4 ms·
not legal.. it specifically refers to rebellion and insurrection and costs associated with putting down a rebellion or insurrection which by no stretch can appl
by 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 agoIANAL, 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."