DIYbanter - View Single Post

Han

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

The 14th Amendment does not permit the President to do that: "The
validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW,
shall not be questioned ... [emphasis mine]" -- the point being that
any debt above the current ceiling is NOT "authorized by law".

Obama will not allow default to happen.

If Congress fails to act, he has no choice.

Didn't the 14th amendment predate the law that limits the national
debt? If that is so, then the SCOTUS needs to speak as to whether the
later law is constitutional ...
Or did SCOTUS?

It's not clear to me why you think that makes any difference. The
amendment refers to public debts authorized by law -- but there is no
language there restricting when, or how, such debts might be
authorized. The historical context of that clause shows that its
purpose was to allow the United States to repudiate debts incurred by
the Confederacy or by individual Confederate States, because those
debts had *not* been "authorized by law."

It simply isn't applicable to the current situation.

I didn't make myself clear. Congress has clearly authorized expenditures
that now result in what we call too much debt, by running deficit after
deficit for however many years (there were a few years with nominal
surpluses). To me (but IANAL!!) that means those debts were authorized
as per the 14th amendment. The later law setting a debt limit does or
doesn't make the 14th amendment moot. That is the question I am asking
(remember, IANAL). I am guessing that no one has challenged the debt
limit law, since Congress has always raised the limit in time.

Please remember also that I came to the US as a 23 year-old biomedical
researcher, and am only a citizen since 1984 or so. Since I am now
retired, I have more time for discussions snicker.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid