on the Credit of the US. A President NEVER, under any circumstance except the destruction of Congress has that authority and even then one would actually need to reconstitute the Congress not grant its authority to the President.

Any Court that ruled otherwise would be lying. Or perhaps you can provide a clause, a sentence or some other tidbit from the Constitution that provides this power to the President, if I am not mistaken even the 14th leaves to Congress the enforcement of the 14th.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

14th Amendment section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

AT NO TIME does borrowing money devolve onto the President. According to the 14th only the Congress is tasked with enforcement of this amendment.

 

[Rshermr]

Arguing the laws and basic elements of the constitution is something best left to constitutional experts. I see no one on this blog who has obvious required knowledge. And no, reading the constitutional parts is not sufficient.

What is true is that congress can make changes should they want to. As can the supreme court. But, since the supreme court has proven it is made up of politicians in robes, and it is primarily republican appointed at this point, I would not want to put money on them considering changing the laws in favor of eliminating the debt ceiling.

So, it comes down to politics. And for now, the Republican party has gotten a solid spanking for using extortion to hold up increases in the national debt, is all we can probably hope for. Question is, will they try it again. Answer is, of course, if they think it will not hurt them much. Because the moneyed interests want lower taxes. And various other things. In this past case, a decrease in the aca to the extent possible.

So, votes count. Even more than money, some times. And though they will be pushed by moneyed interests for more extortion, it may not be to their benefit to do anything so rash again. And yep, rash is spelled STUPID.

 

[oldfart]

So even if a deal goes through before deadline, this squabble about the debt hasn't helped the USA's and the dollar's reputation in the world as I see it. Si or no?

That's a "Da".

 

[oldfart]

I have a question about your statement above. When you say:

"BTW, the argument is not that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional, it is that the debt ceiling law when considered with the revenue laws and disbursement statutes is an overdetermined system. If Congress cannot reconcile that difference, the Constitution requires that the Article I powers of Congress be preserved, that the Fourteenth Amendment be honored, and requires the executive to reconcile them if Congress does not. There is no constitutional mechanism provided to assure that Congress is forced to carry out its constitutional obligations within the budget and debt framework established by Congress"

Wouldn't a failure to reconcile revenue, spending and debt by refusing to authorize payment of the debt constitute a violation of their congressional oaths:

"to faithfully discharge the duties of the office"?

Reconciling these seems to be a required "duty".

Good point. There is no mechanism to hold an entire body responsible for an inability to come to an agreement that the Constitution creates. My argument is that when one branch fails to perform its constitutional duties other branches have the duty preserve constitutional government. A defense of necessity immunizes a good faith effort to resolve the problem. This is exactly the argument Lincoln advanced in calling for 75,000 volunteers in 1861 to put down he rebellion, in spending unappropriated funds for the military, and for suspending habeus corpus in a small defined area while Congress was not in session. He simultaneously called Congress into session to approve or rescind these actions. His argument was that delaying action until Congress could meet entailed too grave a danger to the existence of the Republic. This is the reason I argue that impeachment is a political rather than a judicial process; it is the protection against executive overreaching in times of crisis.

And since impeachment is an exclusively Congressional process, the only protection against Congressional overreach is the ballot box.

 

[oldfart]

14th Amendment section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

AT NO TIME does borrowing money devolve onto the President. According to the 14th only the Congress is tasked with enforcement of this amendment.

No, but the payment of the lawful obligations of the United States is a function of the Executive branch.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

14th Amendment section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

AT NO TIME does borrowing money devolve onto the President. According to the 14th only the Congress is tasked with enforcement of this amendment.

No, but the payment of the lawful obligations of the United States is a function of the Executive branch.

Then Obama shouldn't be lying about not raising the debt ceiling causing a default, should he? Or are you as bad at math as he is?

 

[Rshermr]

14th Amendment section 5

14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

AT NO TIME does borrowing money devolve onto the President. According to the 14th only the Congress is tasked with enforcement of this amendment.

No, but the payment of the lawful obligations of the United States is a function of the Executive branch.

Then Obama shouldn't be lying about not raising the debt ceiling causing a default, should he? Or are you as bad at math as he is?

Please. Tell us all. Did your profound sentence make any sense to you at all??? Or are you too dumb to know???? Or were you just trying for comedy. Cons are typically bad at comedy. That must be it.

JESUS THAT WAS STUPID.

 

[expat_panama]

...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...

Some said that would happen with the sequester but it hasn't; few now say it will. Also, we now know that a 'non-payment-situation' hasn't happened during the past half year of debt stopped at $16.7T. Finally, we have to understand that the market value of T-bills shows nobody seriously anticipates any default at all.

So this question is no longer "moot" --it's now been downgraded to "silly".

 

[oldfart]

Then Obama shouldn't be lying about not raising the debt ceiling causing a default, should he? Or are you as bad at math as he is?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. The debt ceiling applies to some but not all of the obligations of the United States considered in the Fourteenth Amendment. My understanding is that when the debt ceiling is reached and "extraordinary measures" are exhausted, it merely that no new Treasury debt instruments can be issued other than those replacing maturing instruments. Disbursements can continue. This creates an accounting problem under current governmental accounting standards if disbursements exceed cash on hand in a given day.

My read is that the government is required to pay its obligations in the manner I have described before. This creates an "overdraft" in the Treasury "tax and disbursement accounts" in commercial banks, and with the Federal Reserve. This is not a default on issued debt instruments. It is a violation of legally mandated accounting procedures. Everybody has been assuming that adherence to those accounting procedures has the force of law and therefore the excess disbursements would not happen. I just don't see how that is the only possible outcome and I see at least three alternatives to meet the Fourteenth Amendment requirement; the magic coin, the cancellation of Treasury debt held by the Fed, and a new accounting convention for governmental accounts payable.

It ain't arithmetic, but it is accounting.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then Obama shouldn't be lying about not raising the debt ceiling causing a default, should he? Or are you as bad at math as he is?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. The debt ceiling applies to some but not all of the obligations of the United States considered in the Fourteenth Amendment. My understanding is that when the debt ceiling is reached and "extraordinary measures" are exhausted, it merely that no new Treasury debt instruments can be issued other than those replacing maturing instruments. Disbursements can continue. This creates an accounting problem under current governmental accounting standards if disbursements exceed cash on hand in a given day.

My read is that the government is required to pay its obligations in the manner I have described before. This creates an "overdraft" in the Treasury "tax and disbursement accounts" in commercial banks, and with the Federal Reserve. This is not a default on issued debt instruments. It is a violation of legally mandated accounting procedures. Everybody has been assuming that adherence to those accounting procedures has the force of law and therefore the excess disbursements would not happen. I just don't see how that is the only possible outcome and I see at least three alternatives to meet the Fourteenth Amendment requirement; the magic coin, the cancellation of Treasury debt held by the Fed, and a new accounting convention for governmental accounts payable.

It ain't arithmetic, but it is accounting.

The President NEVER gains the power to increase the US debt. Further the 14th is clear the Congress is the sole body to enforce the 14th.