3 ms·

The situation isn't symmetric - the President will just invoke the 14th Amendment and bump up the debt ceiling next week if needs be. It's just that the Democr

The situation isn't symmetric - the President will just invoke the 14th Amendment and bump up the debt ceiling next week if needs be. It's just that the Democrats seem to have decided to use this issue to demonstrate to the voting public just how unreasonable the Republicans have become in negotiations, by trying to negotiate when they don't even need to. Looking at recent polling results, the strategy seems to be working.

checker 15y ago
Can you explain how Obama could invoke the 14th? After reading it, it doesn't seem to mention any executive powers (IANAL, I am curious though).
bd_at_rivenhill 15y ago
There's one big flaw in any plan to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling: it's not really clear whether that would be legal. You could make a reasonable argument on either side, and the final arbiter would be the Supreme Court, which is not particularly liberal these days. Nobody who wants a safe investment would buy the new treasury debt issued under those conditions without a significant risk premium above what they are paying now; I certainly wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole without a couple of hundred basis points of spread over the current yield. Not something the government would want to lock itself into for 2 years to avoid skipping some Social Security payments.
- demallien 15y ago
  It's true that it isn't cut and dried whether or not the 14th can be invoked, which means that any attempt to use the 14th would likely end up in the Supreme Court. It is also true that the Supreme Court is not terribly liberal at the moment. But, fortunately enough for the US and the world, raising the debt ceiling is not a 'liberal' cause - it's something that G.W. Bush, G. Bush, R. Reagan and others from the conservative side of politics have seen fit to do. It is not likely (in my opinion) that the Supreme Court would follow Tea Party rhetoric against the advice of every economics advisor out there. In other words, I think that ending up in the Supreme Court is pretty much a win for anyone that thinks the debt ceiling needs to be raised...
  - michaelfeathers 15y ago
    To me, it's not even clear that it would end up with a decision in the Supreme Court given the political questions doctrine and the fact that's hard to imagine who would have standing. I think that the worst that would happen is long impeachment proceedings.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Issuing SS payments does not affect the federal debt subject to the debt ceiling. This means that SS is not in any danger from the debt ceiling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576458294273264416.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190355490457645...
shareme 15y ago
not legal.. it specifically refers to rebellion and insurrection and costs associated with putting down a rebellion or insurrection which by no stretch can apply to the war on terror..hence Obama rejecting its use.
- demallien 15y ago
  IANAL, but the language does not limit the guarantee of the public debt only to putting down rebellion or insurrection - those are specific cases that are included, and I would hazard to guess that the language was put in the clause to contrast with the next part which explicitly voids any debt the US has towards anyone in rebellion/insurrection against the US. EDIT: Here's the text of section 4 of the amendment in it's entirety - "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."

checker 15y ago

Can you explain how Obama could invoke the 14th? After reading it, it doesn't seem to mention any executive powers (IANAL, I am curious though).

bd_at_rivenhill 15y ago

There's one big flaw in any plan to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling: it's not really clear whether that would be legal. You could make a reasonable argument on either side, and the final arbiter would be the Supreme Court, which is not particularly liberal these days. Nobody who wants a safe investment would buy the new treasury debt issued under those conditions without a significant risk premium above what they are paying now; I certainly wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole without a couple of hundred basis points of spread over the current yield. Not something the government would want to lock itself into for 2 years to avoid skipping some Social Security payments.

demallien 15y ago
It's true that it isn't cut and dried whether or not the 14th can be invoked, which means that any attempt to use the 14th would likely end up in the Supreme Court. It is also true that the Supreme Court is not terribly liberal at the moment. But, fortunately enough for the US and the world, raising the debt ceiling is not a 'liberal' cause - it's something that G.W. Bush, G. Bush, R. Reagan and others from the conservative side of politics have seen fit to do. It is not likely (in my opinion) that the Supreme Court would follow Tea Party rhetoric against the advice of every economics advisor out there. In other words, I think that ending up in the Supreme Court is pretty much a win for anyone that thinks the debt ceiling needs to be raised...
- michaelfeathers 15y ago
  To me, it's not even clear that it would end up with a decision in the Supreme Court given the political questions doctrine and the fact that's hard to imagine who would have standing. I think that the worst that would happen is long impeachment proceedings.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
Issuing SS payments does not affect the federal debt subject to the debt ceiling. This means that SS is not in any danger from the debt ceiling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576458294273264416.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190355490457645...

shareme 15y ago

not legal.. it specifically refers to rebellion and insurrection and costs associated with putting down a rebellion or insurrection which by no stretch can apply to the war on terror..hence Obama rejecting its use.

demallien 15y ago
IANAL, but the language does not limit the guarantee of the public debt only to putting down rebellion or insurrection - those are specific cases that are included, and I would hazard to guess that the language was put in the clause to contrast with the next part which explicitly voids any debt the US has towards anyone in rebellion/insurrection against the US. EDIT: Here's the text of section 4 of the amendment in it's entirety - "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."