Biden flirts with 14th Amendment as pressure mounts from right and left in debt talks

[Doug64]

The 14th is very clear that the government is obligated to pay its debts.

Here's the actual language of the 14th Amendment: "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." Note that this doesn't mean that the government cannot be late on debt payments, but rather than the government (and state governments, for that matter), cannot repudiate the debt--the federal government cannot declare bankruptcy.

Incorrect, the republicans have stuck to the bill from the house and have not budged.

Really? Who has been insisting for weeks that Congress pass a clean debt limit increase and repeatedly stating that he will accept nothing less?

 

[Chomsky]

Tell that to Biden and his Democrats. The Republican House passed a debt ceiling increase, and the Senate Republicans are onboard with it. Which is another problem with Biden's constitutional "theory"--do Democrats really want to argue in court that they can refuse to pass a debt ceiling increase and that grants their own president the power to ignore congressional legislation when it comes to spending?

It's McCarthy that's ignoring Congressional legislation. The 117th Congress '23 Budget has been passed into law.

All McCarthy has is a worthless piece of paper.

 

[PLizzy]

If it gets to the point Biden has to use the 14th, the credit rating & economy will already be doomed.

My hope, which will not be done, would be for Biden to cut a deal with McCarthy & Schumer that will legislatively remove the debt ceiling once & for all.

I personally doubt Republicans would go to court and sue to force a default, but you never know with these radicals.

IMHO, the move for Biden was to invoke the 14 waaaaay back in January, so that there would be enough time to work out any possible litigation without spooking the markets. But it's too late for that now.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Really? Who has been insisting for weeks that Congress pass a clean debt limit increase and repeatedly stating that he will accept nothing less?

That’s the right way to go.

 

[PLizzy]

Here's the actual language of the 14th Amendment: "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." Note that this doesn't mean that the government cannot be late on debt payments, but rather than the government (and state governments, for that matter), cannot repudiate the debt--the federal government cannot declare bankruptcy.


Really? Who has been insisting for weeks that Congress pass a clean debt limit increase and repeatedly stating that he will accept nothing less?

There is no such thing as "bankruptcy" of a government such as the USA fed.

"Shall not be questioned" was to assure debtors that the US would always pay its debt, even in civil war. Why? Because not paying your debts on time to another country is a real good way to piss them off and start a war with them.

Not hard to understand.

 

[Chomsky]

I personally doubt Republicans would go to court and sue to force a default, but you never know with these radicals.

IMHO, the move for Biden was to invoke the 14 waaaaay back in January, so that there would be enough time to work out any possible litigation without spooking the markets. But it's too late for that now.

Once Biden invokes the 14th, everything will crash.

The Constitutionality of his actions will be in question. The ramifications of SCOTUS refuting him, would cause absolute chaos in the financial & debit markets.

I don't see any way to use the 14th while maintaining financial stability & creditworthiness.

 

[Peter]

Have you noticed who has been refusing to negotiate for weeks? It isn't the Republicans.

Because the bills put forwards by Republicans are totally unacceptable to the Dems.
Should they sign stuff they 100% oppose?

 

[PLizzy]

Once Biden invokes the 14th, everything will crash.

The Constitutionality of his actions will be in question. The ramifications of SCOTUS refuting him, would cause absolute chaos in the financial & debit markets.

I don't see any way to use the 14th while maintaining financial stability & creditworthiness.

Like I said, if it had been done months ago, the damage to the market would be minimal if at all.

 

[Chomsky]

Like I said, if it had been done months ago, the damage to the market would be minimal if at all.

I don't know about "minimal". But perhaps less damaging than now.

Can you imagine if Biden invokes the 14th, Yellin complies, then 6 or 8 mos or more later it is determined he acted un-Constitutionally?

What would be the redress? Would the debt notes be valid? Would they be shunned & discounted by the markets?

My God, it would be a total cluster.

 

[PLizzy]

Because the bills put forwards by Republicans are totally unacceptable to the Dems.
Should they sign stuff they 100% oppose?

Dems should be roasted for not writing their own kings ransom to the debt ceiling under Trump in retaliation for Boehner's ransom. Republicans didn't have to deal with retaliation, so they didn't fear doing again next time.

And here we are.

 

[PLizzy]

I don't know about "minimal". But perhaps less damaging than now.

Can you imagine if Biden invokes the 14th, Yellin complies, then 6 or 8 mos or more later it is determined he acted un-Constitutionally?

What would be the redress? Would the debt notes be valid? Would they be shunned & discounted by the markets?

My God, it would be a total cluster.

No, the notes would be covered legally. SCOTUS would allow the notes to stand so holders wouldn't get burned, as they've done in other instances with other debt holders.

But, yeah, shit show.

 

[Peter]

Once Biden invokes the 14th, everything will crash.

The Constitutionality of his actions will be in question. The ramifications of SCOTUS refuting him, would cause absolute chaos in the financial & debit markets.

I don't see any way to use the 14th while maintaining financial stability & creditworthiness.

This situation is completely bonkers.

It's like a familly deciding to make themselves homeless because they refuse to pay a mortgage they can afford to pay and just don't feel like doing so.

It's financial suicide on a country scale that will end in millions of job losses and the economy being ****ed for a generation all because Republicans are slightly upset.
If that doesn't end in their political exile for a few decades then I think we can safely say US politics is well and trully broken.

 

[Perotista]

So now Biden is considering his own attempt to make the Constitution dance to his tune:



This makes no more sense than Trump asserting that the vice-president has the right to reject the Electoral College count. Leaving aside the historical context, the point about the debt limit is to prevent the US government from incurring more debt, not refuse to pay the debt it already has.

Prior to the debt ceiling being initiated, the treasury had to go to congress for approval to borrow money every time the treasury wanted. Congress, I suppose got tired of this and came up with what it called the debt limit. In other words, congress authorized the treasury to borrow money up to the debt limit prior to going back to congress for permission to borrow more. The treasury then could borrow all it wanted until it reached the debt limit or what we call the debt ceiling today. Then congress had to authorize new borrowing by raising the debt limit or ceiling.

Article I, section 8 gives congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Which the debt limit or ceiling does provide congress’s approval until the limit or ceiling is reached. In order to borrow more money, the congress must first approve it.

Then there is the 14th Amendment, section 4 the validity of public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppression of insurrection or rebellion shall not be question.

Which brings up an interesting question, can the treasury borrow money without congressional approval going only by the 14th amendment? I don’t know, that’s a question for constitutional scholars and constitutional lawyers.

So can the treasury or president bypass Article I, section 8 using the 14th to borrow money to meet its debt payment obligations? If the treasury can, doesn’t that make congress irrelevant and the treasury the most powerful when it comes to borrowing money. Treasury then can borrow any amount of money without congress’s approval or authorization. Let’s hope we don’t ever have to find out.

 

[Peter]

Dems should be roasted for not writing their own kings ransom to the debt ceiling under Trump in retaliation for Boehner's ransom. Republicans didn't have to deal with retaliation, so they didn't fear doing again next time.

And here we are.

Yep.

Republicans are acting like spoiled toddlers and are just amazed when other political entities from the US and around the world actually act like adults.
They honestly think they can default on debt and then win the election and it'll all be fine and dandy when they're in power.

If they do get in the econmy will be in shambles and they have zero ideas about how to fix it.

 

[Doug64]

It's McCarthy that's ignoring Congressional legislation. The 117th Congress '23 Budget has been passed into law.

Are you claiming that once a budget has been passed it is set in stone, that any future attempt to amend it is illegitimate?

Because the bills put forwards by Republicans are totally unacceptable to the Dems.

Which is what negotiation is for. McCarthy said it himself--the House bill is an offer placed on the table as a basis for negotiation. Biden is asserting that a refusal to negotiate grants him the power to override Article I's placement of national spending in the hands of the Congress generally and the House specifically.

Which brings up an interesting question, can the treasury borrow money without congressional approval going only by the 14th amendment? I don’t know, that’s a question for constitutional scholars and constitutional lawyers.

Just read the 14th Amendment--there isn't a single word authorizing the President to increase the national debt, just that the government cannot abrogate debt it has already taken on.

 

[Chomsky]

That’s the right way to go.

Exactly. The current budget has been legislated, passed into law, and appropriated.

McCarthy's job is to raise the Debt Ceiling.

If McCarthy wants to do budgeting, he needs to budget for his Congress - not the previous one.

 

[Bullseye]

Except the reality is that payment of incurred debt is dependant upon a revenue stream. It is impossible for the States to not incur more debt without an adequate revenue stream. The argument should be do we raise taxes or the debt limit and see how fast the GOP change their tune.

Both the states and the nation have continuing income streams. US had almost $4 trillion last month alone.

 

[Peter]

Are you claiming that once a budget has been passed it is set in stone, that any future attempt to amend it is illegitimate?


Which is what negotiation is for. McCarthy said it himself--the House bill is an offer placed on the table as a basis for negotiation. Biden is asserting that a refusal to negotiate grants him the power to override Article I's placement of national spending in the hands of the Congress generally and the House specifically.


Just read the 14th Amendment--there isn't a single word authorizing the President to increase the national debt, just that the government cannot abrogate debt it has already taken on.

What republicans are offering is unacceptable and we know their stance on negotiation.
Even if you negotiate with them the concessions will still be wholly unacceptable so why even bother?

It's like trying to nogotiate with a murderer who wants to at first kill 10 people and will negotiate down to just 6 which is still completely bonkers.

We all know that's how republicans operate.

 

[mrjurrs]

That's exactly where Biden's thinking runs into trouble--he refuses to consider that he doesn't need to increase the debt to pay our bills.


So tell me how I'm wrong.

I can't tell you how you are wrong until you tell me where you get the constitutional basis for Pence turning over the EC.

My constitutional basis for Biden's potential ignoring the debt ceiling is the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

Now it's your turn.

 

[Doug64]

I can't tell you how you are wrong until you tell me where you get the constitutional basis for Pence turning over the EC.

You really misread that. I stated that Biden's argument that the 14th Amendment gives him the power to ignore the debt limit is no better than Trump's argument that Pence could ignore the Electoral College count--in both cases, there's no constitutional support.

My constitutional basis for Biden's potential ignoring the debt ceiling is the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

Now it's your turn.

Funny, that, my constitutional basis for Biden's inability to ignore the debt ceiling is also the plain language of the 14th Amendment: "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." There was a time years ago when I was seriously struggling to pay my school loans. I missed payments, and for years I arranged to make no payments at all while the interest piled up--and at no time through that entire period did I "question the validity" of my debt through filing for bankruptcy.

 

[mrjurrs]

You really misread that. I stated that Biden's argument that the 14th Amendment gives him the power to ignore the debt limit is no better than Trump's argument that Pence could ignore the Electoral College count--in both cases, there's no constitutional support.


Funny, that, my constitutional basis for Biden's inability to ignore the debt ceiling is also the plain language of the 14th Amendment: "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." There was a time years ago when I was seriously struggling to pay my school loans. I missed payments, and for years I arranged to make no payments at all while the interest piled up--and at no time through that entire period did I "question the validity" of my debt through filing for bankruptcy.

I didn't misread it. There is a Constitutional basis to ignore the debt ceiling. There is no Constitutional basis for a VP to disregard the EC.

Your debt is not public debt.

 

[Doug64]

I didn't misread it. There is a Constitutional basis to ignore the debt ceiling. There is no Constitutional basis for a VP to disregard the EC.

And I've already proven by simple textual analysis and common financial practice that there is no constitutional basis for ignoring the debt ceiling. By definition refusing to increase our debt is not a repudiation of the debt we've already assumed.

Your debt is not public debt.

My debt was debt, and so is public debt.

 

[mrjurrs]

And I've already proven by simple textual analysis and common financial practice that there is no constitutional basis for ignoring the debt ceiling. By definition refusing to increase our debt is not a repudiation of the debt we've already assumed.


My debt was debt, and so is public debt.

Raising the debt limit is done to pay for approved spending, not to allow increased spending.

Personal debt is not public debt, either in its purpose or the manner in which it is incurred.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So now Biden is considering his own attempt to make the Constitution dance to his tune:



This makes no more sense than Trump asserting that the vice-president has the right to reject the Electoral College count. Leaving aside the historical context, the point about the debt limit is to prevent the US government from incurring more debt, not refuse to pay the debt it already has.

It’s also not what the 14th amendment means. The 14th means the US can’t repudiate it’s debts, if you can’t pay debts because you can’t borrow money for whatever reason the debt is not repudiated, the government would still have to consider this debt a liability, it just couldn’t pay it at the time

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It’s also not what the 14th amendment means. The 14th means the US can’t repudiate it’s debts, if you can’t pay debts because you can’t borrow money for whatever reason the debt is not repudiated, the government would still have to consider this debt a liability, it just couldn’t pay it at the time

Repudiate, in this case "not pay".

Lets plug that in:

It’s also not what the 14th amendment means. The 14th means the US can’t not pay it’s debts, if you can’t pay debts because you can’t borrow money for whatever reason the debt is not not paid, the government would still have to consider this debt a liability, it just couldn’t pay it at the time.

Wow, it still remains a word salad that makes no sense.