3 ms·

Possibly Nothing. I've seen a few articles by constitutional lawyers that state the 14th amendment requires the US pay its debts, and the debt ceiling is a fic

Possibly Nothing. I've seen a few articles by constitutional lawyers that state the 14th amendment requires the US pay its debts, and the debt ceiling is a fiction (although, depending upon how the administration proceeds, it could take time to go through the courts; i.e., if the administration/treasury treats the debt ceiling as real). https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-nat... https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14

pavlov 4y ago
As a foreigner I don’t understand how the debt ceiling is even supposed to work. One year Congress passes a budget. Accordingly Treasury sells debt to raise money, and money is being spent. In the middle of the year Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. What’s supposed to happen to the budget they just passed? It seems a lot like Congress orders a three-course meal at a restaurant and then refuses to pay when the bill comes in. You might argue it’s a different Congress refusing to pay the bill, but that’s not a good look either when the US government is supposed to represent stability and continuity.
- zrail 4y ago
  You are precisely correct, and that's why it's always been raised. Congress (mostly, but not exclusively, the Republican Party) just uses it as a cudgel to extract budget concessions from the other party in the next budget.
- FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
  The only way the debt ceiling would make any sense to me is if it didn't apply to the rolling-over of existing debt. If you want a lever to reduce spending, fine, but it should only apply to things after debt-service, which should be automatic and unquestioned.
snowwrestler 4y ago
Any bill passed by Congress which appropriates money is backed by Article I of the Constitution, and there is no legal way for the executive branch to pause that spending in favor of paying back bond holders. The 14th Amendment commitment to repay debt does not trump Article I powers of Congress. This is the flip side of why “government shutdowns” happen: the executive branch can’t spend money if Congress does not appropriate it. The flip side is that the executive branch must spend money to execute laws that require spending money. These articles are written solely to provide cover for political positions. The authors are essentially spending their credibility as a donation to politicians they support. It’s not a plausible way to read the Constitution as a whole.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Any bill passed by Congress which appropriates money is backed by Article I of the Constitution, and there is no legal way for the executive branch to pause that spending in favor of paying back bond holders. The 14th Amendment commitment to repay debt does not trump Article I powers of Congress. If the debt ceiling “isn’t real” (that is, is unconstitutional), then there is no need to pause other spending to make debt repayment. The only reason such a pause would be necessary is that the debt ceiling was valid. > The 14th Amendment commitment to repay debt does not trump Article I powers of Congress. To the extent they conflict, it does, by the usual canons of legal construction in that, all other things being equal: (1) Newer enactments trump older enactments, (2) More specific rules trump more general rules. To the extent there is a reasonable reading without conflict, that may be favored, but to the extent there is an essential conflict, the 14th Amendment definitely trumps Article I.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    This is just a fundamentally wrong way to read the Constitution. Amendments are very clear when they are intended to replace prior language; this particular part of this particular amendment does not say that. There is also the context in which this Amendment was passed; it was not done to relieve Congress of its duty to do its job. There is also the fact that 14th Amendment was passed 150 years ago and Congress has voted to raise the debt limit, and the President has signed those laws, many many times since then. That precedent imbues the debt limit with legal authority. It’s not like we’re just waking up today and discovering what the Constitution says.

pavlov 4y ago

As a foreigner I don’t understand how the debt ceiling is even supposed to work. One year Congress passes a budget. Accordingly Treasury sells debt to raise money, and money is being spent. In the middle of the year Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. What’s supposed to happen to the budget they just passed? It seems a lot like Congress orders a three-course meal at a restaurant and then refuses to pay when the bill comes in. You might argue it’s a different Congress refusing to pay the bill, but that’s not a good look either when the US government is supposed to represent stability and continuity.

zrail 4y ago
You are precisely correct, and that's why it's always been raised. Congress (mostly, but not exclusively, the Republican Party) just uses it as a cudgel to extract budget concessions from the other party in the next budget.
FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
The only way the debt ceiling would make any sense to me is if it didn't apply to the rolling-over of existing debt. If you want a lever to reduce spending, fine, but it should only apply to things after debt-service, which should be automatic and unquestioned.

snowwrestler 4y ago

Any bill passed by Congress which appropriates money is backed by Article I of the Constitution, and there is no legal way for the executive branch to pause that spending in favor of paying back bond holders. The 14th Amendment commitment to repay debt does not trump Article I powers of Congress. This is the flip side of why “government shutdowns” happen: the executive branch can’t spend money if Congress does not appropriate it. The flip side is that the executive branch must spend money to execute laws that require spending money. These articles are written solely to provide cover for political positions. The authors are essentially spending their credibility as a donation to politicians they support. It’s not a plausible way to read the Constitution as a whole.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Any bill passed by Congress which appropriates money is backed by Article I of the Constitution, and there is no legal way for the executive branch to pause that spending in favor of paying back bond holders. The 14th Amendment commitment to repay debt does not trump Article I powers of Congress. If the debt ceiling “isn’t real” (that is, is unconstitutional), then there is no need to pause other spending to make debt repayment. The only reason such a pause would be necessary is that the debt ceiling was valid. > The 14th Amendment commitment to repay debt does not trump Article I powers of Congress. To the extent they conflict, it does, by the usual canons of legal construction in that, all other things being equal: (1) Newer enactments trump older enactments, (2) More specific rules trump more general rules. To the extent there is a reasonable reading without conflict, that may be favored, but to the extent there is an essential conflict, the 14th Amendment definitely trumps Article I.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  This is just a fundamentally wrong way to read the Constitution. Amendments are very clear when they are intended to replace prior language; this particular part of this particular amendment does not say that. There is also the context in which this Amendment was passed; it was not done to relieve Congress of its duty to do its job. There is also the fact that 14th Amendment was passed 150 years ago and Congress has voted to raise the debt limit, and the President has signed those laws, many many times since then. That precedent imbues the debt limit with legal authority. It’s not like we’re just waking up today and discovering what the Constitution says.