3 ms·

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 tha

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.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Amendments are very clear when they are intended to replace prior language No, actually, compared to most statutes, Constitutional Amendments tend to be extremely vague on that point, with the language rendered inoperative needing to be inferred from the conflict between its effect and the clear meaning of the new language. > 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 No, practice without legal challenge does not create legal precedent; otherwise, it would be a backdoor way for federal authorities to amend the Constitution without the required involvement of the states so long as they constrain themselves to situations where there weren’t non-federal parties with standing to challenge actions. Moreover, to the extent that it involves cases where Congress would have standing to sue ab initio, allowing practice to change the substantive legal rule would violate the well-established principal that Congress cannot bind future Congresses.

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.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Amendments are very clear when they are intended to replace prior language No, actually, compared to most statutes, Constitutional Amendments tend to be extremely vague on that point, with the language rendered inoperative needing to be inferred from the conflict between its effect and the clear meaning of the new language. > 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 No, practice without legal challenge does not create legal precedent; otherwise, it would be a backdoor way for federal authorities to amend the Constitution without the required involvement of the states so long as they constrain themselves to situations where there weren’t non-federal parties with standing to challenge actions. Moreover, to the extent that it involves cases where Congress would have standing to sue ab initio, allowing practice to change the substantive legal rule would violate the well-established principal that Congress cannot bind future Congresses.