Debunking the White House's excuse for not invoking the 14th Amendment
The administration wants the authority to raise the debt ceiling, or at least, that's what the administration seems to think invoking the 14th Amendment would do.
Because the debt limit isn’t reached until it has been reached in actuality, and not accrued as spending bills are passed, the debt limit is in violation of the 14th amendment.
14th Amendment allows spending caps, but not caps that take effect before obligations are met or their payment already allocated for.
The 14th amendment in turn offers no authority to raise the debt ceiling, but by its wording makes the function of the debt ceiling unconstitutional.
Re-posted from The Art of Politik
As we click ever closer to the last few seconds on the doomsday clock, the fabled ‘silver bullet’ solution many across the aisle have been calling for keeps finding new life.
The Obama administration in what’s likely more related to posturing rather than an unwillingness to pursue the option describes their opposition to invoking the 14th amendment as one based on legal fact, rather than legal opinion; the 14th amendment doesn’t give the President the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.
Mr. Jay Carney, you are absolutely correct on this!
The 14th amendment clearly does not give the President the explicit power to raise the debt ceiling, likely because the idea of a debt ceiling would’ve sounded ridiculous to anyone living during Reconstruction.
What the 14th amendment does do, however, is that it establishes that the public debt of the United States, and the terms of repayment under which the debt was made cannot be reneged on.
The 14th Amendment allows spending caps, but not caps that take effect before obligations are met.
The 14th amendment in turn offers no authority to raise the debt ceiling for the President, but by its wording makes the function of the debt ceiling unconstitutional.
I won’t retread the ground over the Supreme Court precedent showing this is precisely the meaning of the law, I’ll point to the ever-popular Perry v United States (1935) case.
I’ll also point to fellow opinion writer, Dave von Ebers’ piece, that does a particularly great job going in depth on what the mysterious section 4 of the 14th amendment is meant to do.
The reality of the 14th Amendment solution lies in contrast with what a lot of people and the administration itself is saying about the solution.
The administration wants the authority to raise the debt ceiling, or at least, that's what the administration seems to think invoking the 14th Amendment would do.
The 14th amendment in turn offers no authority, but instead by very clear wording says that the mechanism by which government spending is capped is unconstitutional.
The 14th amendment would run into problems against a proposed Republican “Balanced Budget Amendment”, since that amendment would simply be a debt ceiling/spending cap on steroids, the kind of thing most Republicans feel the debt ceiling should be already.
The spending cap that the debt ceiling provides doesn’t account for interest on money already borrowed and already spent.
The debt ceiling acts like a fiscal noose when it is reached.
Because the debt limit isn’t legally reached until it has been reached in actuality and not calculated through aggregate spending bills ahead of time, the debt limit, as is structured is in complete violation of the 14th amendment, because it jeopardizes and puts in doubt whether or not the terms of repayment will be adhered to.
The fight we’re having now is perilous for Republicans, because it makes any huge swings in the future in their direction just as hostile if not more when they find themselves working with a divided government.
I’m willing to guess that most people would prefer the debt ceiling remain in place as is, being raised procedurally and only to make symbolic points. The way it worked before was perfect.
It was the kind of wink-and-nudge Washington DC is accustomed to between parties, the type of thing that reminds us that as partisan and terrible as everything may seem, most of us believe in government where neither side completely steamrolls the other.
Dear Mr President, the Constitution grants you the authority to enforce the laws of the United States and the roles outlined within it.
The Constitution specifically forbids the U.S. government from not complying with terms of repayment on borrowed money, you as a Constitutional scholar know this.
If Congress wants a TRUE spending cap that is both enforceable and not unconstitutional, reform the debt ceiling so you calculate it as you pass spending bills.
It would be a huge boon to both parties, or at least a boon to stability if instead of needing to nullify the debt ceiling because of extortion, we reform the debt ceiling so this fight never happens again.
You have all the authority you need to declare the debt ceiling AS IS to be un-Constitutional.
Americans won’t accept a plan that takes LITERALLY the entire country, everyday American voters, state legislatures, and Governors hostage.
We won’t accept a bill that conditions the extension of the debt ceiling on a super majority of states and those who require referendums to pass a Constitutional amendment.
The idea is patently ridiculous, categorically outrageous that the fact people are even afraid of this outcome makes some of us want to tear our hair out.
Americans won’t take a bill that results in the downgrade of the credit rating of the United States, a result that would be an unacceptable failure and is looking to be more likely than ever.
So we plead with you, Mr President, stand your ground, and if you must, don’t blink and use that hard stick.
The 14th Amendment invocation will only buys us more time, but use it to avoid raising the debt ceiling on the backs of everyday Americans.
Do what is right.