Skip to main content

View Diary: Public debt of the United States shall not be questioned: the 14th Amendment and the debt ceiling (304 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wouldn't the USAG have to sue the House for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv

    violating the 14th Amendment? Take it to the Supremes.

    Involving the 3rd Branch seems at least as valid, if not more valid than creating a new Executive Power in a de facto line item veto.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:45:46 AM PST

    •  No (5+ / 0-)

      the President does not have to sue anybody.

      Just order the Treasury Secretary to sell debt.

      The question is will here be a market for such debt?

      •  so you believe that extra-Constitutional (0+ / 0-)

        measures -- or questionable ones, at the least -- are preferable to the available recourse of the Court?

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:54:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think it is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NM Ward Chair, vcmvo2

          either extra-Contitutional or questionable.

          •  I don't see where the power for authorization of (0+ / 0-)

            new debt -- if that's the right perspective -- is provided to the Executive Branch.

            If it's meant to be situational, as if the new debt is somehow allowed to the Executive Branch because it's meant to service existing debt, I don't see where that is spelled out and, if not spelled out, how that is relevant.  If it's not situational, I don't know how the power and responsibility is meant to be wrested from the House without the Court -- regardless as to whether the House is fulfilling its Constitutional obligations.

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:04:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  What if Congress passed a law (0+ / 0-)

          that the USA had to tithe $1M a day to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in direct violation of the 1st Amendment? Would the President have to go to court to get permission to stop the payments... or could he just not pay?

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:08:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He could not pay (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NM Ward Chair

            But in most circumstances, the best practice would be to veto such a bill and then, if necessary, sue.

          •  I don't understand signing statements, which would (0+ / 0-)

            be the likely recourse, after a veto (which I assume you're saying was overridden) -- but we're not discussing new legislation.

            So, pretending this is somehow not new legislation, I suppose someone would have to sue.  And I doubt that it would be the President, since Congress would have apportioned a specific expenditure and I don't know that the President would have a way to block it, and perhaps not standing to oppose it (other than rhetorically).

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:16:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (23)
  • Environment (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Economy (15)
  • Republicans (14)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Racism (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site