Treasury secretary says invoking 14th Amendment would be 'legally questionable'

[former9thward]

Yellen Doubts Biden Administration Can Avoid Default Without Congress

NIIGATA, Japan—Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said it was “legally questionable” whether the Biden administration could rely on the 14th Amendment to effectively ignore the debt limit, pouring cold water on a method favored by some Democrats to avoid a default.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that American debt authorized by law “shall not be questioned.” President Biden said this week he was considering invoking the amendment as a way to keep paying the nation’s bills if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit. But he added the issue would be subject to litigation and may not be a solution in the current standoff.

At a news conference in Niigata, Japan, where finance ministers of the Group of Seven advanced democracies are meeting this week, Ms. Yellen said she doubted whether the 14th Amendment was an effective solution.

“What I would say, it’s legally questionable whether or not that’s a viable strategy,” Ms. Yellen said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/yellen-doubts-biden-administration-can-avoid-default-without-congress-b38084c

[Karadeniz]

1. I trust lawyer Tribe's opinion more than hers.

[brooklynite]

13. Well then, have you told Biden to fire Yellin and hire him?

[Karadeniz]

26. Tribe said, I believe, that he had spoken to Biden. The day after Tribe was on The Last Word, Biden

said that the 14th A was under consideration and Lawrence joked that maybe Biden watched the previous show. I wouldn't presume to interfere in the government, by the way, but I do ALWAYS try to frame my replies in a tactful tone.

[FBaggins]

23. Which lawyer Tribe?

The one who for decades said that it wasn't constitutional? Or the one who hasn't given any reason why his former opinion was wrong but thinks that we should do it anyway?

[Karadeniz]

25. He explained it on the The Lawrence O'Donnell show. It hinges on the 14th A use of the word duty.

The US is duty bound by the constitution to pay its debts. The time to address future spending is at budget time, I think. I don't know if you realize it, but your reply to me struck me as arrogant.

[orleans]

2. maybe she should talk to lawrence tribe?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/biden-adviser-14th-amendment-00096300

Former Biden adviser Tribe: Just use the 14th Amendment now
The longtime constitutional scholar said Biden’s fear that it will be caught in the courts was misplaced.

[onenote]

7. Tribe, of course, isn't infallible.

In fact, he originally had a different view as to whether the 14th amendment could be used to address the debt ceiling crisis.

So, the fact that he has, in a relatively short period of time, been on both sides of the issue seems to be pretty strong evidence that the constitutionality of its use isn't a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination.

(It also goes without saying that Tribe hasn't won every case he's argued -- again, not infallible).

[tinrobot]

3. Legally questionable because it hasn't been questioned yet.

We just don't know what will happen with SCOTUS, so it's a gamble.

A gamble that could buy us a month or two of debt payments while it is litigated, so might be worth it to try.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. There has to be a good reason why

it’s in the 14th Amendment.

[former9thward]

5. The good reason is the civil war.

The public debt section of the 14th A was written because it was feared former confederates in the post-Civil war Congress might try and repudiate the debts of the Union states. It was not written for modern circumstances which is why courts may question it being dusted off and used after 150 years of non-use.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. Then why an amendment and not a federal

statute?

[onenote]

16. To make it harder for confederates in the post-war Congress to repudiate debts

Explanation is implicit in the post to which you responded.

[former9thward]

27. A federal statute can be changed by any Congress.

A concern as the southern states re-entered the Union. Much more difficult to change an amendment.

[in2herbs]

6. Alito reached back alll the way to the 13 century for reliance to overturn Roe. So, reaching back

150 years to invoke the 14th Amendment to prevent financial catastrophy is not a stretch.

[JustAnotherGen]

9. Fair point

150 years is definitely not too long ago when SCOTUS referenced the 13th Century last year.

If he does it - he won't lose my vote.

[BlueKota]

11. I think since the 14th Amendment was never legally Ammended

to remove the language, it should be fair game for Biden to use. That's just my personal opinion, and I doubt the Supreme partisan branch would do anything to aide President Biden. Not to mention that they have demonstrated they don't give a crap about how we the people think by over turning Roe!

[bluestarone]

24. I was thinking THIS as well!

[LonePirate]

10. Given how much Repubs cling to the 2A, we need to embrace the 14A

[Kingofalldems]

12. Should we give up?

[maxsolomon]

14. It says what it says.

The 2nd is considered inviolate; why not the 14th?

Section 4
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 neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Article 4 is clearly about the Civil War, but it does not specifically limit debt validity to debts incurred there. However, if Congress won't enforce the provisions, then what? The whole issue is that Congress won't, deliberately.

[onenote]

17. What about Article I, Section 8, Clause 2

Which gives the power to borrow money to Congress, not the Executive branch.

[maxsolomon]

18. Then they're in conflict?

I guess we just ignore the Articles and Sections and Clauses we don't like.

[Ohio Joe]

19. But... Would it be borrowing?

Raising the ceiling is giving us more room for money already spent... I'm not sure if that is technically borrowing or not

[onenote]

20. Where would the money come from if it wasn't borrowed?

Two ways to get revenue: taxes or borrowing. If you don't think the president could unilaterally impose and collect new taxes -- and I don't think anyone does, then why would he have the power to unilaterally borrow?

[Ohio Joe]

21. Well... The way I'm looking at it...

The debt was incurred when the budget was passed. Raising the ceiling does not pay off any of the debt, it simply allows for us to have a debt limit that can hold the amount of money that was already spent. It does not address paying of the debt, it just says 'Hey, we are not going to default on the debt'.

Who knows though, when it gets to the courts almost anything could happen.

[Bettie]

15. Yellen is an economist

not a lawyer, so she may not have the same reasoning as lawyers do.

I'm sure Biden has consulted lawyers on this.

[Shrek]

22. A refusal to borrow more money does not call existing debt into question

I don't see how the text of the amendment even applies here.