|
http://live.washingtonpost.com/14th-Amendment-debt-ceiling-chat.html14th Amendment:
Isn't that the due process clause? (I'm a consumer lawyer and the 14th amendment doesn't come up much). How does it relate to debt ceiling?
A.Gerard Magliocca :
No, this is Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that "he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . .shall not be questioned."
– July 07, 2011 12:01 PM
Q. Standing
Assuming that Obama goes through with declaring the debt limit unconstitutional and exceeds the ceiling, who would have standing to sue him in court? Regular taxpayers? Members of Congress?
A. Gerard Magliocca :
Probably nobody. It is very unlikely that this ever would reach a court. If a default does occur, though, then the bondholders might be able to sue for damages.
– July 07, 2011 12:03 PM
Q. Spending appropriations without issuing debt
Congress has (1) authorized expenditures through the fiscal year and (2) imposed a ceiling on debt that is insufficient to finance all of the authorized expenditures. Under these constraints, is there any statutory or Constitutional provisions that would prevent the President from ordering the Treasury to pay for expenditures consistent with Congressional authorizations without issuing new debt - in effect to print money to pay the Government's bills? Or do you prefer this article? http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/06/geithner-the-debt-ceiling-and-the-14th-amendment/In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has actually ruled on the Fourteenth Amendment in Perry v United States (1935). This case was part of a series of cases brought before the United States Supreme Court that were known as the Gold Clause Cases. The gist of these cases was to question whether the U.S. Congress could change the form by, or terms under which, U.S. debts could be repaid.
The ruling by the Supreme Court in Perry v United States specifically referenced Section 4 in the following excerpt:
"Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned," is confirmatory of a fundamental principle, applying as well to bonds issued after, as to those issued before, the adoption of the Amendment, and the expression "validity of the public debt" embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."
So, in effect, it would appear that there is some precedent for Geither's statements as it seems that the United States Supreme Court has previously ruled that voiding a U.S. government debt is beyond the power of Congress. Or here is the argument between actual Constitutional scholars: http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/can%E2%80%99t-reach-agreement-on-debt-ceiling-don%E2%80%99t-dismiss-the-%E2%80%9814th-amendment-option-rauch-writesRauch states:
As you have probably heard, the 14th Amendment says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned." In a post-Civil War context, the amendment's framers sought to prevent some political faction—at that time, the South—from refusing to let the government repay its debts. The basic idea of not letting politics hold the debt hostage is certainly relevant to what's happening today, although obviously the situation is different. In any case, whatever the particulars of the amendment's adoption, it clearly suggests that meeting our debt obligations is a constitutional imperative, not merely a statutory one. Otherwise, of course, the amendment wouldn't be there.
As noted in this post, leading constitutional law experts, such as Harvard’s Laurence H. Tribe and Yale’s Jack Balkin have weighed in on the 14th Amendment and the budget crisis.
In his column for The New York Times, Tribe writes:
The Constitution grants only Congress — not the president — the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution. Moreover, it is well established that the president’s power drops to what Justice Robert H. Jackson called its “lowest ebb” when exercised against the express will of Congress.
But Rauch says the “dismissers” of the 14th Amendment option are acting, well, too dismissively.
“When push comes to shove, therefore, and August 2 or some other drop-dead date comes around, does the 14th Amendment trump the debt-limit statute? I would think so,” Rauch writes. “At a minimum, it gives President Obama a compelling case to keep servicing the debt. After all, in the current environment, even a temporary default could have severe economic consequences. Worse, it might be one of those moments in a country's history that frame a turning point in the narrative. "Deadbeat U.S.A.!" Reversing the damage to the country's psyche and image might take years, or forever. Lemme tell you, China isn't about to default.”
No one think s this is a good option. But if Congress is going to allow America to go into default, it may be the only option. Maybe that's their plan -- make Obama invoke the 14th Amendment and then try to impeach him for it. If he doesn't invoke it, then he is the President that allowed the nation to go into default. Either way, he loses thanks to the republican Congress.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
